Player Core Preview: The Wizard, Remastered

Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:

Will wizards be limited to their spell choice based on their curriculum or will they be able to dabble in other areas?

Only the extra spell slot per rank you get from your school are limited by your curriculum. The regular spell slots work as they always did and can hold any spell on the arcane spell list you know.

Gracias!

This sounds sweet. I like the embrace of the nerd. One of my favorite parts of playing a wizard and, since then, running them, was finding obscure spells on scrolls and enemy spellbooks and scribing them into their own books. Lets me dig into third party stuff and pull out real surprises to both arm the enemy and reward the victor.

Also I think goblin school might want an antidog field.

This sounds sweet. I like the embrace of the nerd. One of my favorite parts of playing a wizard and, since then, running them, was finding obscure spells on scrolls and enemy spellbooks and scribing them into their own books. Lets me dig into third party stuff and pull out real surprises to both arm the enemy and reward the victor.

Also I think goblin school might want an antidog field.

Goblin School no.need anti-dog spells. Just need moar fire spells. That keep dog away. Also horse! And annoying longshanks whining about how setting orphanages on fire is not good thing. If not meant to be on fire, why it burn so pretty?

According to a kind person on Discord, these are the curriculums of the missing two schools we haven't seen yet:

Protean Form
Cantrips: Goug Claw, Tangle Vine
1: Jump, Pest From, Spider Sting
2: Enlarge, Humanoid Form
3: Feet to fins, vampiric feast
4: Mountain Resilience, Vapor form
5: elemental form, toxic cloud
6: cursed metamorphosis, petrify
7: duplicate foe, duplicate foe, fiery body
8: Desicate, monstrosity form
9: Metamorphosis

Civic Wizardry Spells
Cantrips: Presto, Read Aura
1: Hydraulic Push, Pummeling Rubble, Summon Construct
2: Revealing light, water walk
3: cozy cabin, safe passage
4: creation, unfettered movement
5: control water, wall of stone
6: disintegrate, wall of force
7: Planar palace, retrocognition
8: earthquake, pinpoint(uncommon, whatever this is)
9: Foresight

8: earthquake, pinpoint(uncommon, whatever this is)

Pinpoint could be new name for Discern Location.

Yeah, i was thinking the same. The lists where directly copied from discord, so the comment is from the original post.

I rather like how the duplicate foe spell is duplicated! ;p

At least Curriculum Spells aren't quite as limiting as I thought they would be, though that will depend largely on the GM.

"Your GM might allow you to swap or add other spells to your curriculum if they strongly fit the theme." p.198

At least Curriculum Spells aren't quite as limiting as I thought they would be, though that will depend largely on the GM.

"Your GM might allow you to swap or add other spells to your curriculum if they strongly fit the theme." p.198

It's better than nothing, but ultimately it just reiterates The First Rule. A GM can also switch out spells from a Sorcerer Bloodline or change anything they want.

Stone Dog wrote:

At least Curriculum Spells aren't quite as limiting as I thought they would be, though that will depend largely on the GM.

"Your GM might allow you to swap or add other spells to your curriculum if they strongly fit the theme." p.198

It's better than nothing, but ultimately it just reiterates The First Rule. A GM can also switch out spells from a Sorcerer Bloodline or change anything they want.

Reiterating it in places like this makes it more likely to happen.

Blave wrote:

Stone Dog wrote:

At least Curriculum Spells aren't quite as limiting as I thought they would be, though that will depend largely on the GM.

"Your GM might allow you to swap or add other spells to your curriculum if they strongly fit the theme." p.198

It's better than nothing, but ultimately it just reiterates The First Rule. A GM can also switch out spells from a Sorcerer Bloodline or change anything they want.

Reiterating it in places like this makes it more likely to happen.

Especially since it gives a criteria, i wouldn't want to be the GM that has to argue that True Strike isn't thematic to a Battle Magic wizard, lol.

Would be interested in the variance in rulings on this scenario:

"I'm a 5th level wizard and the 1st level spells for war magic are becoming unusable; they're evocations that rely on heightening to function, which would leave me with nothing in my 1st level school slot. I would like to put true strike in that slot instead."

I think there's a nonzero number of GM's that might balk at a player asking for a notoriously strong spell that isn't on the base list... perhaps forgetting that True Target is on the list at a later level, making it obvious that True Strike should be considered "on theme". The player is pretty solidly in the right here IMO, but there are definitely less clear cut cases and I generally prefer to avoid this game of Mother May I if at all possible.

The Raven Black wrote:

Blave wrote:

Stone Dog wrote:

At least Curriculum Spells aren't quite as limiting as I thought they would be, though that will depend largely on the GM.

"Your GM might allow you to swap or add other spells to your curriculum if they strongly fit the theme." p.198

It's better than nothing, but ultimately it just reiterates The First Rule. A GM can also switch out spells from a Sorcerer Bloodline or change anything they want.

Reiterating it in places like this makes it more likely to happen.

Especially since it gives a criteria, i wouldn't want to be the GM that has to argue that True Strike isn't thematic to a Battle Magic wizard, lol.

"Battle magicians fight with spells, not weapons, and as of the Remaster there are vanishingly few attack spells, so they mostly don't use those, either, and wouldn't waste their time specializing in such a dead end niche." Easy.

Would be interested in the variance in rulings on this scenario:

"I'm a 5th level wizard and the 1st level spells for war magic are becoming unusable; they're evocations that rely on heightening to function, which would leave me with nothing in my 1st level school slot. I would like to put true strike in that slot instead."

I think there's a nonzero number of GM's that might balk at a player asking for a notoriously strong spell that isn't on the base list... perhaps forgetting that True Target is on the list at a later level, making it obvious that True Strike should be considered "on theme". The player is pretty solidly in the right here IMO, but there are definitely less clear cut cases and I generally prefer to avoid this game of Mother May I if at all possible.

"True Target to suport allies making weapon attacks is indeed a valid part of magical application to war, but self enhancing the handful of single shot attack spells still isn't. Maybe a dueling school."

Apparently chain lightning, fireball, disintegrate, and haste are all unchanged.

Blaster wizards everywhere can relax, and mourn the loss of cone of cold in peace with their new best friends, falling stars and thunderstrike.

Meh, my wizards can still use cone of cold if they want.

Meh, my wizards can still use cone of cold if they want.

True, but it's nice to see that the remaster didn't change that much stuff.

I should open my PDF and get reading on those changes now...

Would be interested in the variance in rulings on this scenario:

"I'm a 5th level wizard and the 1st level spells for war magic are becoming unusable; they're evocations that rely on heightening to function, which would leave me with nothing in my 1st level school slot. I would like to put true strike in that slot instead."

I think there's a nonzero number of GM's that might balk at a player asking for a notoriously strong spell that isn't on the base list... perhaps forgetting that True Target is on the list at a later level, making it obvious that True Strike should be considered "on theme". The player is pretty solidly in the right here IMO, but there are definitely less clear cut cases and I generally prefer to avoid this game of Mother May I if at all possible.

Personally? True Target falls cleanly under "arcane countermeasures for common tactical complications," the complication here being "the targets are hiding." I'd say that a Battle Magic Wizard might not get True Target for free, but they could sure use it for their Curriculum slot, no problem.

True Strike's absence in the battle magic school is regrettable, but I still find it more baffling that it's part of the mentalism curriculum. You know, the one that's all about messing with your opponents heads? Didn't think that would include headshots, but the more you know...

True Strike's absence in the battle magic school is regrettable, but I still find it more baffling that it's part of the mentalism curriculum. You know, the one that's all about messing with your opponents heads? Didn't think that would include headshots, but the more you know...

What better way to mess with your opponent's mind than opening it up (literally)?

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Blave wrote:

Stone Dog wrote:

At least Curriculum Spells aren't quite as limiting as I thought they would be, though that will depend largely on the GM.

"Your GM might allow you to swap or add other spells to your curriculum if they strongly fit the theme." p.198

It's better than nothing, but ultimately it just reiterates The First Rule. A GM can also switch out spells from a Sorcerer Bloodline or change anything they want.

Reiterating it in places like this makes it more likely to happen.

Especially since it gives a criteria, i wouldn't want to be the GM that has to argue that True Strike isn't thematic to a Battle Magic wizard, lol.

"Battle magicians fight with spells, not weapons, and as of the Remaster there are vanishingly few attack spells, so they mostly don't use those, either, and wouldn't waste their time specializing in such a dead end niche." Easy.

Arachnofiend wrote:

Would be interested in the variance in rulings on this scenario:

"I'm a 5th level wizard and the 1st level spells for war magic are becoming unusable; they're evocations that rely on heightening to function, which would leave me with nothing in my 1st level school slot. I would like to put true strike in that slot instead."

I think there's a nonzero number of GM's that might balk at a player asking for a notoriously strong spell that isn't on the base list... perhaps forgetting that True Target is on the list at a later level, making it obvious that True Strike should be considered "on theme". The player is pretty solidly in the right here IMO, but there are definitely less clear cut cases and I generally prefer to avoid this game of Mother May I if at all possible.

"True Target to suport allies making weapon attacks is indeed a valid part of magical application to war, but self enhancing the handful of single shot attack spells still isn't. Maybe a...

Exactly, you'd get roasted trying that with real players.

Blave wrote:

True Strike's absence in the battle magic school is regrettable, but I still find it more baffling that it's part of the mentalism curriculum. You know, the one that's all about messing with your opponents heads? Didn't think that would include headshots, but the more you know...

What better way to mess with your opponent's mind than opening it up (literally)?

... if I had to guess, the reason is probably based on predicting your opponent's every move as a mind-read-like effect except that's still a weak justification to me for as you said a spell list that's supposed to be about mastering your opponent's mind, not using it to enhance non-mental attacks. Do we have a favorite for "best alternative" yet?

It's mostly baffling because the curriculum doesn't even have any spell attacks...

There's plenty of spells it could be replaced with. Charm, command, Fear, Illusory Object... those would all be at least as fitting as True Strike.

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

Blave wrote:

True Strike's absence in the battle magic school is regrettable, but I still find it more baffling that it's part of the mentalism curriculum. You know, the one that's all about messing with your opponents heads? Didn't think that would include headshots, but the more you know...

What better way to mess with your opponent's mind than opening it up (literally)?

... if I had to guess, the reason is probably based on predicting your opponent's every move as a mind-read-like effect except that's still a weak justification to me for as you said a spell list that's supposed to be about mastering your opponent's mind, not using it to enhance non-mental attacks. Do we have a favorite for "best alternative" yet?

It's mostly baffling because the curriculum doesn't even have any spell attacks...

There's plenty of spells it could be replaced with. Charm, command, Fear, Illusory Object... those would all be at least as fitting as True Strike.

Charm 100% would have been my first go-to, but I didn't have the school in front of me so I assumed it should already be on there >.>

I rather like how the duplicate foe spell is duplicated! ;p

Reminds me of the 3.5e Expanded Psionics Handbook, which had the power deja vu in it twice, on different pages.

Apparently chain lightning, fireball, disintegrate, and haste are all unchanged.

Blaster wizards everywhere can relax, and mourn the loss of cone of cold in peace with their new best friends, falling stars and thunderstrike.

Howling blizzard says hi. 5th level spell, 10d6 cold damage, can either be cast as a 60 foot cone for 2 actions or a 30 foot burst at 500 feet for 3.

Calliope5431 wrote:

Apparently chain lightning, fireball, disintegrate, and haste are all unchanged.

Blaster wizards everywhere can relax, and mourn the loss of cone of cold in peace with their new best friends, falling stars and thunderstrike.

Howling blizzard says hi. 5th level spell, 10d6 cold damage, can either be cast as a 60 foot cone for 2 actions or a 30 foot burst at 500 feet for 3.

Oh I know. I was briefly concerned because it's essentially a replacement but lower damage, and I thought chain lightning or other high damage spells might be getting scaled back as well.

Happily, it seems like I was wholly mistaken, and more likely the change was only because of the OGL and a need to differentiate. I'm thrilled to bits about the remaster and am quite pleased my concerns were unfounded.

like the Knowledge Is Power magus feat (with a few wizard-specific adjustments).

Do we know what these "few" adjustments turned out to be?

Quote:

like the Knowledge Is Power magus feat (with a few wizard-specific adjustments).

Do we know what these "few" adjustments turned out to be?

Debuffs saves instead of boosting your defense. But it also penalizes their next attack/save DC of their next offensive ability against you.

It's basically the same feat but a penalty to their attacks/defenses rather than a bonus to yours. And it applies to their saves as well as your attacks against them.

And yes you can share it with allies like the original

Sure Strike sounds like it fits in to the Mentalism school by virtue of Robert Downey Jr style Sherlock Holmes fighting. A brief moment of high octane, Dune Mentat predictive power.

It is by will alone I set my spell slot in motion.

Calliope5431 wrote:

Apparently chain lightning, fireball, disintegrate, and haste are all unchanged.

Blaster wizards everywhere can relax, and mourn the loss of cone of cold in peace with their new best friends, falling stars and thunderstrike.

Howling blizzard says hi. 5th level spell, 10d6 cold damage, can either be cast as a 60 foot cone for 2 actions or a 30 foot burst at 500 feet for 3.

(Also its entire area becomes difficult terrain if I recall, let your Ranger buddy snipe them with their feature to treat any enemies on any difficult terrain as off-guard :> )

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

Quote:

like the Knowledge Is Power magus feat (with a few wizard-specific adjustments).

Do we know what these "few" adjustments turned out to be?

Debuffs saves instead of boosting your defense. But it also penalizes their next attack/save DC of their next offensive ability against you.

It's basically the same feat but a penalty to their attacks/defenses rather than a bonus to yours. And it applies to their saves as well as your attacks against them.

And yes you can share it with allies like the original

I found the full text online, and its actually really really good now. Wizards finally have something which relates to Recall Knowledge and its make worth using actions on!

So its:

When you Crit Succeed at recall knowledge against a creature you;

1) Inflict a -1 C penalty to that creatures AC or saves against the next attack you make against it.

or

2) Inflict a -1 C penalty to defences to the next spell you cast on it that needs to be defended against.

Then

If that creature attacks you and you chose option 1, its thats that -1 C penalty to its attack. Or, if it casts a spell at you which needs defending against, and you chose option 2, its DC is lowered by that same penalty.

And

You can grant the above beneifts to everyone in party.

This is a discrete option you can take, and each Crit Success at Recall knowledge give you 1 use of it. You have 1 minute to use the option after the success.

_________

Previously, KiP only granted a bonus to your attack rolls, which, for a Wizard, would be next to pointless. Option 2 in the above makes this actually a significantly better option. Further, the fact that same spells now seem to carry the attack trait but don't make attack rolls is reinforced by the wording of option 1, and Option 1 would support them.

It's a decent feat - IF you get that crit success with any reliability. Wizards aren't exactly the masters of knowledge skills or skills in general. Half the creatures in the game can't be identified using an Int-Skill (unless you pick up their Lore, I guess) and even for int skills, you might not max out all of them if you still want to be good at something else like stealth.

Additional Lore for Undead and Fiends seem like almost a must have if you really want to use that feat.

It's a decent feat - IF you get that crit success with any reliability. Wizards aren't exactly the masters of knowledge skills or skills in general. Half the creatures in the game can't be identified using an Int-Skill (unless you pick up their Lore, I guess) and even for int skills, you might not max out all of them if you still want to be good at something else like stealth.

Additional Lore for Undead and Fiends seem like almost a must have if you really want to use that feat.

It will be a cold day in hell before someone takes Bestiary Scholar off my Wizard... Which now stacks with Knowledge is Power, at least for attack rolls.

Should probably get to work on assembling that Archmage's Regalia though.

Im sorry but it having to be a critical success to work just kills the feat dead for me. Way too circumstantial for a feat of that level and doesnt even get a later feat (tax) like the ranger does to make it viable.

Im sorry but it having to be a critical success to work just kills the feat dead for me. Way too circumstantial for a feat of that level and doesnt even get a later feat (tax) like the ranger does to make it viable.

It may be better with Lore Skills, but I did try a similar skill on the Investigator and requiring a critical success made the feat nearly useless. It was the Known Weaknesses feat. It rarely activated.

It's another one of those strange choices by the game designers to devalue intelligence based skills or feats. I'm not sure why they do it.

What math are they looking at where a critical success looks like it occurs with any regularity?

What math are they looking at where a critical success looks like it occurs with any regularity?

Hence my jab about the Archmage's Regalia, which at 5 relics turns successes into crits.

My Wizard build is obviously highly specific to me and my table, and we run with FA.

Pathfinder Agent & Scrollmaster feel like real musts to me. I have two wands of Pocket Library, which I keep upgrading, and spreadsheet for my Thorough Reports feat. I have type 3 Ring of Wizardry right now, so the fact that I'm funnelling all recall knowledges through Arcana means I have that +2 bonus as well.

So its doable... but its a lot of investment, and none of it is really from being a Wizard.

The more I read of my remaster book, the more I think wizard will be more than fine.

Sure, some people might not like it mechanically, some might find it boring. But objectively I can't think of them as weak at all.

Between being and to cast 4 spells a day at level 1, and a once a fight focus spell. It's a strong beginning chassis of spell use only really rivaled by cleric, who has more slots but less options with them

Both conceal and energy ablation are great general picks

Bespell strikes is still there for those that want that decent third action no map strike

Linked focus is there and is great, even moreso for unified theory

Spell protection array is useful one action for any magical oriented encounter

Convincing illusion no longer has a feat tax

Explosive arrival for general summons is honestly really good.

Summon a creature that can cast heal... It blows up on arrival and heals you.. I'll take that

Knowledge is power might require a critical rk but giving that kind of -1 swing for a minute at no other cost is great.

They might be general "spell guy" but they are good at it

By fourth level being able to hit 2 enemies for 3d4 and another for 3d6 every turn with no MAP isn't too bad a place to be

The more I read of my remaster book, the more I think wizard will be more than fine.

That strongly depends on your definition of "fine". Playable? Absolutely! Powerful? ... Yeah, kinda. Fun and distinct from other classes? ... not sure about that one.

Many people think spontaneous casters are inherently better than prepared ones. I personally think they are about equal, all things considered. But I also loathe repeating the same spells over and over (or even every day), so the idea that Sorcerer is better because he can spend all his slots on Slow doesn't quite click wit me, no matter how "optimal" it might be.

My main issue is still that the class boils down to "cast spells". And spells are great! But there's tons of classes out there who can "cast spells" AND get something else that's interesting on top. The only other purely spell slot based class is the sorcerer and at least he has significant better feats.

Yes, you get "more spells". Maybe "more flexibility" or even "more high end spells", depending on your thesis. But you're still just casting spells. And they aren't better in any way shape or form than those of other classes.

Most of the old Wizard feats are bland. Some are good, but overall, wizard is a class that doesn't get much out of its class feats. The new feats (few as they are) are also not super interesting and don't really add anything to look forward to. At least Spell Penetration is now useful more often because enemies might stand in your Protection Array, I guess?

The wizard is in an ok spot power-wise. It's just not very interesting in play. Or at least it doesn't do anything another caster can't do basically just as well. I had really hoped for them to get ... more. Not even more power, just more mechanical identity. More interesting feats - especially after seeing what they've done for the Witch and Cleric.

Don't get me wrong they could have done more with the schools. But what you describe is boring/bland. Wich is subjective. It's like when people tell me fighter is bland because no subclass, even though that's probably my favorite thing about them. They are the premier striker. Wizard is the premier spells guy.

Many people think spontaneous casters are inherently better than prepared ones. I personally think they are about equal, all things considered. But I also loathe repeating the same spells over and over (or even every day), so the idea that Sorcerer is better because he can spend all his slots on Slow doesn't quite click wit me, no matter how "optimal" it might be.

See I think on that and go totally the opoosite direction. Because the Sourcer can spam all its spell slots through a couple of spells that are universally good eg Slow, Magic Missile, Scorching Ray - then I can use the rest of my repertoire to have some fun and take a few odd spells that are sometimes tasty. Where as the poor wizard is stuck with his guesses from the start of the day. Some of which will be wrong.

The new feats (few as they are) are also not super interesting and don't really add anything to look forward to.

At least Summoning now has an option to make it look interesting. I don't have to multiclass into Summoner to get Ostentatious Arrival anymore.

I really do like that Pazio have made an effort to improve many of the under appreciated parts of the game.

The more I read of my remaster book, the more I think wizard will be more than fine.

Sure, some people might not like it mechanically, some might find it boring. But objectively I can't think of them as weak at all.

Between being and to cast 4 spells a day at level 1, and a once a fight focus spell. It's a strong beginning chassis of spell use only really rivaled by cleric, who has more slots but less options with them

Both conceal and energy ablation are great general picks

Bespell strikes is still there for those that want that decent third action no map strike

Linked focus is there and is great, even moreso for unified theory

Spell protection array is useful one action for any magical oriented encounter

Convincing illusion no longer has a feat tax

Explosive arrival for general summons is honestly really good.

Summon a creature that can cast heal... It blows up on arrival and heals you.. I'll take that

Knowledge is power might require a critical rk but giving that kind of -1 swing for a minute at no other cost is great.

They might be general "spell guy" but they are good at it

Why do you consider Conceal and Energy Ablation great general picks? Or Convincing Illusion?

You have one reaction for Convincing Illusion. An opponent can use multiple seek actions to see through your illusion. The chance to counter saves or Perception is only for a save to disbelieve your illusion and not for a damaging effect. It's a very narrow ability.

I don't consider those feats having much value because the would be dead feats most of the time.

Martialmasters wrote:

The more I read of my remaster book, the more I think wizard will be more than fine.

Sure, some people might not like it mechanically, some might find it boring. But objectively I can't think of them as weak at all.

Between being and to cast 4 spells a day at level 1, and a once a fight focus spell. It's a strong beginning chassis of spell use only really rivaled by cleric, who has more slots but less options with them

Both conceal and energy ablation are great general picks

Bespell strikes is still there for those that want that decent third action no map strike

Linked focus is there and is great, even moreso for unified theory

Spell protection array is useful one action for any magical oriented encounter

Convincing illusion no longer has a feat tax

Explosive arrival for general summons is honestly really good.

Summon a creature that can cast heal... It blows up on arrival and heals you.. I'll take that

Knowledge is power might require a critical rk but giving that kind of -1 swing for a minute at no other cost is great.

They might be general "spell guy" but they are good at it

Why do you consider Conceal and Energy Ablation great general picks? Or Convincing Illusion?

You have one reaction for Convincing Illusion. An opponent can use multiple seek actions to see through your illusion. The chance to counter saves or Perception is only for a save to disbelieve your illusion and not for a damaging effect. It's a very narrow ability.

I don't consider those feats having much value because the would be dead feats most of the time.

Energy ablation possibly

Other two, you are having a creativity problem in my opinion. If the opponent is making multiple seek actions a round your GM is meta gaming or you made a very clunky illusion.

Martialmasters wrote:

The more I read of my remaster book, the more I think wizard will be more than fine.

Sure, some people might not like it mechanically, some might find it boring. But objectively I can't think of them as weak at all.

Between being and to cast 4 spells a day at level 1, and a once a fight focus spell. It's a strong beginning chassis of spell use only really rivaled by cleric, who has more slots but less options with them

Both conceal and energy ablation are great general picks

Bespell strikes is still there for those that want that decent third action no map strike

Linked focus is there and is great, even moreso for unified theory

Spell protection array is useful one action for any magical oriented encounter

Convincing illusion no longer has a feat tax

Explosive arrival for general summons is honestly really good.

Summon a creature that can cast heal... It blows up on arrival and heals you.. I'll take that

Knowledge is power might require a critical rk but giving that kind of -1 swing for a minute at no other cost is great.

They might be general "spell guy" but they are good at it

Why do you consider Conceal and Energy Ablation great general picks? Or Convincing Illusion?

You have one reaction for Convincing Illusion. An opponent can use multiple seek actions to see through your illusion. The chance to counter saves or Perception is only for a save to disbelieve your illusion and not for a damaging effect. It's a very narrow ability.

I don't consider those feats having much value because the would be dead feats most of the time.

The enemy is still burning more actions at that point, and each action requires a successful role. I wouldn't say Convincing Illusion is great against multiple enemies but those have been good for the illusionist. But against a solo boss, trading your reaction for one of their actions seem pretty good, especially if it is on a spell that virtually guarantees they already wasted actions like a well placed Illusory Object.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Martialmasters wrote:

The more I read of my remaster book, the more I think wizard will be more than fine.

Sure, some people might not like it mechanically, some might find it boring. But objectively I can't think of them as weak at all.

Between being and to cast 4 spells a day at level 1, and a once a fight focus spell. It's a strong beginning chassis of spell use only really rivaled by cleric, who has more slots but less options with them

Both conceal and energy ablation are great general picks

Bespell strikes is still there for those that want that decent third action no map strike

Linked focus is there and is great, even moreso for unified theory

Spell protection array is useful one action for any magical oriented encounter

Convincing illusion no longer has a feat tax

Explosive arrival for general summons is honestly really good.

Summon a creature that can cast heal... It blows up on arrival and heals you.. I'll take that

Knowledge is power might require a critical rk but giving that kind of -1 swing for a minute at no other cost is great.

They might be general "spell guy" but they are good at it

Why do you consider Conceal and Energy Ablation great general picks? Or Convincing Illusion?

You have one reaction for Convincing Illusion. An opponent can use multiple seek actions to see through your illusion. The chance to counter saves or Perception is only for a save to disbelieve your illusion and not for a damaging effect. It's a very narrow ability.

I don't consider those feats having much value because the would be dead feats most of the time.

Energy ablation possibly

Other two, you are having a creativity problem in my opinion. If the opponent is making multiple seek actions a round your GM is meta gaming or you made a very clunky illusion.

If my illusion is good, then they shouldn't even try to disbelieve in the first place. You are using an illusion during encounter mode if you are using a reaction to offset their Perception or will save? Or does the reaction work in exploration?

If you are using an illusion during encounter mode, things are moving so quickly why are you doing it? Are your martials not wrecking the target? Are you using an illusionary wall rather than a wall spell? Why are you using an illusionary wall over a wall spell? If you are using an illusionary wall or cage, you can only affect one target. So the others break through?

Conceal spell? Is this during exploration? Or are you using Conceal spell during encounter mode? How often are you using it to make it a worthwhile feat over something you would use more often?

For me, I don't like theoretical. I like actual play including how often you use a feat and in what situation.

Feats people think are good using only hypothetical scenarios rather than a show of real use and how often make feats seem better than they are.

So feats should be looked at within the group dynamic of what is going on with the encounter and the entire group versus just a hypothetical situation where the wizard is acting alone. I don't see those three feats as other than highly situational feats that would be mostly dead feats in a great many encounters unless you built a strategy around their use. I'm not sure what that strategy would be.

I am trying to wait until I can read it all for myself, but subtle as a trait for spells is looking overpowered from what people are talking about on these boards. It will look really really cool to players until there is an NPC who can cast most of their spells without anyone in the party being able to make a perception check to notice. I am hoping there is some explanation that will explain when characters can make some kind of check to notice subtle spell casting.

The subtle trait is mostly on spells that require it to function anyway. Needing to loudly announce that you're charming someone or turning invisible rather defeats the purpose. Shows up on some mental incapacitation spells. You'll have to go back to figuring out if somebody's acting strange the old fashioned way. And if your gm wants to wipe you with a +3 caster incapacitating you, you weren't getting out of that, subtle or not.

The subtle trait is mostly on spells that require it to function anyway. Needing to loudly announce that you're charming someone or turning invisible rather defeats the purpose. Shows up on some mental incapacitation spells. You'll have to go back to figuring out if somebody's acting strange the old fashioned way. And if your gm wants to wipe you with a +3 caster incapacitating you, you weren't getting out of that, subtle or not.

It's on those spells and also all other spells if you have the conceal spell feat

There's no check associated with the subtle trait. It just works, though it only hides manifestations and incantations not spell effects.