Player Core Preview: The Wizard, Remastered

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

That is a really big mistake. And one I will probably have to house rule in my more intrigue-based games. It is the kind of problem that will only raise its head if players get too out of control with it, or if an AP writer or GM makes a conceal spell manipulator NPC, but it is a big narrative and mechanical switch for most casters needing to make 2 skill checks to cast subtly to no skill checks and no way to notice. I wonder if super-spell intrigue is on deck for an AP, or if they just figure GMs and players who will dial up the nondetection/divination espionage/counter-espionage game will be mature enough to talk through what all that means for their own tables and most players won’t.

gesalt wrote:

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

That's not such a big deal though. It takes an action, most spell ranges are pitiful, and no enemy comes with it by default. One more way for a gm to blindside you isn't particularly special and they could already do that by giving their custom caster enemy an absurd stealth and deception bonus and the effects of conceal/silent spell.

The combat utility of conceal spell is really just it lets you get around silence since silence now just turns off the ability to cast non-subtle spells in it, I'm not really looking at new player feats and judging them based on what if an npc has it though because that doesn't feel like how those really get built anyway?

To me, it is a pretty big world building pitfall for a common level 2 feat to be “GMs, using this against your players is unfair and will create an environment of paranoia and mistrust that will pretty much erode the foundations of in-world society.”

Charm is subtle by default? Any caster who has it can be casting it in a room full of 100 people with 0 percent chance of being noticed? Detect magic only counts as a level 1 spell for nondetection, a third level spell, meaning any kingdom worth its salt is going to have to be employing a lot of magical counter measures to be resistant to even mid level infiltration and espionage. Again, I’ll wait until I see all the moving pieces before getting too worried. But it is a big change.

I have a character with Cryptic Spell (which is similar) and by level 12 the only time I have had an opportunity to use it was to cheat when a different party member was in a 1-on-1 duel.

May we assume that it's still a Perception (Sense Motive) check to see if a creature is acting normally or under the effects of charm/compulsions? The casting of the spell isn't detectable now (perhaps over correction from being dang near impossible to hide) but surely the effects may still be noticed?

May we assume that it's still a Perception (Sense Motive) check to see if a creature is acting normally or under the effects of charm/compulsions? The casting of the spell isn't detectable now (perhaps over correction from being dang near impossible to hide) but surely the effects may still be noticed?

The subtle spell does nothing to hide the effects of the spell at all, explicitly. All it does is make it so you don't sparkle or make obvious gestures/sounds while casting.

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

May we assume that it's still a Perception (Sense Motive) check to see if a creature is acting normally or under the effects of charm/compulsions? The casting of the spell isn't detectable now (perhaps over correction from being dang near impossible to hide) but surely the effects may still be noticed?

The subtle spell does nothing to hide the effects of the spell at all, explicitly. All it does is make it so you don't sparkle or make obvious gestures/sounds while casting.

It really should have been named Subtle Casting

Interesting, subtle trait eh.

Blave wrote:

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.

I don't mind occasionally being wrong. Making the best out of whatever spells I have left in any given situation is fun for me.

If you are casting the same spell all the time then that is on you. There are other options. There are other tactics. Try them.

I'm not using the same spells all the time. Quite the opposite, in fact. I played a bard and a sorcerer to level 9 and barely ever used the same spell twice in any given day or even play session. But then I had the same spell selection the next day.

My AV cleric literally switches out every spell he used for another one the next day. (Except font slots, obviously.)

Quote:

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.

Stealing mediocre feats from other classes doesn't exactly make the wizard feel more unique.

I'd much rather have them turn augment summoning into something less terrible, but only the name has changed as far as I know.

The combat utility of conceal spell is really just it lets you get around silence since silence now just turns off the ability to cast non-subtle spells in it, I'm not really looking at new player feats and judging them based on what if an npc has it though because that doesn't feel like how those really get built anyway?

There's one more totally insignificant thing: you now can cast any of your 2-action spells underwater without losing your air. Or Holding Breath in general.

Ok, maybe not casting just in cover while stealthing, but in total cover, like around the corner, should be possible.

Without the books, I'm not sure if I understand apparently changed mechanics about covert casting, correctly yet. Put my questions to dedicated thread: Remaster: Covert casting mechanics [...]

There could be massive combat utility to conceal spell if subtle spells cannot be identified and thus cannot be countered. I would guess that spell that have obvious descriptions about energy pouring from your hands and such would still potentially be identifiable, but unless a lot of spell descriptions are getting carefully re-written, there are a lot of spells with effects that are not massive energy bursts or other, easily identifiable effects.

It seems to me that a fair number of players complained about how difficult it was to pull of concealed casting in situations like social encounters, where everyone would be like "what are you doing?" when you start casting spells at the formal ball. But making it where casters can just now cast spells all the time out of combat, without the casting of the spell being noticeable is going to get under GMs skins very quickly. And then if the GMs turns that around on players, and assumes that such a powerful, common feat would be incredibly popular, especially amongst wizards/casters who are mostly not adventurers, it is inviting the kind of paranoid espionage/counter-espionage style of play that can be fun, but can also be very exhausting. Charm and suggestion are very low level spells, then there are things like dominate and modify memory and story telling in this world gets a lot more complicated.

All of that could be used in the old system, but being good at stealth and deception is tough. Silent spell was a level 4 feat requiring a 2nd level feat, making it way more of a commitment, and you still needed to be good at stealth. Casting subtly around higher level NPCs was a generally bad idea that took some set up to be feasible. Now a level 5 caster can cast a level 1 charm spell on a low level servant in the middle of a social encounter with a level 15 NPC present and the NPC would have to be actively making perception checks on the servant to notice if anything was amiss. That is a big change.

The combat utility of conceal spell is really just it lets you get around silence since silence now just turns off the ability to cast non-subtle spells in it...

This is a significant upgrade!

Secondary Detonation Array [one-action] Feat 14

Manipulate, Spellshape, Wizard

You divert some of your spell’s energy into an unstable runic array. If your next action is to Cast a Spell that deals damage, has no duration, and affects an area, a glowing magic circle appears in a 5-foot burst within that area. At the beginning of your next turn, the circle detonates, dealing 1d6 force damage per rank of the spell to all creatures within the circle, with a basic Reflex save against your spell DC. If the spell dealt a different type of damage, the circle deals this type of damage instead (or one type of your choice if the spell could deal multiple types of damage).

Is there some restriction on this Feat to prevent it from working with Cantrips?

I also don't see any language about if heightening a spell does *not* increase it's Rank, which would also address my worries (but make this Feat questionably sub-par).

Cantrips auto-heighten, which would mean getting the maximum damage every time for a backup spell.

---------

While the "just walk away" still leaves enemies with options (without further set play), I don't think it's a good idea to add a 1-Action rider that does more damage than the base Cantrip, IMO.

Certainly a must-pick for anyone that casts spells that meet the criteria, even as a "don't Stride next to me or it'll pop" tool.

I think the Feat might also do with a bit of clarification on what "has no duration" means. Something like Scatter Scree does create difficult terrain, but that is essentially a 2nd, separate effect from the damage burst.

Something like (new) Caustic Blast does 1d8 + [1d8 (H2)]

At rank 5, CB is doing 3d8 w/ a basic reflex save,
Secondary Det will deal 5d6 w/ a basic reflex save.

------------------

Another one would be the "over-tuned on purpose" Fireball.

at R5, fireball does 6d6 + 4d6 --> 10d6.
Secondary Det will deal 5d6, half the spell's damage for no slot, and at the same action/dmg.

That's pretty serious, but more importantly, it seems much more appropriate when the cost of the Feat's effect is tied to spending a high rank spell slot.

------------------

Any amount of language that would decrease how the Feat interacts with Cantrips would be plenty sufficient. IMO, casters in general really ought to be better incentivized to use their spell slots. And in addition to the other buffs to Cantrips, I'm rather concerned Cantrips might become primary tools instead of being intentionally sub-par backups.

Maybe it's due to me playing Alchemists, but this seems a little too generous for a single Feat, even a L14 one...

[...] I'm rather concerned Cantrips might become primary tools instead of being intentionally sub-par backups.

Maybe it's due to me playing Alchemists, [...]

(Italics mine.) I see where you are coming from, though I'd respectfully question your word "intentionally". (Note: I've simply not come across a source for that alleged intention, yet. Please tell me if there is one. I missed many important parts of PF2e during my reading.)

Anyway, in absolute terms, Alchemists won't become better, if cantrips were worse. Actually, I'd say alchemy and casting both do need a reliable, ideally attrition-free while still capable feature, especially for long adventuring days.

Background: I've seen many multi-difficult-encounter days in adventure paths... All too quickly cantrips and perpetual infusions became the last weapon of choice... (Or were right from the start when one anticipated the day wrongly.)

Hence, I'd rather suggest buffing perpetual infusions (and making them come online earlier, or even from the start). In general, I'd definitely support your position of buffing alchemy, though.

Any amount of language that would decrease how the Feat interacts with Cantrips would be plenty sufficient.

Why? The feat working with cantrips seems fine. Something has gone kind of wrong if you're heavily relying on cantrips at level 14 anyways.

Trip.H wrote:

Any amount of language that would decrease how the Feat interacts with Cantrips would be plenty sufficient.

Why? The feat working with cantrips seems fine. Something has gone kind of wrong if you're heavily relying on cantrips at level 14 anyways.

How many Arcane cnatrips are there that do damage in an area without a duration anyway? Spending your entire turn for this feat and a cantrip, which puts you very close to the action given their low ranges, seems fine to me?

The damage of the Secondary Det is tied to spell Rank.

Normal spells must cost their slot to be used. For any spell that's NOT max Rank, you then get a small Secondary Det. Meaning the Feat is lackluster most of the time.

The way spells comparatively scale vs Cantrips is completely thrown out of whack when a Caus Blst can pop for an extra max R d6.

When dmg spells are not in your top slots, this completely changes the math behind how you decide your damage routine.

Why prep a single target dmg spell (that's not even compatible w/ the Feat) when you can spend one more action and cast a Cantrip that'll either steal actions to avoid, or **do more damage** than the equivalent ranked spell?

----------

Even Focus spells have limitations that keep the Feat in check. They both have to deal with usually finicky Heighten ranks, and have limited uses per combat.

----------

Cantrips are designed to be completely unrestricted in their use.

The only thing that STOPS Cantrips from being used as primary tools is that their numbers are intentionally lower.

As soon as their numbers can reliably exceed real spells, you've broken your own design.

And in the 3-action economy, saying "they can just move" is WORSE. Being able to force always 1, often 2 enemies to move out of the circle is usually better than the reflex save dmg.

-------------

IMO, I would have less issue with the Feat if it just changed the Rank d6 into

"the highest Rank spell you can cast d6"

There is no reason to screw up the balance between spells and Cantrips like this does.

If the effect is too strong for low rank AoE spells to get the auto-heightened boost, then it's too strong period.
If the effect +max d6 is not too strong for cantrips, then it should also be fine to give that +max d6 to low rank spell cast by a high L caster.

There is no reason to screw up the balance between spells and Cantrips like this does.

It doesn't though. Like, you're still casting a cantrip over a ranked spell, which is a big loss of power at high levels.

The fact that your rider on secondary detonation is still the same doesn't change that.

There is no issue here.

The new Conceal Spell is definitely an upgrade. Subtle Trait as part of some spells makes it non-mandatory, but still could be interesting for an invisible caster or in conjunction with silence against non-conceal spell casters.

I like the advanced Unified Theory focus spell, but 30 feet makes it too limited. I wish it had been sight or at least 120 feet. I might change it to that in my house rules. Within 30 feet is a place a lot of casters don't want to be in combat.

The new Conceal Spell is definitely an upgrade. Subtle Trait as part of some spells makes it non-mandatory, but still could be interesting for an invisible caster or in conjunction with silence against non-conceal spell casters.

I like the advanced Unified Theory focus spell, but 30 feet makes it too limited. I wish it had been sight or at least 120 feet. I might change it to that in my house rules. Within 30 feet is a place a lot of casters don't want to be in combat.

Many good spells are 30ft. Including Dirge of Doom. Yet Bards often use it.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

The new Conceal Spell is definitely an upgrade. Subtle Trait as part of some spells makes it non-mandatory, but still could be interesting for an invisible caster or in conjunction with silence against non-conceal spell casters.

I like the advanced Unified Theory focus spell, but 30 feet makes it too limited. I wish it had been sight or at least 120 feet. I might change it to that in my house rules. Within 30 feet is a place a lot of casters don't want to be in combat.

Many good spells are 30ft. Including Dirge of Doom. Yet Bards often use it.

Bards and wizards don't operate the same.

Even an enemy caster won't want to be close to the battle possibly putting them much farther than 30 feet from the wizard as they stay back from the martials.

It's not a great distance for an enemy caster or a PC caster that wants to attack at range.

It's one of those focus spells that would be better with a longer range given the range casters can operate at.

There is always someone on this forum ready to defend a bad design decision. 30 feet for an ability like the advanced Universalist focus spell is too short range. It makes it less usable. I'd prefer wizard focus spells operate at the range wizards are capable of operating at, which is often 50 feet or more from the battle, especially with Reach Spell, a commonly taken metamagic feat given its excellent usability.

30 feet

That is an unrealistic request. A lot of encounters happen in rooms smaller than that. 6HP casters are squishy but they aren't that squishy.

Yeah, I have a lot of combats in rooms where 30ft is enough to hit the opposite wall. If you plan on standing more than 30 feet away, you are standing in another room.

Most spells and effects in general in this system have a 30ft base range. The system neither wants nor expects you to engage at particularly long ranges for any significant amount of time.

Some people play pf2e, others play heavily home brewed amalgamations then think their play state is relevant to feedback.

Gortle, PossibleCabbage, gesalt, Martialmasters, you could do better instead of just disregarding Deriven's position on the pretence that his homerules have any significance for this issue. Really.
No, close quarters dungeon encounters don't matter. Because the game is not played only there. And shouldn't be.
Yes, it does matter that casters stand behind the front line and even if we believe that only 30 ft abilities matter (which I definitely don't) Derivens's argument that the distance between casters would be more than 30ft is absolutely sound.
60 ft is the absolute minimum for such ability. I'd say 90, because Reach and longer range spells are absolutely a thing.

Most spells and effects in general in this system have a 30ft base range. The system neither wants nor expects you to engage at particularly long ranges for any significant amount of time.

I mean, yes, that is the "base" range. As in, for anything ranged but short, that's the default distance.

You get get stuff that's intended to be "shorter" range, like bombs and thrown stuff.

Then you get crossbows w/ 200 ft range increments, pistols w/ 80ft, and bows w/ 100ft.

Lightning Bolt is 120ft, Fireball is 500ft (ugh), ect.

My point is that picking 30ft is still an choice, and there's plenty of systems and reasons why people might want better support for ranged combat.

---------------------

As far as Secondary Detonation goes.

Leaving the Feat, which is tied to character level to unlock, to scale *down* to spell rank in most circumstances, is just bad design when cantrips exist. It's also just needlessly restrictive when it could easily work w/ all primary damage spells.

Secondary Det only works at 100% power when you are casting from a super expensive max-slot spell, or when you cast something that auto-heightens.
That Feat tips the scales closer to "just use Cantrips" and btw, yes, when the player book introduces cantrips, it says something like:

"Cantrips are a special kind of spell that's weaker than other spells but can be used with greater freedom and flexibility."

The idea that I have to go to the book to justify the notion that cantrips are supposed to be weak is mind-boggling.

I think everyone is a little bit right here. The "spells should be further than 30 feet by default" ship sailed years ago. Certainly the witch wasn't remastered to assume a longer than 30 foot distance.

I also think the community undervalues how much range matters, overlooking how often encounters (even published encounters) take place in wide open maps. And there are spells (and weapons) which excel at those ranges which can otherwise prevent enemy retaliation. But those spells have their range written into their power budget. Check out Howling Blizzard. It gained a serious ranged and flexibility boost, plus difficult terrain. But it lost 2d6 for it, placing it just on the normal fireball damage track.

I value that PF2 has encounter design that allows for many different kinds of encounters.

30ft is very close range. As long as a spell only takes 2 or fewer actions though, the reach metamagic feat is doubling the range of your abilities and I think there is intentionality to not making every ability have so much range that an extra 30 ft is meaningless.

I think there's a design principle of "a spell having a range of 30" has a cost built into it of "the thing you hit with that spell can likely get to you on its next turn." So these spells are allowed to be more powerful because of that cost.

It's similar to the idea that melee weapons do more damage than ranged weapons, because melee weapons have the cost built in of "you are where the danger is."

So I don't think that simply increasing the range on a given spell (barring metamagic, which is its own cost) is necessarily easy or clean to do.

Gortle, PossibleCabbage, gesalt, Martialmasters, you could do better instead of just disregarding Deriven's position on the pretence that his homerules have any significance for this issue.

You are conflating issues and people here - don't. I objected to one point of his argument. The key point actually. Yes building a Wizard for melee is 90% suicidal, but building for short range is mostly reasonable. For sure building for range 500 ft is ideal but it is only fireballers and Rangers who like such distances. It doesn't suit most parties and is hard to represent on VTTs and physical maps so it happens much less.

Yes I have objected to Deriven's house rules in the past. But that is because Deriven argues the 5 and 10% differences and insists there is only one true way. There is not.

No, close quarters dungeon encounters don't matter. Because the game is not played only there.

I never said that. I merely pointed out that in most adventure paths close range encounters are common and forced.

Errenor wrote:

Gortle, PossibleCabbage, gesalt, Martialmasters, you could do better instead of just disregarding Deriven's position on the pretence that his homerules have any significance for this issue.

You are conflating issues and people here - don't. I objected to one point of his argument. The key point actually. Yes building a Wizard for melee is 90% suicidal, but building for short range is mostly reasonable. For sure building for range 500 ft is ideal but it is only fireballers and Rangers who like such distances. It doesn't suit most parties and is hard to represent on VTTs and physical maps so it happens much less.

Yes, it seems I did a bit. But the issue was the chain of answers which were unfair and had mostly no relationship to the topic. As is this your continuation. The issue was the range of one new focus spell of the wizard, with a quite high rank - 4th. Which allows to cast back an enemy spell. 30 ft is not nearly enough for that.

Errenor wrote:

No, close quarters dungeon encounters don't matter. Because the game is not played only there.

I never said that. I merely pointed out that in most adventure paths close range encounters are common and forced.

Which doesn't matter for the topic of that spell's range.

While not a Wizard specific thing in and of itself, the potential to craft 4 scrolls per day is a pretty big change.

If we can workout some shennigans where we can replace sleeping with crafting time, it could be an excellent pick-me-up to overall Wizardry. For example, can a Ring of Sustenance now be leveraged into 4 scrolls during a night of work?

While not a Wizard specific thing in and of itself, the potential to craft 4 scrolls per day is a pretty big change.

If we can workout some shennigans where we can replace sleeping with crafting time, it could be an excellent pick-me-up to overall Wizardry. For example, can a Ring of Sustenance now be leveraged into 4 scrolls during a night of work?

I went through this w/ my GM so I'll condense all that.

RaW it's maddeningly vague, but pretty safe to say that downtime days and adventuring days are supposed to be mutually exclusive.

The Ring still requires 2 hrs sleep, so it saves 6 hrs each and every normal humanoid's day.

My GM allows my character to bank "1/2" downtime days any time we get sleep, including adventuring days.

It is entirely AP/campaign dependent as to how to balance this,

For Amb Vlts, we are either trying to cleanse debuffs on "days off" or we are diving down just about every day. The "activates after a week of being worn" on the Ring was absolutely brutal, it was basically a full level up before it even turned on (and I think my GM may have not noticed that clause).

For Amb Vlts, it's barely been noticed, and increasing it to a full "1 days" each low-sleep night would not have changed much of anything.

----------

Now, there is one odd little quirk of wording if you take Quick Setup.

If you rush the crafting setup and get the time down below a downtime day, you instead remove that language and are only told that it takes "2 hours" for consumables and "4 hours" for permanent items.

W/ Paizo it's hard to tell if it's RaI that you can now craft during adventuring days, but investing a Feat to make it work may also help smooth over GM misgivings.

Don't forget that if you can buy the consumables, 95% of the time it's better to just do that.

Rushing the Finishing can let you get 2x the Earn an Income discount, and that boosted 6 gp per day at L8 Crafting Master is the only way to pull ahead money-wise.

If you've got a BoH, it might eventually come up to carry your crafting station w/ you and take a 2-hr pause to whip something up. This may be even more impactful for a Wizard that can make Spell Scrolls than for an Alchemist

I did that once, and TBH my party barely tolerated turning the 20min heal into a 2-hr "make some L1 ghost charges" intermission.

Quick Setup is meant for the complex crafting rules. I don't have my copy of the remaster yet, so I don't know if the new crafting rules actual interact with the complex rules in any meaningful way. So I would be otherwise disinclined to plan around them liked that.

That said, you are correct about the craft activity having the downtime trait however.

There is no reason within the downtime rules I can see that means that "Night time, while others are sleeping" cannot be used for downtime.

As long as you meet all the other requirements for your particular downtime activity, it seems fine to use those time periods.

Quick Setup is meant for the complex crafting rules. I don't have my copy of the remaster yet, so I don't know if the new crafting rules actual interact with the complex rules in any meaningful way. So I would be otherwise disinclined to plan around them liked that.

That said, you are correct about the craft activity having the downtime trait however.

There is no reason within the downtime rules I can see that means that "Night time, while others are sleeping" cannot be used for downtime.

As long as you meet all the other requirements for your particular downtime activity, it seems fine to use those time periods.

This is off memory, but I think there was text explaining something to the effect of ~"you can only exert yourself with productive work for at most 8hrs a day." With dungeon time included in that.

The game clearly did not want people adventuring for a 4 hr chunk, then getting a full "day of downtime" after that. It's intended that if you do any adventuring, it's not a time constraint, but an exhaustion one. Same goes for doubling up on multiple downtime activities. They don't prescribe how long exactly you spend each day doing inscribing a scroll, ect, precisely so that players don't try to fit more work into a single day.

Meaning RaW/RaI, any adventuring or downtime activity blocks any others from being done in that day. No crafting at night after you get back from the dungeon. It's supposed to be a decision to do one or the other.

Main reason for such a limitation is that all downtime activities are in the same boat, including retraining.

While a great idea and worth discussing, using the Ring of Sustenance for bonus crafting time is already outside the rules and is GM fiat to begin with.

Pointing to the 2-hr quick craft w/in that Feat is a good way to indicate there may be some intention that it's okay to break those rules w/ certain character investment. Magic item included.

Well here's one useful piece of evidence: Czepeku are the most subscribed map makers on Patreon and a lot of other people use their free maps, and those things can get pretty big.

Just to make sure: I assume spellcaster multiclass archetypes still require you to get their tradition's skill up to legendary for master Spellcasting? Trying to figure out where to take my next Wizard and plan his archetype(s).

Deriven Firelion wrote:

30 feet

That is an unrealistic request. A lot of encounters happen in rooms smaller than that. 6HP casters are squishy but they aren't that squishy.

Just as long as they keep out of step and melee reach range they are normally OK. Or do you play without any sort of a front line?

Why would you ask this when you know that we play with a front line? You remind me all the time of all the other stuff, you would think you would recall we play vertically meaning a front line with casters and ranged behind, preferably at farther than 30 feet. We'll gladly set up in a hallway well past 30 feet and just wreck creatures with range if they feel like staying in their rooms to try to draw us into 30 foot or less range.

I know it may be common for regular groups to push into a room. Tactically speaking we gladly set up at the door, crowd the door so no one can get past the choke point, and wreck creatures with ranged attacks letting them ram into the martials to get shredded wasting actions to move.

We also take into account auras, gazes, certain spells like slow, 20 and 30 foot burst spells or cones, and the fact range is the friend of the caster as well keeping big spreads for group defense to cut down on group healing.

Arcane Countermeasures, the advanced focus spell of the imperial sorcerer, operates at 120 feet. That makes sense because if a caster can, they should exploit the range advantage for defense.

The intelligent way to play is not be within 30 feet of creatures or even necessarily each other.

I personally consider Reach Spell one of the very best metamagic feats in the game and think of it as almost a must take for nearly every caster as its a 1 action "move" into range for 30 foot range spells that doesn't actually require you to move into dangerous range.

I'm never quite sure why the sorcerer designer takes that into account when designing Arcane Countermeasures, while the Wizard designer takes a spell with a similar function in terms of capitalizing on another spell being cast and gives the wizard a limited 30 foot tactical distance.

I think of this in actual play where the enemy might be part of a group and the enemy caster is also setting up behind a frontline which often puts them well beyond the 30 foot distance of this spell. Enemy casters also greatly benefit from keeping their distance from martials looking to trip and shred them.

It's what I consider part of the design thought process that seems to not take into account how an intelligent player might take advantage of being a spellcaster not wanting to walk into every aura, gaze, or what not or be within one move of a martial creature or the best use for this spell being on a caster that is also behind a frontline well over 30 feet away for the same reasons.

I'll probably house rule it to 60 to 120 feet to make it more usable and intelligently implemented taking into account how a wizard player would tactically deal with opposing casters from range.

Why would you ask this when you know that we play with a front line?

Because that is the only party I can think of that would require a character to be that cautious. The casters in the games I play mostly locate themselves at the 30ft and 60ft ranges. They survive just fine.

Gortle wrote:

That is an unrealistic request.

Why would you ask this when you know that we play with a front line? You remind me all the time of all the other stuff, you would think you would recall we play vertically meaning a front line with casters and ranged behind, preferably at farther than 30 feet. We'll gladly set up in a hallway well past 30 feet

That's what makes it an unrealistic request: you are asking Paizo to tune feats to your table's play style, even knowing it's not the play style of most tables. That is unrealistic. I can't know what's in the dev's heads but that 30' range is probably a result of some combination of "30' is sufficient for most use cases because it matches the range at which a lot of other spells and powers work" and "longer range would make it much more powerful, and we don't want that."

The intelligent way to play is not be within 30 feet of creatures or even necessarily each other.

There is no single 'intelligent way to play,' it depends on the GM and setting. In your particular case, for instance, this is the 'intelligent way to play' only because you, as a GM, let them be safe when doing so. Why do that? Where are your wandering monsters while the wizard is back there distracted, alone, tender, and juicy? In RL if you stand 100' away from the party on the savannah, the lion stalking in the grass behind you targets you and eats you.

The real reason the 30' range is fine on that universal wizard feat is because you should be using it in coordination with allies to cast their best or particularly on point offensive spells back to back and dump your proven useless utility slots or inappropriate offensive options, not the rare occasion you want to cast back something an enemy used on you.

The real reason the 30' range is fine on that universal wizard feat is because you should be using it in coordination with allies to cast their best or particularly on point offensive spells back to back and dump your proven useless utility slots or inappropriate offensive options, not the rare occasion you want to cast back something an enemy used on you.

That is actually a good point. Though I still don't see any reason to make range less than 60 ft. Again, Reach spell...

I saw some arguing on a PF2 discord about whether it could be used on the Wizard himself to recast one spell with a different prepared slot. The weak consensus was maybe yes, with a stronger consensus that most GMs wouldn't allow it and they wouldn't be that mad when told no.

I am stuck waiting for the street date on the remastered books, but I have been thinking about the wizard a lot with all the hubub about the remastery, and something seems to have struck me about the interplay between theses and schools.

For example, the school of battle magic seems to be screaming "THIS IS THE SCHOOL FOR SPELL BLENDERS!" Fro the sounds of things, there is clarity that you can blend away your school spell slots, so having school spells that eventually aren't good as low level spells doesn't seem like it maters all that much for the Battle Mage. The Battle mage is the wizard who wants the most possible highest level slots, and is going to be using those force barrage spells from level 1 to 20 in higher level slots (because having the most high level slots of anyone combines very well with throwing down a top slot damage spell and a 1 action force bolt, followed up in the second round by a top slot damage spell and a 1 action level -1 or -2 force barrage spell for a top damage dealing caster in the game.

Sure other thesis options might have some narrative appeal, but philosophically, I think it makes sense that Battle Wizards are all about studying how to get the most possible highest level damage spells, and have a school spell list that is tailored to the assumption that lower level slots taper off. It is not a school for wizards who want to be the utility tool box. In fact, spell blending as a thesis seems like it will be the most common one for any thematically driven wizard, and spell substitution/staff will the most common theses for any tool box wizard, which will probably gravitate more towards the Ar Grammatica or Civil Wizardry school.

I kind of wish the familiar thesis had been dropped in the remastery because it feels like something that was necessary when the game was first published and there were no archetypes or witch class, but now is best accomplished from archetyping. The metamagic thesis feels like it has gotten a massive boost with some early powerhouse metamagic feats like the boost to conceal spell, but I feel like most of the people who might pick it are probably playing the game with the free-archetype rules that make getting 2 extra class feats a lot less of a commodity. It is good that it is there for PFS play and non-archetype games, but it will continue to get lots of complaints, especially with the high number of tables that seem to run free-archetype variant rules.

I think it will be fun to look at each school and think about what kinds of theses will be most drawn to each school. Especially if/when we get a lost omens book focused on arcane magic/Golarion schools of magic, which might the place where we can get several more schools of magic (like I really want Thassalonian magic ported over to the new school system as well as chelaxian devil binding and Magaambyan wizardry expanded. I wonder if an updated magus could be a part of lost omens book, or if it would have to wait for a rules focused book (most likely).

Are the Power Words still in the game or have they been OGLed?

Are the Power Words still in the game or have they been OGLed?

Someone mentioned that Power Word Kill had become Execute.