Player Core Preview: The Wizard, Remastered

MadScientistWorking wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Yeah, the new schools have to be smaller than the old schools because they don't hook on to spell traits like the old ones did. It's better to invest more of the Wizard's class budget in "the Thesis, the feats, and the basic chassis" than "the arcane school".

The funny thing is that for the most part they aren't. Most of the old schools only had one or two options available for most of your career as a wizard.

That's kind of true, depending on what school and level you look at. But only if you don't look past the Core Rule Book.

One of the Wizard's strengths was getting better with each new book released since his school slots became more versatile over time, similar to how Clerics and Druids often learn a few dozen new spells with each new release.

The new Curriculums are fixed, barring GM intervention. That's a quite significant downside, especially this late into the Edition.

That statement was me looking at every book including Rage of Elements so no it didn't work as well as you think

Blave wrote:

MadScientistWorking wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Yeah, the new schools have to be smaller than the old schools because they don't hook on to spell traits like the old ones did. It's better to invest more of the Wizard's class budget in "the Thesis, the feats, and the basic chassis" than "the arcane school".

The funny thing is that for the most part they aren't. Most of the old schools only had one or two options available for most of your career as a wizard.

That's kind of true, depending on what school and level you look at. But only if you don't look past the Core Rule Book.

One of the Wizard's strengths was getting better with each new book released since his school slots became more versatile over time, similar to how Clerics and Druids often learn a few dozen new spells with each new release.

The new Curriculums are fixed, barring GM intervention. That's a quite significant downside, especially this late into the Edition.

That statement was me looking at every book including Rage of Elements so no it didn't work as well as you think

Primal casters got better with the release of Rage of Elements. I think Arcane got quite a few of those spells as well.

Has it been confirmed how many 'schools' are going to be in Core 1?

Has it been confirmed how many 'schools' are going to be in Core 1?

Not to my knowledge. Four have been shown, three more have been mentioned (civic, protean form which is about altering bodies with spells like enlarge, and the universalist (forgot the new name)).

Should they want to find a spot for all the pre-master focus spells, we're missing at least two more schools.

Thanks. I assume there'll be 8 plus a 'home-school' option to pick up the old universalist focus. That way there wouldn't be fewer options. Hoping for more though.

Varthanna wrote:

How on earth is this worth a level 14 feat. Not exactly building hype with this.

1 action for a rank level x d6 damage that can be done at range an unlimited amount of times. I think 14 is about right. At least they didn't make it level 16 competing against the obvious effortless concentration choice.

I think the feat looks interesting myself. This is also not bad if you combine it with Trip. Let's say your martial trips the target in the burst area, then it has multiple choices to make with actions. Get up and move out of the area using 2 actions to move or use one action to stand up and attack or get blown up.

It's situationally useful. Not bad for a 1 action feat. I'd prefer it be a free feat for some battle magic type of school, but we'll see what it all looks like.

I think they could have started it at level y6 or 8 with 1d6 and have it scale up to 3d6 by level 14, personally

Aside from this reply, on the topic of the wizard overall. This preview doesn't do much for me. The new feat is cool. I like the concept of schools.

But so far this still reads as a nerf to the wizard overall from pre remaster, with casters getting buffs to their kits (cleric being the obvious one right now, and they were already considered great classes) this makes it feel potentially even worse when compared to other classes.

I'm still hopeful, just worried. Not for wizard being unplayable, just for them to be worse and feel less rewarding (the wider breadth of options for the bonus slot, it felt rewarding to pick good spells for that, with the remaster I'm worried about having nothing but bad options at certain levels that won't scale well

The new schools still seem like a lesser version of what we had before. In general, due to changes to cantrips, schools, and focus spells which Wizards are worse at than other classes, the Wizard has been passed by the Witch and is now squarely the worst caster in PF2. While every other caster got meaningful buffs - Clerics being made less MAD, Druids being able to use metal armor, Bards getting Martial weapons - Wizards get access to all simple weapons, 4 new feats, and a host of nerfs.

Slow (2e) - targets 1 creature, save failure removes 1 action, which is irrelevant to enemies because a third attack will always miss and monsters don't usually have a good third action

Slow is amazing in PF2. Many, many creatures have some form of 3-action routine that can be absolutely devastating. For example, if you start your turn next to a dire wolf, they can use a Jaws attack on you, then automatically Grab you with their second action if they hit, and then deal automatic damage with their Worry action. A Troll that hits you with two claw attacks can use their third action to automatically Rend you. Trample is a three-action activity.

It's not the iWin(TM) button it was in PF1, but it's pretty damn strong.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Varthanna wrote:

How on earth is this worth a level 14 feat. Not exactly building hype with this.

1 action for a rank level x d6 damage that can be done at range an unlimited amount of times. I think 14 is about right. At least they didn't make it level 16 competing against the obvious effortless concentration choice.

I think the feat looks interesting myself. This is also not bad if you combine it with Trip. Let's say your martial trips the target in the burst area, then it has multiple choices to make with actions. Get up and move out of the area using 2 actions to move or use one action to stand up and attack or get blown up.

It's situationally useful. Not bad for a 1 action feat. I'd prefer it be a free feat for some battle magic type of school, but we'll see what it all looks like.

I think they could have started it at level y6 or 8 with 1d6 and have it scale up to 3d6 by level 14, personally

Aside from this reply, on the topic of the wizard overall. This preview doesn't do much for me. The new feat is cool. I like the concept of schools.

But so far this still reads as a nerf to the wizard overall from pre remaster, with casters getting buffs to their kits (cleric being the obvious one right now, and they were already considered great classes) this makes it feel potentially even worse when compared to other classes.

I'm still hopeful, just worried. Not for wizard being unplayable, just for them to be worse and feel less rewarding (the wider breadth of options for the bonus slot, it felt rewarding to pick good spells for that, with the remaster I'm worried about having nothing but bad options at certain levels that won't scale well

Technically, the new schools are a nerf to the wizard's ceiling but probably a buff to their floor. It has a certain baseline functionality with the free spells, provided your school provides at least one decent option. It likely makes the class better for players who'd be kind of lost choosing spells anyway, but provides less flexibility for the high optimization player. Hopefully the high optimization players have reasonable GMs who will allow appropriate additions to the curriculum.

It is also technically a wealth infusion for both types of players. Learning a 9th level spell costs a whopping 1500 gp.

I am very interested in seeing what the schools will look like. Making magic for nerds is a cool approach that I can get behind. I liked the 8 schools, but will accept that nostalgia is a thing and new is good too.

The feat is a bit underwhelming to me. At 14th level it feels late, and it's application to a limited set of blast spells make it something that I will probably pass over. Both Reach and Widen Spell feel like better options, and even they are of situational value.

I would like to see Spellshape feats (going to take a bit to stop saying Metamagic) have more use, especially with Cantrips. Changing the shape of magic is cool, but sometimes you just need to Cantrip a foe. That pesky third action needs more options besides Shield.

Hopefully the high optimization players have reasonable GMs who will allow appropriate additions to the curriculum.

Errenor wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Megistone wrote:

I agree that working with your GM to make your own curriculum of spells is the best way to approach the new state of the Wizard.

TBT it's far better than being stuck with one of the old 8 schools.

Old schools were so vast (and you knew what they had when you selected one), and discussing such little things as singular spells with a GM could be problematic for both parties (PF2 thankfully is not really a game where everyone needs to construct all characters with GMs). So no, not at all.

If the GM trusts the player, there's not even need to check the list; in either case, a cursory glance should be enough to ensure that said player hasn't lied about the theme just to snipe the best options available at each level.

There's another question we must ask in connection to this: will this work in PFS? Yes, PFS isn't all of PF2 at all. Also, yes, everything that pretends to be a solution to anything must work in PFS too.

Btw a martial at level 5 will likely have +13 but you're forgetting that escaping has the attack trait imposing the multiple attack penalty and uses an action. So you deny an action with the escape, remove their best attack for the round...

And you are forgetting that the new A. Orb is not an Escape, but DC10 Athletics check to Swim. Which doesn't scale and is obviously terrible at high levels.

And you are forgetting that the new A. Orb is not an Escape, but DC10 Athletics check to Swim. Which doesn't scale and is obviously terrible at high levels.

Escape exists for Crit. Failures only. Which themselves don't appreciably exist. Speaking as a A.Orb user whose below-level enemies Success and Crit Success all the time.

It is worse against enemies trained in athletics, yes. It is still a sustained spell that eats actions and can affect multiple creatures. Maybe the swim check should be against the spell DC, or at least higher than 10, but even as is I think I would use this to eat the actions of multiple enemies at low levels

Errenor wrote:

And you are forgetting that the new A. Orb is not an Escape, but DC10 Athletics check to Swim. Which doesn't scale and is obviously terrible at high levels.

Escape exists for Crit. Failures only. Which themselves don't appreciably exist. Speaking as a A.Orb user whose below-level enemies Success and Crit Success all the time.

It is worse against enemies trained in athletics, yes. It is still a sustained spell that eats actions and can affect multiple creatures. Maybe the swim check should be against the spell DC, or at least higher than 10, but even as is I think I would use this to eat the actions of multiple enemies at low levels

When enemies Succeed it not only very probably won't eat any actions from them, they could even get in better tactical position for free. What this could maybe more or less reliably solve is being flanked.

That feat is not good. Spend an action to add damage a round later that will never hit.

the point of it is control of a location

I am a little confused as to why the old schools could not be kept and just moved to the background while introducing new school types based on actual schools.

The way it is stated that and says "but because the wizard schools already had all eight schools of magic that could ever exist in the setting (plus universalist), we could never increase the number of wizard schools or explore more interesting options beyond those preset themes."
So no one creative person at Paizo could just add "schools" based on a specific training or style of casting?

Unless the 8 schools are going away because of OGL and not lack or creativity; but if that is the case I wish they would just tell us that.

they did tell us

AestheticDialectic wrote:

Errenor wrote:

And you are forgetting that the new A. Orb is not an Escape, but DC10 Athletics check to Swim. Which doesn't scale and is obviously terrible at high levels.

Escape exists for Crit. Failures only. Which themselves don't appreciably exist. Speaking as a A.Orb user whose below-level enemies Success and Crit Success all the time.

It is worse against enemies trained in athletics, yes. It is still a sustained spell that eats actions and can affect multiple creatures. Maybe the swim check should be against the spell DC, or at least higher than 10, but even as is I think I would use this to eat the actions of multiple enemies at low levels

When enemies Succeed it not only very probably won't eat any actions from them, they could even get in better tactical position for free. What this could maybe more or less reliably solve is being flanked.

This spell had a help from our GM though when all firearms enemies lost their gunpowder if they got into the Orb. But that's a highly specific advantage.

Swimming is an action, so it does eat an action no matter what

So...

I have mixed feelings about this change, but need to clarify my overall preference since D&D 3.0.

Why was there two arcane casters who were basically doing the same thing with different mechanics? Why not just use the new mecanic overall in the system instead of keeping the old with the new?

I talk, of course, of the difference between the Wizard (Vacian Caster) vs. the Sorcerer (Spontaneous Caster).

I went with the Sorcerer from then on, then in PF1, each caster got a CHA based Spontaneous Caster equivalent in later books, the most prevalent being Cleric/Oracle.

I still don't see a reason to keep having to mem more than one copy of a spell to cast it more than once.

That being said, removing the schools will give the arcane casters overall a better fit into the setting and will set the PF2/PF3 Pathfinder setting in a better position overall. The room to have the wizard grow will likely make the class separate itself from the Sorcerer that much more, and hopefully have ways to recall a spell in place of Memorized ones more than once.

I had thought the Sorcerer would be the Elementalist of the arcane classes in PF2, but the same structure for Vacian/Spontaneous system made for different priorities. Seems that the elements are also being taken over by the Kinestest.

Be interesting to see how the changes will be overall in the caster realm with the rest of the classes from here.

Why was there two arcane casters who were basically doing the same thing with different mechanics? Why not just use the new mecanic overall in the system instead of keeping the old with the new?

Because it is wrong to exclude people with different preferences when you can easily accomodate both.

Different people like each one. That is Ok isn't it?

D&D 2e's alternate schools systems was one of the neatest things done. It was also dabbled in D&D 3rd edition. I'm surprised Paizo never did for Pathfinder. Tossing out the "Traditional 8" didn't need to be done to explore alternate schools/categorizations of magic.

It's nice to see you exploring it finally though.

I think it is worth noting that a big part of the motivation for the remaster stuff is to move the game off of the OGL and onto the ORC, and to do that they're transitioning off of the traditional spell school system.

So...

I have mixed feelings about this change, but need to clarify my overall preference since D&D 3.0.

Why was there two arcane casters who were basically doing the same thing with different mechanics? Why not just use the new mecanic overall in the system instead of keeping the old with the new?

I talk, of course, of the difference between the Wizard (Vacian Caster) vs. the Sorcerer (Spontaneous Caster).

I went with the Sorcerer from then on, then in PF1, each caster got a CHA based Spontaneous Caster equivalent in later books, the most prevalent being Cleric/Oracle.

I still don't see a reason to keep having to mem more than one copy of a spell to cast it more than once.

That being said, removing the schools will give the arcane casters overall a better fit into the setting and will set the PF2/PF3 Pathfinder setting in a better position overall. The room to have the wizard grow will likely make the class separate itself from the Sorcerer that much more, and hopefully have ways to recall a spell in place of Memorized ones more than once.

I had thought the Sorcerer would be the Elementalist of the arcane classes in PF2, but the same structure for Vacian/Spontaneous system made for different priorities. Seems that the elements are also being taken over by the Kinestest.

Be interesting to see how the changes will be overall in the caster realm with the rest of the classes from here.

This feels like a strange complaint to air when the PF2 sorcerer isn't actually an arcane caster anymore, but a pick-a-lister. The wizard doesn't really need to differentiate itself from the sorcerer because the sorcerer already did it for them.

The broader point about whether we still need both spontaneous and prepared casting styles is fine, I guess. But it stopped being a wizards vs sorcerer thing five years ago.

I feel like the reason they're talking about schools so much is that this is the one mechanic that needs to change in the remaster. If they were going to bump up the power of other stuff to balance out "schools are smaller now" then wouldn't necessarily need to talk about it that much in order to get people on board with that. Like "Wizards have simple weapon proficiency now" is a thing you basically only need to mention once.

Yes, slow is one of the better control spells in 2e because all the 2e controls spells are incredibly bad. That doesn't mean anything. I showed in my post how the control spells were substantially better in 1e, and I could replicate that with every other control spell in the game.

Using up a spell slot and your turn to just take 1 action when succeeding when many enemies do not have a good third action is absolutely terrible. Since Slow only targets one enemy AND enemies at or above level have better saves, it likely will do nothing and you wasted your turn (versus 1e where if you hit multiple enemies around the big bad, you had a chance of hurting him and probably at least 1 minion failed their save as back up).

Using a high level spell slot AND your action every turn on A. Orb to Sustain to potentially take *at best* 1 action from 1 enemy but also doing often nothing is also a really crappy way to spend your combat. You could easily have to spend 2 actions to move the Orb enough to get to a single enemy (because they can Stride 20-30 feet) so you can't cast anything else and then they succeed their save and you've actually had worse action economy than doing nothing. Versus 1e where with 30 feet of movement you could reliably get around a map and hit maybe even more than one creature, and it didn't infringe on your standard action at all.

These spells aren't good.

Yes, slow is one of the better control spells in 2e because all the 2e controls spells are incredibly bad. That doesn't mean anything. I showed in my post how the control spells were substantially better in 1e, and I could replicate that with every other control spell in the game.

Using up a spell slot and your turn to just take 1 action when succeeding when many enemies do not have a good third action is absolutely terrible. Since Slow only targets one enemy AND enemies at or above level have better saves, it likely will do nothing and you wasted your turn (versus 1e where if you hit multiple enemies around the big bad, you had a chance of hurting him and probably at least 1 minion failed their save as back up).

Using a high level spell slot AND your action every turn on A. Orb to Sustain to potentially take *at best* 1 action from the enemy but also doing often nothing is also a really crappy way to spend your combat.

Taking an action is huge, particularly against bosses. The spell having an effect on a success that good against a boss, particularly a solo boss, is incredible. Trading two of your party's twelve actions for one of the boss's 3 is extremely worth it, and it pairs well with typical optimal tactics where you hit and run to remove even more actions from the boss requiring them to walk up to you, meaning slow is often still -2 actions when combined with your party's tactics. Bosses typically still hit and even crit on subsequent attacks. Only having to worry about one attack is massive. Slow is a spell regarded as the GOAT by people who actually use it. It's incredible, one of the best. You shouldn't downplay how powerful removing actions is, it's one of the best things you can do in this game

Also yes control spells are worse in 2e than 1e where they bypassed challenges, required no skill and were a way to avoid playing the game. Good riddance

The control spells in 1E were better because they were broken. You're just not going to get that in 2E, any more than you will get comparable boss obliteration to a ragelancepounce barbarian.

You could have made Slow either target one creature and take away 2 actions or you could have it target multiple but only taking away 1. Either would have lessened the power of the spell while still preserving it's usefulness. Doing both makes an entire play style defunct. Not everyone just wants to blast things with fireball all day.

Not everyone just wants to blast things with fireball all day.

Then don't? Control is literally the superior playstyle.

Taking 1 action still allows them to take 2 attacks. And your probability of a Boss failing is about 25%, which means it's not worth it to spend your highest slot.

dreamersglass wrote:

Not everyone just wants to blast things with fireball all day.

Then don't? Control is literally the superior playstyle.

It was in 1e. It's absolutely not in 2e. Blaster casters have substantially more impact on combat that control does now.

You might be the first person I've ever seen to say that blasting is better than control in 2e.

Taking 1 action still allows them to take 2 attacks. And your probability of a Boss failing is about 25%, which means it's not worth it to spend your highest slot.

The boss also has a 50% chance of losing an action which in comparison to the party losing 2/12 of their actions, it is worse for the boss because its losing 1/3, if it fails its save then the fight becomes a lot easier and if it rolls a 1 the DM might as well end the fight, its basically over at that point.

Control is still the superior playstyle in PF2. Spells are different, less powerful than PF1 in totality, but still extremely powerful within the PF2 paradigm.

Action removal limits what an opponent and is especially painful to caster enemies who often have a low Fort Save.

The encounter destroying spells are gone. I'm personally glad.

I still recall at high level in PF1 trying to design encounters for martials and casters. My caster players would mass target weak martial enemies that were created for martials to have fun killing stuff and render them useless completely ruining the fun of the martial players.

And bosses were a nightmare to design because you can only have so many bosses immune enervate or with a huge touch AC before the casters adjust to some other brutal combination.

That's why I prefer all casters be designed with the useful focus spells with spell slots so that even when a caster may not be able to cast a powerful spell to end encounter, they can constantly contribute to an encounter with a powerful and useful focus spell while occasionally landing some nasty spell from a spell slot that still doesn't utterly ruin the encounter.

Arachnofiend wrote:

The control spells in 1E were better because they were broken. You're just not going to get that in 2E, any more than you will get comparable boss obliteration to a ragelancepounce barbarian.

You could have made Slow either target one creature and take away 2 actions or you could have it target multiple but only taking away 1. Either would have lessened the power of the spell while still preserving it's usefulness. Doing both makes an entire play style defunct. Not everyone just wants to blast things with fireball all day.

Heightened Slow does exactly the second and to 10 creatures.

Still no support for 1st edition. Shame.

Why did you cast "Summon Totally Not The Bag" ?

Errenor wrote:

AestheticDialectic wrote:

Errenor wrote:

And you are forgetting that the new A. Orb is not an Escape, but DC10 Athletics check to Swim. Which doesn't scale and is obviously terrible at high levels.

Escape exists for Crit. Failures only. Which themselves don't appreciably exist. Speaking as a A.Orb user whose below-level enemies Success and Crit Success all the time.

It is worse against enemies trained in athletics, yes. It is still a sustained spell that eats actions and can affect multiple creatures. Maybe the swim check should be against the spell DC, or at least higher than 10, but even as is I think I would use this to eat the actions of multiple enemies at low levels

When enemies Succeed it not only very probably won't eat any actions from them, they could even get in better tactical position for free. What this could maybe more or less reliably solve is being flanked.

This spell had a help from our GM though when all firearms enemies lost their gunpowder if they got into the Orb. But that's a highly specific advantage.

Swimming is an action, so it does eat an action no matter what

Have you even read the spell and/or my post? When enemies succeed, they don't get into the Orb (so no need to swim) and can reposition themselves for free as they like.

Still no support for 1st edition. Shame.

There was ten years of support for 1st edition. You're not gonna get any more.

Squiggit wrote:

dreamersglass wrote:

Not everyone just wants to blast things with fireball all day.

Then don't? Control is literally the superior playstyle.

It was in 1e. It's absolutely not in 2e. Blaster casters have substantially more impact on combat that control does now.

blasting not nothing but my players get a lot more of of control in general

I’m a bit confused by the feat. It sounds like it’s meant as battlefield control. I don’t see it ever doing damage because taking a minimum of 7d6 to your allies so that the creatures stay in the area seems like mutually assured destruction. Doing this at range with no allies guarantees that the bad guys move. I’m guessing the intent here is to have it make bad guys use an action. Seems awful high level of a feat for this though.

Seems like decent area-denial to me. Say you've got 2 allies and 2 enemies in melee. You cast a Howling Blizzard (or Fireball 5th, or whatever) such that it hits the 2 enemies but stops short of the allies. You spend an extra action to place an impending 5d6 explosion right behind the enemies as well; now they must spend at least 1 action to Step out of the explosion. And, of course, if your melee allies go first, they can grab or trip the enemies to make this more difficult, or they may have already done so. Placing it so it won't friendly-fire isn't any harder than your usual fireball targeting, easier in fact.

The floor on Secondary Detonation Array is a 1:1 trade on actions as the enemy is forced to stride away, which itself opens it up to getting hit by reactions. Not bad but not sure I'd call it 14th level good. You can of course combo it with spells that grab creatures like Transmute Rock and Mud.

Edit: Never mind, spell needs to do damage. My searching seems to indicate there are no spells in the game right now that actually work with this spellshape, all other options for grabbing with a spell have a duration. That's unfortunate.

Being able to both create the zone and trap the enemy in it, in one round, would seem somewhat broken. (Of course you can do it at level 20 with Quickened Spell and Metamagic Mastery, but that's 20). Also, if you're casting an area spell, probably you are catching two enemies in it, so it's probably 2:1.

Honestly, the thing that I'm most curious about regarding Wizards is if the "School of Unified Theory" mentioned in other previews will function the same as the prior "Universalist" school, IE that you don't gain the bonus spell slot per rank to prepare certain spells into, but instead you get to use Arcane Bond to recast a spell at each spell rank, instead of just 1/day.

My forthcoming Wizard was planned as a Universalist, so it'd be nice to know if that's going to be radically different in the Remaster, especially since my group's GM is going to enforce the Remastered versions of ALL affected classes once we start playing PF again next summer.

I think and hope so! Universalist is by far my favorite.

I wonder if curriculum slots can be used with heightened versions of lower level curriculum spells

I'd be very surprised if you couldn't - it would go against how all prepared casters work in PF2.

Now the question is what time will the rest be previewed

LoreMonger13 wrote:

Honestly, the thing that I'm most curious about regarding Wizards is if the "School of Unified Theory" mentioned in other previews will function the same as the prior "Universalist" school, IE that you don't gain the bonus spell slot per rank to prepare certain spells into, but instead you get to use Arcane Bond to recast a spell at each spell rank, instead of just 1/day.

My forthcoming Wizard was planned as a Universalist, so it'd be nice to know if that's going to be radically different in the Remaster, especially since my group's GM is going to enforce the Remastered versions of ALL affected classes once we start playing PF again next summer.

I think and hope so! Universalist is by far my favorite.

Me too, it always seemed the most useful option to me, and as I'll be playing my Wizard as a "Chronomancer" and plan to have a pocket watch as a bonded item, I really liked the idea of him "recasting" those spells and having the hands of the watch rewind back to the exact moment that specific spell was first cast that day =3

So if they changed that, it'd be a loss of both mechanics and flavor for me T_T

LoreMonger13 wrote:

Honestly, the thing that I'm most curious about regarding Wizards is if the "School of Unified Theory" mentioned in other previews will function the same as the prior "Universalist" school, IE that you don't gain the bonus spell slot per rank to prepare certain spells into, but instead you get to use Arcane Bond to recast a spell at each spell rank, instead of just 1/day.

My forthcoming Wizard was planned as a Universalist, so it'd be nice to know if that's going to be radically different in the Remaster, especially since my group's GM is going to enforce the Remastered versions of ALL affected classes once we start playing PF again next summer.

I think and hope so! Universalist is by far my favorite.

WWHsmackdown wrote:

I wonder if curriculum slots can be used with heightened versions of lower level curriculum spells

I'd be very surprised if you couldn't - it would go against how all prepared casters work in PF2.

The rules on heightening for prepared casters by RAW should allow this unless the school says otherwise. Heightening spells to put into school slots works with the pre-remaster version, and there is no reason to believe it won't post-remaster

Secondary Detonation Array starts looking pretty interesting with Telekinetic Rend, just as a way to swing that mojo in a resourceless way..

Secondary Detonation Array starts looking pretty interesting with Telekinetic Rend, just as a way to swing that mojo in a resourceless way..

New spell proficiencies makes wizard+psychic MDC very appealing and functional

Sanityfaerie wrote:

Secondary Detonation Array starts looking pretty interesting with Telekinetic Rend, just as a way to swing that mojo in a resourceless way..

New spell proficiencies makes wizard+psychic MDC very appealing and functional

That's actually my plan for my forthcoming Wizard, since my group is postponing further PF games until the Remaster (we just finished a 2E conversion of Skull'n'Shackles)

But not so much for the min-maxing, I'm going with Unbound Step and picking up specific spells that feed into the whole chronomancy vibe, like Hypercognition, Tortoise and the Hare, Suspended Retribution, etc plus the Warp Step and Phase Bolt Psicantrips ^_^

So STRONGLY agreed, the single proficiency to apply to all spellcasting makes MCD's MUCH more appealing, and the Psychic in particular is really great since it can be Intelligence or Charisma =]

I do like casting proficiency applying to all casting. Simplifies the game and makes caster MCs more attractive while not breaking the game. Win-win-win.

MrVauxs wrote:

Can't wait for the Magaambyan School of Magic!

I came in to say exactly the same thing.

Also, is just just a Magaambyam School, or (being the best magic school on the planet) do the Rain-Scribes have their own school that is fundamentally different from the Tempest-Sun Mages that is different from the Uzunjati, etc.

Needless to say, the HYPE is real.

Yes, I am very interested in seeing curricula for;

A) Magaambyan / Halycon Mages
B) Shory Aeromancers
C) Nidalese Shadowcasters
D) Cyphermages
E) Technic League technomancers
F) Hemotheurges/'Bloatmages'
G) Arcanamirium 'civic mages?'
H) Winter Witches?
I) Oenepion flesh-forgers or ooze-shapers?
J) Dwarven Blue Warders
K) all the rest!