Wizard Class Preview

Monday, May 21, 2018

With Paizocon getting underway in just a few days, we wanted to round out our previews by looking at the final class that you will be able to play at the show. So, without further delay, it's time to look at the wizard!

Wizard Features

If you are building a wizard, everything starts with your key ability, Intelligence. Having a high Intelligence gives you a boost to the DCs of your spells, and it gives you more skill choices at 1st level.

At 1st level, you begin play with a spellbook containing 10 cantrips and eight 1st-level spells, giving you a wide variety of spells to draw upon when you prepare your magic each morning. Starting out, you can prepare four cantrips and two 1st-level spells each day. In addition, you also select your arcane school at 1st level, which grants you one extra spell slot of each level that you can use only to prepare a spell from your chosen school. You can compare this to the cleric, who doesn't get extra spell slots, but instead gets a narrow ability to cast extra heal or harm spells. Your school also grants you a school power that you can cast using a pool of Spell Points. Take a look at the nifty power you can pick up from choosing divination as your school. (Remember, that [[A]] code you see indicates that this is an action, and it will be a snazzy icon in the final rulebook!)

DIVINER'S SIGHT

Concentrate, Divination, Fortune

Casting [[A]] Verbal Casting

Range 30 feet; Targets one willing living creature

Duration end of your next turn or until dismissed

You glimpse into the target's future. Roll a d20. When the target attempts a Perception check, saving throw, or skill check, it can use the number you rolled instead of rolling, and the spell is dismissed. Casting it again dismisses any active diviner's sight.

Even if you don't roll so great, it might still help avoid a critical failure on a vital saving throw.

You can forgo selecting an arcane school, instead choosing to be a universalist. This grants you a bonus wizard feat and extra uses of your arcane focus.

Speaking of which, all wizards gain the ability to place some of their power into a designated item called an arcane focus. You can drain the power from that focus once per day to cast any one spell that you have already cast without spending another spell slot. Universalists get to use this ability once for each level of spell that they can cast!

As a wizard goes up in level, they gain more spells that they can cast (either one extra spell of their highest level, or two of a new level) and their proficiency at spellcasting also increases. They start as trained, but rise to the rank of legendary at 19th level.

Illustration by Wayne Reynolds

Wizard Feats

Wizards have never had too many class features to choose from to help distinguish them from one another, so when it came time to design feats for the wizard, it was a clear opportunity to add some variety to the class.

Lets start out with a few classic concepts. At 1st level, you can pick up a feat that allows you to spend your reaction to counterspell any spell someone else casts as long as you currently have that spell prepared. If that isn't to your taste, you can take a wizard feat to recruit a familiar instead. Every day, you can select a pair of abilities to give this loyal companion, some of which grant you boons as well. At high levels, your familiar can even grant you an additional spell slot, as long as it is 3 levels lower than the highest-level spell you can cast. At 8th level you can select from a series of feats that enhance the power of your arcane school, increasing your pool of Spell Points and granting you an extra spell you can cast using that pool. One of my favorites is the necromantic power called life siphon, which lets you draw some of the magic from a non-cantrip necromancy spell you cast to regain 1d8 Hit Points per level of the spell.

Not surprisingly, the wizard also has a lot of feats to choose from that modify the spells that you cast. While many of these metamagic feats will be familiar to veterans of the game, allowing you to extend the reach or widen the area of a spell, for example, others are new. Conceal Spell lets you add an action to a spell as you cast it to hide the fact that you are casting. Focus Conservation is an action you can add to any spell that you cast by draining your arcane focus, and it lets you drain your arcane focus again the next round, casting another spell as long as it is 2 levels lower than the spell you just cast. Better still, you can keep using this feat as long as you have lower-level spells to cast. For example, if you start out draining your focus to cast cone of cold (a 5th-level spell dealing a wicked 11d6 cold damage to all your enemies), you could follow it up next round with a fireball. If you use the feat again, you could drain focus again on the following round, casting any 1st-level spell you had already cast.

As a wizard rises to the highest levels of power, their feats grant them more and more options when determining how to best utilize their spells. Effortless Concentration gives you a free action at the start of each round to concentrate on a spell you have cast, freeing you up to use all 3 actions normally. Superior Focus gives you another use of your arcane focus. Quick Preparation lets you swap out spells you have already prepared in just 10 minutes. At 20th level, you can pick Spell Combination, which lets you combine two spells into one terrifying attack that you can unleash on one unfortunate foe.

Spells

One of the biggest ways you can customize your wizard is in your spell selection, so it's probably worth looking at a few signature wizard spells to see how they work. Let's start with one of the most iconic spells of them all.

MAGIC MISSILE SPELL 1

Evocation, Force

Casting [[A]] Verbal Casting or more

Range 120 feet; Targets one creature

You send a dart of force streaking toward a creature that you can see. It automatically hits and deals 1d4+1 force damage. When Casting this Spell, you can increase the casting by a Material Casting action, a Somatic Casting action, or both. For each component you add, increase the number of missiles you shoot by one. You choose the target for each missile individually.

Heightened (+2) You shoot one additional missile with each action you spend.

Magic missile shows off a couple of interesting options in the wizard's arsenal. Casting a spell can be done in a number of ways using a variable number of actions. While most of the time this is through metamagic feats, it can also come from the spell itself. Adding casting actions to magic missile gives you more missiles to throw. In addition, a wide variety of spells can be prepared using a higher-level spell slot, giving you a better effect without having to refer to an entirely different spell. (You can find out more about that in the All About Spells blog.) That means you can prepare magic missile as a 9th-level spell and spend three actions casting it for 15 missiles!

Another important aspect of picking spells for your wizard is to balance what saving throws they allow and what effects you can get depending on the results of the save. For that, let's take a look at a spell that might instantly kill a foe.

PHANTASMAL KILLER SPELL 4

Death, Emotion, Fear, Illusion, Mental

Casting [[A]] Somatic Casting, [[A]] Verbal Casting

Range 120 feet; Targets one living creature

You create a phantasmal image of the most fearsome creature imaginable to the target. Only the spell's target can see the killer, though you can see the vague shape of the illusion as it races forth to attack. The effect of the killer is based on the outcome of the target's Will saving throw.

Success The target is frightened 1.

Critical Success The target is unaffected.

Failure The target takes 8d6 mental damage and is frightened 2.

Critical Failure The target is so afraid it might instantly die. It must attempt a Fortitude saving throw; if the target fails, it is reduced to 0 Hit Points and dies. On a successful Fortitude save, the target still takes 12d6 mental damage, is fleeing until the end of its next turn, and is frightened 4.

Heightened (+1) The damage on a failure increases by 2d6 and on a critical failure by 3d6.

This spell is perfect for removing a lower-level foe from a fight, but it has the chance of greatly hampering a higher-level foe as well. The frightened condition reduces by 1 each turn, but it applies a penalty to almost all of your checks and rolls until it does. You will find interesting choices like these throughout the arcane spell list. While most will be familiar to a Pathfinder veteran, there are a lot of new spells to explore as well, from grim tendril to chromatic wall, so your wizard will be ready for anything.

Well, that wraps up our look at the wizard. If you want to give this class (or the alchemist, cleric, fighter, paladin, or rogue) a try, make sure to stop by PaizoCon (this weekend), the UK Games Expo (early June), or Origins (mid-June), as we'll be running demos during all three conventions!

Jason Bulmahn
Director of Game Design

Note: Due to PaizoCon, there will not be a Pathfinder Playtest Blog on Friday, May 25th or Monday, May 28th.

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Ezren Pathfinder Playtest Wayne Reynolds Wizards
101 to 150 of 918 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Also I will say very impressed with this class preview. I am loving that now counterspelling will be easier then ever as it might mean I use the the darn thing. No more of the clunky sacarficing your one action to do it in the hopes that they cast a spell you can counter.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:

Well, at least the wizard gets more spells per day than the cleric, one way or another.

You made the universalist just directly better than a specialist, because their bonus spell slots per day from the focus are far more flexible than the specialist slots. It comes down to the specialist only gets 1 extra spell per day over the universalist which is not as good as the universalist's huge flexibility, and the school power which is probably not going to be as good as some of the feat options. Not particularly happy with that.

The Universalist is pretty great (whereas in PF1 it was definitely a poor choice compared to a specialist), but I don't think it's far and away better than the specialist because of an interesting nuance of how the focus spells work.

Compare a universalist who prepared fireball, haste, and dispel magic to a transmuter, evoker, illusionist, or abjurer who prepared fireball, haste, dispel magic, and invisibility sphere. If the adventure needs either an extra fireball, an extra haste, or an extra dispel magic, the universalist is set, but if the adventure needed the invisibility sphere, the specialist had the advantage. Getting to pick from a list of three to double is definitely better than adding a fourth (particularly if the specialist ever decides to double up), but then the specialist gets that extra spell on top. I feel that they are pretty comparable options.

I’m a bit confused by this and would appreciative of some clarification. So I have this right,

Universalist: Dispel Magic, Fireball, Haste + choice of Dispel Magic, Fireball, or Haste.
Evocation Specialist: Dispel Magic, Haste, Invisibility Sphere + Fireball

Unless I’m misreading this, it comes across that Universalists will be casting multiple uses of the same spell because how Arcane Bonds work, while Specialists are more suited to having a wider selection of spells prepared prepared. Because if they had chosen to prepare a 2nd Fireball, Universalists would have been the better choice. Doesn’t that seem kind of backwards?

I’m concerned that Specialist players will feel like they’re forced to spread out their spells known more to maximize their niche, while Universalists will be more pressured to become One Trick Ponies.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Diviner's Sight and other 1 round effects
Can we make these 1 round effects a little more flexible and have it as an optional 1 time use over a 1 minute duration or another design that maximizes quality of life?

For balance reasons you might want to tone it down to not know the result before hand and only ask for the result after you "ask" for the reroll but when these effects are only 1 round they usually aren't very fun to cast.

In the most probable case it MIGHT give you advantage on a skill check that you see coming (a powerful guidance). In the worst case your attempt to help a PC on a probably save against an opponent is most likely going to be wasted when the PC either doesn't encounter a save opportunity or the rolls don't work out.


trokll wrote:
Also I will say very impressed with this class preview. I am loving that now counterspelling will be easier then ever as it might mean I use the the darn thing. No more of the clunky sacarficing your one action to do it in the hopes that they cast a spell you can counter.

Yeah, counterspell wasn't a viable option most of the time, so I'm glad to see the change ^^


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:

[...]This can also be seen as an alternate side of the Summon Monster coin, where the lists were never updated even five bestiaries later.

Is this particular aspect of core vs later content being kept in mind this time?

I think that with the summon monster spells, that's more "feature" than "bug". If the summon spells get expanded alongside every bestiary that gets dropped, their power grows exponentially as you increase the combinations of abilities that you can access using the spell. Arguably, certain spells really shouldn't automatically expand with later materials, and any expansion that does happen should be very deliberate.

A balanced solution would be two-step. The first step is that like in Starfinder, you choose 4 creatures when you get access to a new spell level of summons; you can only summon those 4, rather than the entire list of available summons. The second step is that monsters in the bestiary list if summonable and if so at what level, maybe in that top black bar.


thanks for the representation of the wizard. He look great and i want to see this 10 level spell.


Xenocrat wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Another question regarding Phantasmal Killer, what's this "mental" damage thing? Will their be monsters/PC options to get mental resistance?
Presumably mind-affecting immunity has been replaced by mental immunity and perhaps mental resistance.

That would be pretty bad since it would mean resistance against mind-affecting no longer does anything against mind-affecting spells that don't do damage, such as charms.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The PF2 wizard preview is shaping up pretty much how I expected, based on all the info already shown so far. I'm liking what I see here. As the PF2 wizard class eatures haven't changed too much from PF1, the part I'm looking most foward to is seeing what new feats were developed for this new version of the class.

I'd like to reiterate that I'm really liking the level of customization with spells: adding components, heightening spell level, and different levels of success/failures. I like that spellcasters have a lot of options and can see a variety of effects with their spells.

Grand Lodge

7 people marked this as a favorite.
edduardco wrote:
Xethik wrote:
No opposed school, then? Well, I suppose we may see something like it in a feat. I hope so, at least.
You want a feat that prohibits you a school?

I kind of do as well. I like the Runelord flavoring of wizards who focused so much on a single school they neglected their studies in a school they deemed "worthless."

Like I would be willing to ditch evocation for better conjuration spells. I don't think it's that absurd.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Volkard Abendroth wrote:

So: They stripped away what few class features wizard's had and then gave them back as class feats.

Remember, Paizo is now in the boat where WoTC were when they ditched 3.5 for 4th ed, except replace 3.5 with pathfinder 1st ed and replace 4th ed with 5th ed.

They have to play catch up, shore up their bottom line, and simplify the game to get more people playing because that's the market now. The days of complex RPGs are going away.

Right or Wrong, it's what Paizo is doing here. They will out right deny it or at the very least push out some clever PR word play as to how that isn't the case but I'm not falling for it.

Me? I'll stick with 1st ed, and enjoy it's handprint on the rpg walk of fame and watch as people come out the wood work with great ways to balance it.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Compare

Quote:
Take the 4th-level feat Quick Reversal, for example. If you are being flanked and you miss with your second or third attack against one of the flankers, this feat lets you redirect the attack to the other target and reroll it, possibly turning a miss into a hit!

to

Quote:
Lets start out with a few classic concepts. At 1st level, you can pick up a feat that allows you to spend your reaction to counterspell any spell someone else casts as long as you currently have that spell prepared. If that isn't to your taste, you can take a wizard feat to recruit a familiar instead. Every day, you can select a pair of abilities to give this loyal companion, some of which grant you boons as well. At high levels, your familiar can even grant you an additional spell slot, as long as it is 3 levels lower than the highest-level spell you can cast. At 8th level you can select from a series of feats that enhance the power of your arcane school, increasing your pool of Spell Points and granting you an extra spell you can cast using that pool. One of my favorites is the necromantic power called life siphon, which lets you draw some of the magic from a non-cantrip necromancy spell you cast to regain 1d8 Hit Points per level of the spell.

The exciting Fighter feat they showed off was Quick Reversal, a godawful feat that requires a ton of luck and pity from a GM to activate with a frequency of more than once a campaign, while the feats that wizards are getting let them shut down other spellcasters, cast bonus spells--imagine how broken a feat that was simply "once per day, your fighter can cast Haste" would seem to people--and other powerful effects that are relevant and easy to find a use for.

If the design goal really is to narrow the gap between martials and casters, it seems like there's a big missing piece of the puzzle.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
rooneg wrote:

I'm not a fan of counterspell requiring you to have the spell that you're countering prepared. That seems like a recipe for just never countering anything at all (especially when the number of spells in the game grows as it eventually will). I had been looking forward to getting a cool and flavorful reaction for the wizard, and now it seems like it's not going to be anywhere near as useful as I'd hoped :(

Other than that, I like most of this. I'd still prefer arcanist style casting, but that can wait for the inevitable surveys ;-)

Yeah, while probably fine for the release of the game, modern PF1 has such a huge number of spells that countering with the same spell is pretty difficult to pull off (except in the case of some staples like haste or magic missile).

I think something like "counter with a spell that has one of the same descriptors" or, "shares X descriptors" would work better, since it'd be future-proofed.

We are of course only seeing a sliver of the whole class. It could be that the level 1 counterspell option is really more of a feat tax for a more powerful option down the line.


20 people marked this as a favorite.
Gibblewret_Tosscobble wrote:
Volkard Abendroth wrote:

So: They stripped away what few class features wizard's had and then gave them back as class feats.

Remember, Paizo is now in the boat where WoTC were when they ditched 3.5 for 4th ed, except replace 3.5 with pathfinder 1st ed and replace 4th ed with 5th ed.

They have to play catch up, shore up their bottom line, and simplify the game to get more people playing because that's the market now. The days of complex RPGs are going away.

Right or Wrong, it's what Paizo is doing here. They will out right deny it or at the very least push out some clever PR word play as to how that isn't the case but I'm not falling for it.

Me? I'll stick with 1st ed, and enjoy it's handprint on the rpg walk of fame and watch as people come out the wood work with great ways to balance it.

...Right, because making classes more modular and giving you more options to tinker with is simplified compared to "this exact suite of abilities is what you get".


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Gibblewret_Tosscobble wrote:


They have to play catch up, shore up their bottom line, and simplify the game to get more people playing because that's the market now. The days of complex RPGs are going away.

With so much tactical and customization complexity, I couldn't really call PF2 "simple". I mean, not at all :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Another question regarding Phantasmal Killer, what's this "mental" damage thing? Will their be monsters/PC options to get mental resistance?
Presumably mind-affecting immunity has been replaced by mental immunity and perhaps mental resistance.
That would be pretty bad since it would mean resistance against mind-affecting no longer does anything against mind-affecting spells that don't do damage, such as charms.

Bad for us undead, sure, but we will happy accept your traitorous support of our position.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I am concerned about the use of a stylish icon rather than the use of the word action (In the example given). This is an area that can cause problems in terms of clarity and really should be something that is tested with a large number of users.

I understand it won't be in for the formal playtest document but hopefully it will be able to be heavily tested at some point over the next nine months.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I decided to convert some of these features from a PF1 wizard to a PF2 wizard to see how much has changed:
PF1 wizard = PF2 wizard
Spellbook = Spellbook
Automatically known spells = Automatically known spells
Scribed spells into spellbook = ?????
School abilities with X times per day = 1 special school ability used with spell points. Additional powers can be gained via class feats.
School spell slot or nothing = School spell slot or more spell points
Metamagic feats = Wizard class feats
Familiar or arcane bond = Arcane focus with a familiar able to be gained via a class feat.
Prepared cantrips = Prepared cantrips
Bonus spell slots for high Int = Nothing
Spell DC based on spell level = Single Spell DC for all spells
Arcane bond to cast any spell in your spellbook = Arcane bond to cast any spell you have already cast today.

The only thing that isn't clear is can wizards scribe spells they find in other spellbooks or on scrolls? If the answer is yes then the wizard has barely changed at all and everything that has changed is centred around giving more choice and toning the wizard down.


Quadratic W wrote:

while the feats that wizards are getting let them shut down other spellcasters, cast bonus spells--imagine how broken a feat that was simply "once per day, your fighter can cast Haste" would seem to people--and other powerful effects that are relevant and easy to find a use for.

A PF2 Wizard isn't getting bonus spells compared to a PF1 Wizard, he's paying a feat tax to get back some of his spell slots that he lost, and only if he pays in extra actions and meets some fairly stringent requirements in the order he casts those spells.

Paizo Employee Designer

14 people marked this as a favorite.
Pretty Fly for a Wight Guy wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Another question regarding Phantasmal Killer, what's this "mental" damage thing? Will their be monsters/PC options to get mental resistance?
Presumably mind-affecting immunity has been replaced by mental immunity and perhaps mental resistance.
That would be pretty bad since it would mean resistance against mind-affecting no longer does anything against mind-affecting spells that don't do damage, such as charms.
Bad for us undead, sure, but we will happy accept your traitorous support of our position.

Well, we did say we are reducing the prevalence of immunities in another blog thread except where they really solidly made sense, so look out ye wights! ;)

That said, and not to imply it applies here, but there are ways to make a non-immunity that still helps against non-damaging effects.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Another question regarding Phantasmal Killer, what's this "mental" damage thing? Will their be monsters/PC options to get mental resistance?
Presumably mind-affecting immunity has been replaced by mental immunity and perhaps mental resistance.
That would be pretty bad since it would mean resistance against mind-affecting no longer does anything against mind-affecting spells that don't do damage, such as charms.

Or...

Monsters could have a "mindless" trait in their list of descriptors at the top of the stat block.

The mindless trait gives immunity to spells and effects with the "mental" descriptor. Or a bonus on saves, or something.

That would work pretty similarly to PF1, at least.

Edit: Ninja'd by Mark. I am intrigued.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Helvellyn wrote:

I am concerned about the use of a stylish icon rather than the use of the word action (In the example given). This is an area that can cause problems in terms of clarity and really should be something that is tested with a large number of users.

I understand it won't be in for the formal playtest document but hopefully it will be able to be heavily tested at some point over the next nine months.

Did they say it wouldn't be in the playtest doc? I missed that.

If so, they have a chance for some of them to be in the Playtest beastiary.


rooneg wrote:

I'm not a fan of counterspell requiring you to have the spell that you're countering prepared. That seems like a recipe for just never countering anything at all (especially when the number of spells in the game grows as it eventually will). I had been looking forward to getting a cool and flavorful reaction for the wizard, and now it seems like it's not going to be anywhere near as useful as I'd hoped :(

Other than that, I like most of this. I'd still prefer arcanist style casting, but that can wait for the inevitable surveys ;-)

Well in this case it's a simple carryover from Pathfinder 1st Edition, as the rules for counterspell also require you to have the spell prepared on your spell list to counter the effect. To copy paste from the magic section of Core Rulebook

"To complete the action, you must then cast an appropriate spell. As a general rule, a spell can only counter itself. If you are able to cast the same spell and you have it prepared (or have a slot of the appropriate level available), you cast it, creating a counterspell effect. If the target is within range, both spells automatically negate each other with no other results.

Paizo Employee Designer

24 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
The only thing that isn't clear is can wizards scribe spells they find in other spellbooks or on scrolls?

Yes.


14 people marked this as a favorite.
Volkard Abendroth wrote:
They seriously nerfed Phantasmal Killer, which now only forces the fortitude save if the will save is a critical failure.

It's not a nerf, they changed the use case. It's no longer a save or die that allows two saves (the damage from passing the Fort save is basically irrelevant for a 4th level spell) but a damage/debuff spell that has the potential to outright kill the target.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
I was kinda hoping that magic missile would no longer be an auto hit..

It was even an autohit in D&D 4th ed. It was always going to be an autohit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This looks very neat, but realllllly leaves one hungry for more. Which I guess is the goal. Oh well :-)

I especially like the careful rebalancing of the universalist vs specialist. This was extremely broken in PF1. I need to see the whole thing to test it out, but it does look like neither has an obvious edge over the other.

The versatility is also great. It appears the wizard will have a huge number of options, both at character creation and during play, even at level 1. Nicely done.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:

Familiar is a feat too. So a 1st level wizard cannot both have a familiar and counterspell as opposed to PF1

On the other hand, you can have both arcane bond and familiar on the same wizard, previously impossible to achieve. Also, there is a way to build a first level wizard who has both a familiar and counterspell if that's a particular desired skillset, but it's a very specific build that is going to lock in several choices to do so.

Also, Counterspell as a reaction is strictly an improvement over requiring a readied action to try and do something that might not work anyway-- they might cast a spell you don't have, or even not bother casting a spell. So you just lost your action and they kept theirs. If it works, you have just traded your actions for theirs. Now, you can keep all your actions and make theirs amount to nothing. You lose nothing but the cost of the feat in all the situations you don't get to counterspell.

Quote:
Familiar seems less good than in PF1, at least at first. No more 2 feats on legs then

They specifically say the familiar get two swappable abilities that also give boons to the wizard. How does that not sound like the two free feats? The abilities mentioned certainly sound pretty good in the abstract, so it seems weird to say familiars are being downgraded.

On feat tax: Honestly, one feat for a familiar is cheaper than the 2 feats it usually costs someone without an arcane bond (or who used it for bonded item) in PF1. And making counterspelling effective in PF1 required you to be an Arcanist with a particular exploit, pretty much, and even then you had to pay a steeper cost and had to roll to succeed.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
The only thing that isn't clear is can wizards scribe spells they find in other spellbooks or on scrolls?
Yes.

In that case there isn't a single thing I can fault with the wizard :) Looking forward to seeing more of it in the playtest.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ElSilverWind wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:

Well, at least the wizard gets more spells per day than the cleric, one way or another.

You made the universalist just directly better than a specialist, because their bonus spell slots per day from the focus are far more flexible than the specialist slots. It comes down to the specialist only gets 1 extra spell per day over the universalist which is not as good as the universalist's huge flexibility, and the school power which is probably not going to be as good as some of the feat options. Not particularly happy with that.

The Universalist is pretty great (whereas in PF1 it was definitely a poor choice compared to a specialist), but I don't think it's far and away better than the specialist because of an interesting nuance of how the focus spells work.

Compare a universalist who prepared fireball, haste, and dispel magic to a transmuter, evoker, illusionist, or abjurer who prepared fireball, haste, dispel magic, and invisibility sphere. If the adventure needs either an extra fireball, an extra haste, or an extra dispel magic, the universalist is set, but if the adventure needed the invisibility sphere, the specialist had the advantage. Getting to pick from a list of three to double is definitely better than adding a fourth (particularly if the specialist ever decides to double up), but then the specialist gets that extra spell on top. I feel that they are pretty comparable options.

I’m a bit confused by this and would appreciative of some clarification. So I have this right,

Universalist: Dispel Magic, Fireball, Haste + choice of Dispel Magic, Fireball, or Haste.
Evocation Specialist: Dispel Magic, Haste, Invisibility Sphere + Fireball

Unless I’m misreading this, it comes across that Universalists will be casting multiple uses of the same spell because how Arcane Bonds work, while Specialists are more suited to having a wider selection of spells...

An evocation specialist being able to cast less fireballs than an Universalist to maximize his spell slots doesn't sound right, yes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
I was kinda hoping that magic missile would no longer be an auto hit..
It was even an autohit in D&D 4th ed. It was always going to be an autohit.

Magic missile is sort of intended as the this spell WILL work option. Not huge damage not super fancy but if you cast it the spell will hit and it will do damage unless the target for some reason is just immune.

Paizo Employee Designer

12 people marked this as a favorite.
FedoraFerret wrote:
Volkard Abendroth wrote:
They seriously nerfed Phantasmal Killer, which now only forces the fortitude save if the will save is a critical failure.
It's not a nerf, they changed the use case. It's no longer a save or die that allows two saves (the damage from passing the Fort save is basically irrelevant for a 4th level spell) but a damage/debuff spell that has the potential to outright kill the target.

This is correct, and we tried to make adjustments like this to other spells to make them more likely to be useful and not a boring waste of a turn while less likely to be a boring (at least for everyone else, maybe also for the caster depending on personal preferences) auto-victory. We hope that will make them more exciting and useful in a wide variety of circumstances. Frightened 4 is terrifyingly bad for the victim. Even frightened 2 is not something you ever want to take, and 8d6 on a 4th level spell that only did damage is more of something you'd expect if the spell had an area, but that's on top of the debuffs.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

No one wants to talk about how good Quick Preparation appears to be? Hot swapping Wizard spells in a relatively short amount of time removes about the only thing close to a weakness that they had.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Thebazilly wrote:
You always had to prepare cantrips, you could just cast them as many times as you want once you had them prepared. I assume it works the same way here.

It wasn't a given with how much else has changed. I could have seen Paizo omit it and justify the omission by saying cantrips scale instead.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:


Quote:
Familiar seems less good than in PF1, at least at first. No more 2 feats on legs then

They specifically say the familiar get two swappable abilities that also give boons to the wizard. How does that not sound like the two free feats? The abilities mentioned certainly sound pretty good in the abstract, so it seems weird to say familiars are being downgraded.

Not quite.

The Blog wrote:
Every day, you can select a pair of abilities to give this loyal companion, some of which grant you boons as well.

If you select the abilities that grant boons to your wizard, you're presumably passing up on others, like deliver touch spells, speak with master, and whatever other stuff they had. Given the overall nerfs, I wouldn't assume the boons available are as good as Alertness and a +4 to Initiative were, either.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Greg.Everham wrote:
No one wants to talk about how good Quick Preparation appears to be? Hot swapping Wizard spells in a relatively short amount of time removes about the only thing close to a weakness that they had.

This is the bone they're throwing to those who wanted Arcanist flavor in the Wizard. Viewed in that frame, it has a tendency to stick in the throat a bit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm still curious on whether or not the language for manifestations has been clarified. XD That's pretty important for things like casting in public, and I'd really like to know if the default - whatever it is - has gotten a direct explanation instead of the indirect assumptions from PF1.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Xenocrat wrote:
Greg.Everham wrote:
No one wants to talk about how good Quick Preparation appears to be? Hot swapping Wizard spells in a relatively short amount of time removes about the only thing close to a weakness that they had.
This is the bone they're throwing to those who wanted Arcanist flavor in the Wizard. Viewed in that frame, it has a tendency to stick in the throat a bit.

Well yes things viewed in the most pessimistic way tend not to seem satisfactory.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

LOVE counterspelling, and I hope I'll be able to become a legend at it. Also LOVE the Universalist, I'm one at heart and always chose it in 1st edition even knowing it was a poor choice compared to specialization. Here are some questions: Have I understood it correctly that the new way metamagic works is through adding extra actions to the casting instead of using higher level spell slots? Can I select Familiar at higher levels if I haven't done so at 1st level?
Here are my pleas: Please please please give us some wizard choices, be they feats or spells, that are more esoteric and mystical, like the prophecy spells in 1st ed's Player Companion: Disciple's Doctrine, I have said it before, I'm tired of divine and psychic spellcasters getting all the mystical feel, magic should be magical. Please make 1st ed's 5th level Animate Objects an arcane spell, it's a fantasy staple, and yet it is locked to the clerics in 1st ed, how should I cast my Piertotum Locomotor without it? Even better, call it Animate Horde, and do as Kobold Press did in their Deep Magic book with the Animate Constructs I-IX spells working similar to Summon Monster I-IX. I hope the wizard gets options to grant the class some spells from other lists in a way that's easier than it is in 1st ed., because nature and fey magic shouldn't be almost exclusively divine like in PF 1st edition. I would love it to be easier for my elf wizard to get some nature and fey spells, like Entangle, Wall of Thorns, Liveoak, Entice Fey, and Fairy Ring Retreat. I don't want Healing spells, it's not about that. It's about versatility in character creation, in how Pathfinder is the ultimate customization game. People will say that Golarion elves are alien, not fey, but that is not so in most fantasy worlds, not everybody plays in Golarion, and in fantasy at large elves are linked to both wizardly book magic AND nature/fey magic, so I would like to be easier to mechanically join these two elf tropes in my character. Also, allowing wizards to get nature spells doesn't work well just for elves, imagine a human wizard who studies botany, for instance. One of my favourite wizard discoveries in 1st edition is Feral Speech, and I hope we can get that from the start in 2nd Edition, it is a good example of great character customization in that direction.


Xenocrat wrote:
If you select the abilities that grant boons to your wizard, you're presumably passing up on others, like deliver touch spells, speak with master, and whatever other stuff they had. Given the overall nerfs, I wouldn't assume the boons available are as good as Alertness and a +4 to Initiative were, either.

I sure hope you don't think they should be that good.


Malk_Content wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Greg.Everham wrote:
No one wants to talk about how good Quick Preparation appears to be? Hot swapping Wizard spells in a relatively short amount of time removes about the only thing close to a weakness that they had.
This is the bone they're throwing to those who wanted Arcanist flavor in the Wizard. Viewed in that frame, it has a tendency to stick in the throat a bit.
Well yes things viewed in the most pessimistic way tend not to seem satisfactory.

Exploiter Wizard was a thing. So this is a significant downgrade from PF1 options. Much like the rest of this.

Which is a good thing! But adding a weak option to PF2 Wizards in core to replace a PFS approved much superior option in PF1 is not removing a weakness from PF1 Wizards.

Arachnofiend wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
If you select the abilities that grant boons to your wizard, you're presumably passing up on others, like deliver touch spells, speak with master, and whatever other stuff they had. Given the overall nerfs, I wouldn't assume the boons available are as good as Alertness and a +4 to Initiative were, either.
I sure hope you don't think they should be that good.

No, I just think this blog should be praised for the obvious nerfs it introduces across the board for Wizards, and it's weird to see people not understanding that these are in fact nerfs.

Liberty's Edge

On specialists vs. universalists:

Yes, at levels less than your max spell level, the Universalist is less versatile but can recast things, but at your highest level, you just have an extra spell slot of your school on top of what a Universalist would get.

So to use the above example on a 6th level Wizard specifically:

Universalist: Dispel Magic, Fireball, Haste + choice of Dispel Magic, Fireball, or Haste.
Evocation Specialist: Dispel Magic, Haste, Invisibility Sphere + Fireball + choice of Dispel Magic, Fireball, Invisibility Sphere or Haste.

At lower levels the dynamic mentioned applies, but the Specialist just has one more spell.

Now, this example is also weird because I'd expect the spell added by a specialist to be of their School. That's not required as long as at least one spell fits into their school, but it's an odd choice, IMO. Make that second guy an Illusion specialist and the example suddenly makes a lot more sense, for example.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
gustavo iglesias wrote:
An evocation specialist being able to cast less fireballs than an Universalist to maximize his spell slots doesn't sound right, yes.

An evocation specialist will almost always fill their top-level slots with evocation because of the damage advantage. They will have fewer castings of Fireball because they have diversified energy type and debuff-with-damage options. Or, they will have two Fireballs, and Universalist will have to give up its flexibility advantage if it wants as many. It’s the lower-level slots where you will see the difference.

Edit: Oh, right! Evoker still gets the re-casting on their top-level slot. Since those are disproportionately good for evoking, specialist is a pretty clear choice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Generally speaking I'm excited to try out the Wizard, but counterspell gives me some of concerns mentioned earlier. I don't think I've ever seen any overlap of uncast spells of the party caster and opposing caster, so even as a reaction the ability would never be used.
Broadening it to schools might be too powerful, but somewhere there should be a middle ground.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
I was kinda hoping that magic missile would no longer be an auto hit..

...and not require those damn d4s.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My thoughts:

I'll second the idea that the mechanical implementation of the Universalist and Specialist wizards grants reversed effect flavor.

They both get 4 spells per level, but the Universalist's extra spell has to be one that they already cast, while the Specialist's extra spell can effectively be ANY spell if they already wanted to prepare a spell of their specialized school.

Choosing between Counter Spell and a Familiar seems odd to me.

Can a wizard still counter spell the old way? (Prepare an action to do so)

Also, can a wizard pick up a familiar later if they pick counter spell at first level?

I was REALLY hoping that Vancian magic would go die in a fire. D&D has slaughtered that sacred cow, we can too. Preparing spells is fine, but it's much more simple of you let players cast spontaneously from the list they prepared.

Also, letting wizards scribe spells into their books at little to no cost is one of the BIGGEST flaws with the wizard. It trivializes their spells known list as they can just throw some coin at a merchant in town and learn new spells whenever they like.

Learning new spells outside of leveling up just shouldn't happen. Maybe give wizards a feat to learn A SINGLE new spell over their normal amount.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
GM Rednal wrote:
On Manifestations: Has the language on manifestations been clarified to detail what they are and how they work with spellcasting, identifying, and counterspelling as a whole, compared to the ambiguity in PF1 on subjects like casting while invisible? (To whatever extent that's still applicable.)
GM Rednal wrote:
I'm still curious on whether or not the language for manifestations has been clarified. XD That's pretty important for things like casting in public, and I'd really like to know if the default - whatever it is - has gotten a direct explanation instead of the indirect assumptions from PF1.

This question has been skipped twice. Could a dev please comment?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Aramar wrote:

Generally speaking I'm excited to try out the Wizard, but counterspell gives me some of concerns mentioned earlier. I don't think I've ever seen any overlap of uncast spells of the party caster and opposing caster, so even as a reaction the ability would never be used.

Broadening it to schools might be too powerful, but somewhere there should be a middle ground.

People think of it defensively used against offensive spells, but you can also use it to negate utility spells.

That Efreeti in the last preview blog wants to cast 4th level Invisibility (nee Greater Invisibility)? Well, lots of Wizards will have it prepared and might find it very helpful for their party to negate that action and keep it from disappearing.

An almost dead outsider is about to Teleport away from your party and seek revenge? You don't have to waste an offensive action and spell slot on Dimensional Anchor (if it still exists), you just expend your own Teleport and get a free round to put it down for good.


Mark Seifter wrote:
It is still possible that some kind of carefully prepared 9-7-5-3-1 chain of prebuffs could allow you to gain a problematically big advantage....

Probably? How about guaranteed that a couple of months after this class is out, maybe even weeks, people will have figured out these optimal casting chains. If it's "probable" you should take it as a given when designing the class and not hope that most people don't figure it out (even if they won't).

Quote:
so if you're willing to test a really high level generalist and challenge the player to break this feat, I will be grateful.

I wouldn't rely on play testing to figure these things out. Why not make sure it can't be broken rather than hope it isn't?


thflame wrote:

Choosing between Counter Spell and a Familiar seems odd to me.

Can a wizard still counter spell the old way? (Prepare an action to do so)

Also, can a wizard pick up a familiar later if they pick counter spell at first level?

Why wouldn't you be able to pick either option later? You don't have to pick any of those at first level if you don't want to, but nothing implies they're locked to level 1.

Hell, one of the Devs specifically noted you could pick up both familiar and arcane bond, which used to compete. No reason you can't have both here as well.

Also, reaction countering spells would be vastly better than preparing an action only for the opposing wizard doing something else.


\/\/arlok wrote:
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
I was kinda hoping that magic missile would no longer be an auto hit..
...and not require those damn d4s.

Yeah, d4s suck :P

I once got my gf d4s that were basically d6 with spheres on 2 sides so they couldnt land on them

but besides that I think the spell is nice as is

101 to 150 of 918 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: Wizard Class Preview All Messageboards