Abadar

Deriven Firelion's page

375 posts. Alias of Maddigan.


RSS

1 to 50 of 375 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

Gloom wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
SO I MISSED THE*CASTER IS UNDERPOWERED NOW* DEBATES...
You didn't miss anything of value. This is an old and tired debate that has people divided into two camps. For the most part however, anyone I've played with who has played a caster in a game for a reasonable amount of time has enjoyed it.

I've enjoyed every caster except the wizard and have no experience with the sorcerer.

The cleric is quite potent as is the druid. Both have good 1 action options and lots of flexibility.

Bard is maybe too good. I'm having a blast playing it. You can do a bit of everything and your party boosting power is second to none.

Sorcerer looks interesting, but I haven't tried it yet. I do like how you can make a very diverse sorcerer.

Wizard is very bland. His powers are unimpressive. His vaunted spell versatility is only as good as his spells. Spells in the new edition are limited and damage from spells underwhelm. Given the way you have to heighten to scale spells up, it only leaves you with about 9 to 12 truly dangerous slots depending on the save and if you've perfectly prepared for what you're fighting. I imagine wizards will become better as more options become available and more spell books are released.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Wish Mage armor was a cantrip. Never going to use it. Would have been nice to see magi able to armor themselves with magic that didn't require a high level slot.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

We had to use potions and healer's gloves hiding out in the jungle for a week or so. At 8th level we did not have spells to make a lvl 10 effect counteract check.

According to the reading of the rules, potions and healer's gloves work. Magical trait ok to have, casting spells not so much.


Kasoh wrote:

Its unlikely that a star-knife is so much better than a rapier that you would regret giving proficiency to the rogue for it.

Otherwise, I think by the book, you'll only ever get expert through whatever multiclass shenanigans you come up with.

This is how I see it. I'm going to let the rogue have equivalent proficiency in it. It's better than a knife, but not better than a rapier. It's a cool rogue weapon. No one else in our group will put it to good use. Seems like a waste of a cool weapon in an adventure path that is about as perfect for a rogue as it gets.


Quandary wrote:
Here's one tip: If you have 3rd level spells, 1st level Burning Hands has nearly no reason to prepare beyond swarms (area damage vulnerability). Because 3rd level Cantrips out do it in damage. Arcane has best damage cantrips of game by far, so use them. Electric Arc is top cantrip damage AND hits two targets with better range, so outside swarms should always be preferred to Burning Hands (Produce Flame cantrip does single target Fire damage). Just because they are humble Cantrips doesn't mean using them effectively isn't important part of Wizardry, you can't play a Wizard without understanding your spell list.

I can't electric arc on bard through feat. Is a good cantrip.

Quote:
Acting fearfully because of AoOs seems extremely odd given 2E specifically drastically reduced the number of enemies with an AoO.

Number of enemies with AoOs is reduced.Effectiveness of AoOs for enemies that have them has increased. We thought AoO reactive based abilities were mostly gone or useless now until we ran into some creatures with them. They hit hard and are dangeous when you're already getting torn up. Tail whips or strange horn attacks can be nasty.

Quote:
IMHO it's a bit strange that AFAIK you never once specified which Focus powers you have played with as Wizard, and presumably dislike using. Really there is quite a bit of variety, so it's hard to imagine everything is unlikable... If something isn't your cup of tea, play a different school that is.

You can only pick one, maybe two with feats. I picked necromancy because I liked the necromancy advanced spell. The necromancy first level spell would have been useful were it 1 action. Then you could use it to set something up. A two action, no heigtened sicken for one round focus spell is pretty lame.

Quote:
But that seems the crux of your complaint, not potential efficacy, but "not liking" and refusing to use the options they do have because they aren't "fun" to you or aren't "wizardly" enough, whatever that means. If you just don't "like" the options available to 2E Wizards, maybe it just isn't the class for you thematically.

I see the wizard as lacking options compared to the other classes. For the most part casters are balanced and well-designed. The wizard seems to be the main class with these very limited, boring, and less effective school focus powers and abilities.

Their familiar is weaker than an animal companion. Not worth taking unless you enjoy the look of a familiar.

Their metamagic feat is good if metamagic provided good options. Metamagic is limited at the moment and not very interesting. Reach and Widen just not super fun and situationally effective.

Spell blending is boring. Get a few more high level slots sacrificing lower level ones. This can be effective, but at the same time not what you want to be doing when everyone else is teeing off without having to worry about whether they have the right sword out or the right composition available.

Spell Substitution is change out your spells in 10 minutes instead of during daily preparations. Can be effective, but boring and only as effective as the number of spells in your spell book and the time you spent scouting and making knowledge checks to set up perfectly when the rest of your party can wade in and start swinging.

You don't lack for much versatility and effectiveness as a bard or druid. A bard's composition cantrips always help. Their spell selection is quite good.

Wizard could use some 1 action option upgrades.


SuperBidi wrote:
I think it comes from a misuse of the Wizard. You only speak about dealing damage and shutting down enemies with one spell. The second has been completely removed from the game unless you target low level enemies. And the first one is doing great. A Fireball still does tremendous damage if you hit a lot of enemies, I don't even understand how you get no value out of it.

I got value out of it. It didn't do zero damage. It's not a precise spell, so you have to set it up not to hit your party. Usually opening with it is best.

I get more value from Shadow Blast[/] with a bard composition cantrip than I do from [i]fireball on it's own. The number of times that +1 attack and damage has added to a battle making a miss a hit or a boosting overall damage given all the attack rolls of a six person party and fireball doesn't see so interesting.

Quote:
Also, the Wizard has the biggest number of top level spells per day. You can get 5-6 spells of your highest level and 5 of your second highest with first level options (Bond, Thesis and School). Then you have ways to swap them and much more, giving you the most sustainability of all casters.

You can get nearly as many spells from taking the wizard spell archetype with your base bard class along with your bard spells. Occult spell list isn't bad at all. Phantasmal Killer quite a good spell. As is confusion and shadow blast. You also get access to flyinvis and haste. So you can use your arcane spells form wizard spell feats to round out some energy damage and transport spells if they are needed.

Quote:

For 1-action actions, you have Force Bolt, Magic Missile, True Strike. It's not like if there were none of them.

In my opinion, you have too much expectations for the Wizard. And Bard is very very good, comparing anything to Bard is hard for anything.

Bard may be too good. You are right. Though I'd rather see the wizard boosted than the bard nerfed.

Druid seems pretty good too. That animal companion can be nasty. No duration. Good damage. He can't be dispelled. Send him while you cast or melee. 1 action to use.

I thought about taking the Evocation school, but I went with necromancy. At least i would have had a reason to use my focus point with evocation. That force bolt being 1 action better than the two action Call of the Grave. No idea why Call of the Grave is two actions when a bard can do that to an entire group for 1 action Dirge of Doom with no save or hit roll.


HumbleGamer wrote:

Imagine a party with a wizard and a fighter. The cleric heals and the rogue is doing sneaky stuff.

If a lvl 5 fighter ( or even a lvl 4 ) already have a Striking rune ( instead of getting it by lvl 6 ), then it is obvious that even a fireball could seem doing low damage for the time it will be available.

2 attacks which deal 2d12+4 ( average 18 dmg per attack )

Vs

A fireball which deals 6d6 ( average 24 dmg on failure, or 12 on success ).

By lvl 7 you will be able to have 2x 8d6 fireballs, whose damage is way better than melee attacks.

Obviously you won't be spamming high lvl magic all day long. Cantrip are also part of your attack routine.

I picked up Shadow Blast. A highly versatile occult spell that does 5d8 damage. It does less pure damage, but is less limited than fireball. I can do some good AoE damage while I'm boosting or defending the party with my bard cantrips. I can exploit energy weaknesses on the fly with Shadow Blast. It's a good spell. Check it out.

Quote:
A lvl 7 ray of frost will deal 4d4+4 ( average 16 dmg ) which is not bad.

I took that cantrip with my wizard archetype feat.

Quote:
Same goes for Electric Arc, for multitargeting.

I took electric arc with a feat. That is a good cantrip. And got two more Arcane Cantrips with my wizard archetype multiclass feat. I'm all good there.

Quote:

The point is, that given how medicine works, the more you proceed, the worst for a spellcaster And The better for a melee.

I say that 3/4 encounters per day during Early levels could be enough.

Medicine keeps things going a lot longer. I have a healer cleric who is medicine focused. He can keep the party in combat a long, long time.


Ruzza wrote:

You can not like something, you keep saying you don't like the class and that's okay. But you keep saying that it's poorly designed and either not knowing what that means or just not telling us what you think it means.

As for the math being out, there have been numerous threads proving the that math works just fine. What math are you referring to?

Link me to some threads showing a comparison of the bard cantrip use both for offense and defense in combat compared to wizard. I'd love to see those threads.

I've made it quite clear what I mean by poorly designed.

The wizard does not have effective and interesting 1 action options compared to the bard, druid, or cleric. Or inherent class abilities using focus points that match the bard, cleric, or druid.

I've made this clear multiple times. I keep hearing "spell versatility" or they can do these things that every class can do like recall knowledge. Or their intelligence, their intelligence, like we're still playing PF1 with only a one stat increase every 4 levels. This is PF2 where it is very easy for a class to focus on intelligence with four stats increased every 5 levels.

How about you point out to me what unique actions a wizard can do with their 1 action options that bards, clerics, and druids don't have better, more interesting, or more outstanding similar options to use? That would be a good first step in this discussion.

I have posted multiple examples of what a bard can do with their 1 action options for both offense and defense. I've also posted what a druid can do. I've yet to hear back from the pro-wizard crowd on what their interesting, useful, and equally effective 1 action options are.


Strill wrote:
It's not easy at all to take INT as a Bard. If you took INT, it means that you didn't raise Charisoma, or one of the saving throw attributes.

Am I reading something wrong? I get four stat boosts? 2/3rds of my total stats? It's not hard to raise intel with four stat boosts. A bard wizard doesn't need strength. I do intel instead of dex. Dex is mostly damaging spells and AC which doesn't seem high enough unless you're armor focused.

Quote:

Did you know that Wizards can sacrifice lower level spells to get more of those higher-level spells that you think are so all-important? Probably not if you wrote that paragraph.

C'mon man. If you know so little about the class as to write something like that, why are you here lecturing us like you're an expert?

Are you talking about the spell blending arcane thesis? You only get one thesis. I took Metamagic thesis. Is everyone supposed to take spell blending?


Lanathar wrote:
From reading what the “naysayers” are saying it sounds like they want you to provide specific gameplay examples. You might have done earlier in the thread but this has been going on a while

I can list what playing the wizard was like.

Cast a cantrip and erect the shield spell or move.

Cast a burning hands with widen metamgic do 6 points of a damage to 3 targets depending on saves.

Cast a grim tendrils on a few targets for 4d4 damage. Half made saves doing piddling damage.

I was a necromancy focused wizard. I never used my focus point because the necromancy 1st lvl focus spell sucked.

I cast a lvl 2 summon spell too. I can't remember what I summoned. I think it had +6 or +8 to hit and missed a lot doing barely any damage.

I quit after I cast my 3rd level fireball spell on a group. Rolled crappy damage, had half the enemy make their saves, and barely have any effect on the combat.

Our bard player had stopped showing up to the game due to frequency of play. All the other players were unhappy the bard had left and were giving me the "Keep playing the wizard if you're having fun" words, while continuing to complain they missed the bard. My wizard didn't feel like he was having much of an impact compared to the bard who was buffing the party and providing good support spell use and abilities.

So I switched to bard at lvl 5 and never looked back. Occult spell list has a lot of good spells. Is fairly versatile inherently. The bard compositions are amazing. I'm providing more bang for the buck as a contributor to the game.

I took the wizard archetype feats. I get a lot of spell versatility on top of my bard abilities. It fits well with my concept of a bard named Kilgrave Ghostwhisper that talks to ghosts to learn ancient histories, songs, and information.


Lanathar wrote:

Is there a way of getting a second thesis?

Because I notice a lot of people saying Wizards are not good as they don't have extra things and they are not proposing a solution.

I have solutions that I think would good. My main issue with the wizard is the lack of effective one action options.

Now some of these can be mitigated later. For example, you can get a feat that allows you to sustain a spell as a free action. This would allow you to sustain a summon for no extra cost. Which would be helpful. Problem is the summons are not that great at the moment. Some of these summons may improve with additional monster books, but at the moment an appropriate level summon is pretty lame.

The familiar is really useless. I'm sure someone will regale us with tales of the useful familiar, but on average they seem pretty useless. They were never great, but they didn't have a real cost for the old wizard either. Every wizard had a familiar for free without spending anything to obtain one. Even those old familiars were more useful than and less limited than the new ones.

Now if the familiar arcane thesis were some kind of elemental or monstrous servant like a druid animal companion, that would be enormously attractive. I'd probably still be playing my wizard if I had a familiar/summoned battle companion to use my 1 action on.

I think the metamagic option would be better if metamagic feats were better. Even Quicken Spell is one time a day. There are no ways to boost damage for metamagic. There are no ways to make DCs harder. Metamagic is mainly to increase range or area of spells. That just isn't a very useful ability the vast majority of the time.

I took the metamagic Arcane Thesis hoping for better metamagic options at a later time. I found Reach and Widen spell to both be feats I rarely used. Not much of the metamagic given the limitations looked very interesting.

My feeling is they went too far hammering the wizard. Magic needed some reining in. For the most part every caster is pretty well done. Wizard is primarily as good as his magic given he doesn't have many useful class abilities and magic is lacking in many ways given the lack of spell scaling and certain traits making spells very limited in effectiveness.


Narxiso wrote:
Well, you do know that focusing on intelligence on a bard also leaves other stats lower. Going for intelligence on a bard comes with a steeper opportunity cost than for a wizard. While it’s not impossible (and far more forgiving than most other systems) to have intelligence on a bard, that does leave a defensive stat lower. It’s impossible to be great at everything. Did you know that?

It does not come at a deeper opportunity cost. Not sure why you believe this.

You get four stats get +2 to +1...2/3rds of your stats. Do the math. No you don't have to be lacking. I am lvl 10. At lvl 10 I have raised Int, Con, Wis, Cha. I don't need dex because unless you're armor focused, it's best to just raise Con. I mostly stay out of battle.

This isn't a single stat increase like PF1 where you have to hyper focus on a single stat. You get four stat boosts every 5 levels. Very easy to raise intel.

Quote:
It doesn’t sound like you gave the P2e wizard a try. It sounds like you tried to fit different parts into molds that they aren’t made for. Incapacitation is not nearly as big of a deal as you try to make it out to be. At worst, you can avoid using those spells. There are only 22 of them, and that leaves a whole swath of others to choose from, all of which can be useful in lower slots, especially if you’re not trying to do martial damage with them. There’s command, fear, goblin pox, and spider sting for level 1 spells that can be immediately useful in combat with many more that are buffs or utility at that level alone. And many others without incapacitation are available at later levels.

I played the wizard to lvl 5. Maybe it gets better. I'll let others figure it out. At the moment, I'm a bard-wizard archetype and having more fun and feeling more useful.

Quote:
I don’t know what math you’re talking about showing that bards are designed better. In fact, I don’t see it at all in actual play. I played a bard as my first full release 2e character, and there were many times when I wished we had a wizard to fill in spots and cast in situations where my bard’s spells were not the most effective, such as against a room full of creatures before any martials stepped into the room or even in our last fight when there were three creatures far enough away that a terrain warp, fireball, or other control spell could have been useful. Yes, a bard can be built to fill in the role a wizard naturally fits, but without specific builds, bards can’t fill all of them, such as against anything with weak reflexes. As far as I can tell, they’re equivalent in usefulness, but the entirety of their roles slightly differ.

The math that shows useful options within the PF2 framework where having a strong 1 action option is huge.

Quote:

And by the way, while my group is only level 9 right now (one less than your level 10, if you didn’t know), our caster has been instrumental in our success so far. He may not cause the most damage, but he has completely reduced damage against the party and increased our damage against enemies, making fights go by faster. In fact, he’s my vote for group MVP. And he’s not a bard.

I’m just saying that I’d take a balanced party with a wizard any day, unless players are trying to do things in classes that they’re not designed to do and complain about it.

I'd take a bard over a wizard. Is your caster a wizard? Wizard is the only class I've seen weak and sorcerer I don't know about.

Since you have more experience than I do with the wizard, what is your wizard doing for his single actions or use of focus points? I'd be interested to know, truly. I like real data. If you have a real group with a wizard player, I'd like some info on how they do the job. What specialty they are. what they are using their one action for.

My bard at the moment mostly uses Harmonize with Inspire Courage and inspire defense with occasional focus point use for Inspire Heroics to give a slightly larger burst. Both those cantrips have been extremely useful.

Inspire Courage: +1 status bonus attack, damage, and fear saves in 60 foot emanation.

Inspire Defense: +1 status bonus AC, saves, and half level to physical damage in 60 foot emanation.

Those two spells are effective for many battles.

When I want to add some damage or cast a spell in support like haste or fly, I cut back to one of the above cantrips and cast my spell.

What does your wizard do for single action option? That part interests me greatly.


Fumarole wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
The class doesn't have as many options or a unique niche compared to other caster classes.
The class that effectively has unlimited spells known and can literally change what they are capable of doing every single time they do their daily preparations doesn't have as many options?

First, it doesn't have unlimited spells known. Arcane list has a lot spells, but not even close to unlimited.

Second, useful spells due to the new way spell mechanics work only makes the highest level slots useful.

Third, wizard has only one more spell slot and one focus spell more than a bard.

I'd rather have a bard cantrip or druid animal companion that always works at every level than to try to have the perfect spell ready in my 6 to 9 highest level slots.

Once again, have you read the Incapacitate trait or the summon limitations?

My bard spells can be heightened as needed with signature spells. So far my bard spells are more versatile than my wizard's spells were. Occult has Shadow Blast. A 5th level spell that can be used for 5d8 any type of damage in various areas that I can have as a signature spell. Whereas a 5th lvl fireball does 10d6 damage if the wizard prepares a 5th level fireball for the day.

The wizard casts his 1 10d6 fireball and has nothing else he can do for 35 fire damage.

The bard casts his 5d8 shadowblast for 22 damage and casts his Inspire Courage bard cantrip to boost the damage and attack capabilities of his party in the same round.

The wizard's lvl 5 prepared fireball is all done. The bard can use his other lvl 5 slots to cast another shadow blast with his cantrip or one of his other three choices.

People touting this spell versatility act as though the bard doesn't have good spells on his occult list. They are acting like every spell on the Arcane list is equally useful and the wizard has them all in his book.

One thing I guarantee is the bard inspire courage is always 100% of the time useful in combat and so is inspire defense. Wizard has no class ability close to either of those songs. And his spell versatility that takes time, preparation, and requires he have the spells in his book do not make up for what he lacks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Temperans wrote:
In both cases it's impossible for it to happen because there just isnt enough time or money to do so. So for most of the game the wizard wont actually be able to learn new spells outside level up. (The campaign would need to allow enough downtime in a place with new spells for it to happen, which isnt always the case).
Which as a part of being a Caster who learns their spells the GM needs to accommodate that. Not allowing the Wizard to learn new spells is a GM issue, not a system one.

A GM never letting a wizard learn new spells is a GM issue. A class needing to perfectly prepare for every battle to be equally effective to other classes that rarely prepare is a system issue.


So there is no way to do it by the rules? And the idea that no one but a rogue would likely use a star knife as a primary weapon was never taken into account when designing their proficiencies o the weapons in their adventure path. Maybe I'll change it to a knife or give the rogue star knife proficiency. Seems the easiest way to not have to discard or change a weapon in a module series that would be good for the rogue.


In the new AP, there is a nice star knife weapon in the modules. The weapon is built for a rogue. Main problem is a rogue isn't proficient with a star knife. Is there any way to get proficiency with a star knife for a rogue above expert without taking multiple archetype feats?

Weapon Proficiency can get a person trained, but how do you get a weapon proficient to a level up to your other weapons? A star knife is agile and finesse weapon. It seems like there should be a way for a rogue to gain proficiency in the weapon equal to rapier or dagger.

Anyone know a way to do this?


Salamileg wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
Old_Man_Robot wrote:

Huh.

This thread makes a nice change from the "ArCaNe EVoLuTiOn mAKeS WiaZaRdS OBSolEET" posts I've waded through recently.

The forum is awash in panicky threads of people claiming class X is so hosed, for just about every possible value of X.
People seem to like bards, at least

Bards are pretty awesome. Fun to play. Interesting options.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It would be interesting to see. My group has taken to it well. When we ready it we were skeptical. Magic seemed too powered down. Things seemed overly complicated. Once you play it, it's really fun. It's far more flexible than D&D and PF1. The action system is great. The skill system makes skills seem meaningful, not just the number, but the level of expertise. It provides a better framework to make someone who invests in a skill to feel like an real expert.


I could see them doing some work for the mutagen alchemist. The bomber doesn't need to be any stronger. They are already very strong.

Mutagenist needs work though. Those mutagen are pretty unappealing. I think we have only used one to boost an intelligence skill check for recall knowledge.


Aricks wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:


All I know is in play the alchemist is doing immense damage and putting massive pressure on enemies.

He'll toss out a bomb doing 5 fire splash damage. He'll occasionally crit. Two fire bombs in a round against a group of 3 targets which he usually throws out a fire bomb at each target to get persistent damage going.

He'll hit two of the guys for 2d8+5 fire plus 3 PF. Then 5 splash damage to the other guys.

First Bomb:

Target 1: 2d8+5 + 3 PF
Target 2: 5 splash
Target 3: 5 splash

Second Bomb:
Target 1: 5 splash +3 PF
Target 2: 2d8+5 splash +3 PF
Target 3: 5 splash

After two bombs:
Target 1: 19 fire damage +3 PF
Target 2: 19 fire damage +3 PF
Target 3: 10 fire damage

So for one round of actions and 2 bombs, you're looking at 54 fire damage. That seems very good to me. And that is without crit.

So, the goblin alchemist with the burn it ancestry feat in a fight where they're using fire bombs against clustered enemies? I'm not surprised they did well, that is the one of the few places where a bomber alchemist can shine. That and swarms.

I've only had one encounter where I both had high enough initiative and the monsters were clustered enough to hit more than 2 monsters. Either they were too spread out or some of the party got into melee before I could attack. Unfortunately selective splash isn't a thing anymore beyond the main target.

Also, your splash damage seems off. Either they're level 4-9 with calculated splash and 18-19 int so should do 4 splash, or they're level 10+ and didn't take expanded splash (int mod+bomb splash). 5 is an odd number to end up on. Burn it doesn't apply to splash damage, I'm betting that's the problem. Assuming level 4-9 with the feats it should be 2d8+1, plus 4 splash and 3 persistent.

That 2nd bomb attack is going to be tough to land consistently as well because alchemists lag behind the martial classes with their attacks as far as proficiency goes. The fact that Dex isn't their primary stat puts them behind...

Why do alchemist lag behind? Most of the bombs get an item bonus to attack rolls. I have been giving him burn it on splash damage. My bad. He has an 18 intel. His splash is about to go up with the splash increase feat to 10 feet.

Clustered enemies are pretty common in our game. At least until they get hit a time or two by the alchemist, then they spread out.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Narxiso wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Quandary wrote:
None of which is a reason to stop bothering to cast. Even low power actions are beneficial compared to no actions. If the martials can defeat encounter without you doing anything, they can also do so without a bard. Adding powers to a wizard doesn't change whether or not martials can defeat an encounter alone. If they are consistently able to do so VS nominally hard encounters, it is because encounter is especially vulnerable to martial strengths or is otherwise unchallenging (which can include GM lack of tactical skill), so in fact they aren't being challenged if they manage just fine with one party member doing nothing.

They can win without a bard, but they feel the bard there far more than they feel the wizard there. They were making jokes about the wizards uselessness. Laughing at my burning hands and fireball spells when I had a low damage roll or the enemies critically their save. When my summoned creature did nearly nothing and was at best used for flanking, that made them give me the "useless wizard" look as well. I tried a lot of different ways to make the wizard seem good and it was all very underwhelming. 1st level spells don't scale very well at all even when you can start using 3rd and 4th level spells.

Imagine casting a crap 2d6 1st level burning hands because you're out of 3rd level slots or trying to use a 1st level charm on a higher level creature only to have it succeed with a basic saving throw success because of the Incapacitate trait.

Tiresome. Have you read summon and the incapacitate trait? They really weaken spells.

Quote:
A Wizard should also have 1-action Focus spell options, as well as skill usages, Shield and other item usages, moving to Flank or "draw" enemy actions to compensate, as well as weapon attacks which (without MAP attack spell) should have better modifier than average martial 2nd attacks, so certainly viable as 3rd action when compared as such and not to martial 1st or even 2nd
...

You do understand that you get +2 to four stats every five levels? It is very easy to make a bard with high intelligence. It's not like PF1 where the wizard is clearly the most intelligent. He may be slightly more intelligent based on the bard focus.

I used intelligence as one of my better stats. I have an 18 intel compared to the wizard having a 20 at lvl 10 which we just hit. I have all the skills a wizard would have. I'm Craft focused, so am master in crafting.

And the bard starts with Performance and Occultisms plus 4 skills and intel modifier skills compared to the wizard having Arcana with 2 plus intel skills. A bard with a 14 intelligence starts with eight skills while wizard with an 18 intelligence starts with seven.

I don't know how else to show the naysayers that I gave the wizard a real try and found it lacking compared to the bard. The bard is a better designed and more useful class in nearly every situation. From my experience as a DM and player, so is the wizard and druid.

The math supports they are better. All these arguments continue to list all these actions that any class can do as well as the wizard. The bard can easily be built to be better at knowledge skills as well, especially if you take Bardic Lore.

There's nothing other than spell versatility that the wizard is better at. Spell versatility used to be great when spells scaled by level, but with the new magic paradigm spell versatility isn't near as valuable considering only your highest level spell slots are useful due to things like the Incapacitate trait, the limits on summoned creatures, and the way you Heighten Spells.

I'm sure more folks will figure this out on their own as more people play wizards and other casters to higher levels. I think it will mirror my experience having fewer interesting options to use.

People seem to think that when you say weaker, you mean useless or unplayable. That isn't the case. A wizard will still do some useful acts. The class doesn't have as many options or a unique niche compared to other caster classes. Wizard feats, familiars, metamagic, and general all around abilities aren't as interesting or useful as comparative casters save perhaps the sorcerer, which I don't know much about. I don't like playing classes that don't have interesting options or strategies compared to other classes.


Damien Goreface wrote:
graystone wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
Perpetual Infusions lets you create lots of bottled lightning, which you can use to make enemies flat-footed. If you combine that with Wizard MC for Electric Arc, you have an all-day contribution while you can expend resources to deliver spike damage.
It doesn't say a lot for the class when you're saying 'once you hit 7th level and multiclass, you can actually contribute...'.

Yeah, if you twist it like that.

Level 1: you throw the occasional bomb, especially against monsters whose weakness you can target. But you can also make ranged attacks because you have good Dex. In our local group the elven alchemist used the ancestry feat to get bow proficiency, and it's not difficult for her to have enough bombs for the whole scenario now.

Level 2: you can pick up the wizard MC if you like. Multiclassing is not dirty in Pathfinder 2. I did wizard MC with my fighter because there were no exciting L2 feats for sword and board.

Level 3: oh hey you can get better bombs now. And it doesn't cost you any WBL, so you can also think about picking up a magical ranged weapon or finesse weapon.

Level 4: Calculated Splash looks nice.

Level 5: 50% more bombs.

Level 6: Debilitating Bombs are a nice setup for a mean twist on Perpetual Infusion, especially since it works at Class DC.

Level 7: Okay, now you just have unlimited lesser ammo.

---

I'm not saying the alchemist is as strong a class as the others, but I think it's not so bad as people claim. I do think that it's a class that requires more system mastery and some luck with the campaign (tendency towards enemies that have weaknesses).

All I know is in play the alchemist is doing immense damage and putting massive pressure on enemies.

He'll toss out a bomb doing 5 fire splash damage. He'll occasionally crit. Two fire bombs in a round against a group of 3 targets which he usually throws out a fire bomb at each target to get persistent damage going.

He'll hit two of the guys for 2d8+5 fire plus 3 PF. Then 5 splash damage to the other guys.

First Bomb:

Target 1: 2d8+5 + 3 PF
Target 2: 5 splash
Target 3: 5 splash

Second Bomb:
Target 1: 5 splash +3 PF
Target 2: 2d8+5 splash +3 PF
Target 3: 5 splash

After two bombs:
Target 1: 19 fire damage +3 PF
Target 2: 19 fire damage +3 PF
Target 3: 10 fire damage

So for one round of actions and 2 bombs, you're looking at 54 fire damage. That seems very good to me. And that is without crit.


Aricks wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:

So far the alchemist has been highly effective and useful. Splash and persistent damage is big for the alchemist. It adds up over the course of battles. Then elixirs like mist form and cheetah provide useful group combat effects.

Cantrips on paper may look more effective. In place the alchemist is a nightmare to deal with usually deals the most damage in a combat.

An alchemist can brew endless 1st level bombs. A 1st lvl fire bomb does 1d8+6 and 3 PF damage on a hit with intelligence splash damage to all adjacent targets endlessly.

The alchemist in our group tries to stack acid and fire persistent damage in single target fights. That damage adds up when you're doing 2d6 PA and 3 or more PF.

I think the alchemist is another one of those classes that on paper is not impressive, but once you put it all together with feats is incredibly effective.

1d8 + 6, 3 persistent, and int mod splash at first level? Yeah, no, your math is really off. I wish alchemist fire were that impressive at level 1. Alch fire does 1d8 damage on direct hit, plus 1 splash. You can bump that up to 1d8 + 1 with 2 persistent if you take a goblin ancestry feat.

Unless you're talking perpetual fire bombs, which you also can't brew until level 7, and even then you can only pick 2 types, and you can't change it without retraining. Even then, a perpetual fire bomb thrown at level 7 will do....1d8 damage, 1 persistent, with 4 splash if you take the almost mandatory feat, and the same bump up if you take the goblin feat. Sticky bombs would do 1d8 with 5 persistent. You also can only get off at most 2 bombs that way per round as well.

All that being said, I agree with the sentiments made after this post. I'd love it if I could hand out a useful elixir/mutagen to my party members at the beginning of the adventure and then throw a few bombs in combat for useful debuffs and damage, falling back on a sling or crossbow as last resort, but until level 7 you can't really do that. You just don't have...

We're not going off 1st level are we? At 9th level with feats the alchemist has proven to be one of the most effective damage dealers in the group, especially against groups of enemies.


Lightning Raven wrote:

The class looks bad on paper because it literally came with a broken class path (Mutagenist), the mutagens themselves aren't even worth their penalties, the class doesn't have any progression that goes to master even in specific fields that need them.

Also, let's not forget, it's the only class in the game that have feat taxes that are required for them to keep up over levels.

Honestly, the description of your game sounded like you guys were doing something wrong or maybe the player got some really lucky sessions and skewered the perception to a more positive light.

The class has too much underlying problems to be called "highly effective and useful".

I don't know anything about the mutagen or healer paths. Mutagens do look really weak. They really seem to have wanted to avoid ability boosting abilities.

The bombing path has proven to be very effective and useful.


Quandary wrote:
None of which is a reason to stop bothering to cast. Even low power actions are beneficial compared to no actions. If the martials can defeat encounter without you doing anything, they can also do so without a bard. Adding powers to a wizard doesn't change whether or not martials can defeat an encounter alone. If they are consistently able to do so VS nominally hard encounters, it is because encounter is especially vulnerable to martial strengths or is otherwise unchallenging (which can include GM lack of tactical skill), so in fact they aren't being challenged if they manage just fine with one party member doing nothing.

They can win without a bard, but they feel the bard there far more than they feel the wizard there. They were making jokes about the wizards uselessness. Laughing at my burning hands and fireball spells when I had a low damage roll or the enemies critically their save. When my summoned creature did nearly nothing and was at best used for flanking, that made them give me the "useless wizard" look as well. I tried a lot of different ways to make the wizard seem good and it was all very underwhelming. 1st level spells don't scale very well at all even when you can start using 3rd and 4th level spells.

Imagine casting a crap 2d6 1st level burning hands because you're out of 3rd level slots or trying to use a 1st level charm on a higher level creature only to have it succeed with a basic saving throw success because of the Incapacitate trait.

Tiresome. Have you read summon and the incapacitate trait? They really weaken spells.

Quote:
A Wizard should also have 1-action Focus spell options, as well as skill usages, Shield and other item usages, moving to Flank or "draw" enemy actions to compensate, as well as weapon attacks which (without MAP attack spell) should have better modifier than average martial 2nd attacks, so certainly viable as 3rd action when compared as such and not to martial 1st or even 2nd attacks. If you're not using these, then you're voluntarily giving up options that could benefit you and allies. Just because you feel they aren't "glorious" insta-win buttons doesn't mean you should ignore them, small benefits add up to win, especially thinking ahead to next round (e.g. draw smokestick 1 round, use it the next).

Non-specific 1 action options that don't feel wizardly aren't really fun are they? I don't find them fun. Moving your wizard into combat with some of the dangerous reaction AoOs in this game is a recipe for disaster.


Ruzza wrote:

It sounds like you're not choosing the right spells for the situation. Summons (even in PF1) aren't about getting another damage dealing body, but rather options: a flanking partner, a spellcaster, a creature with an aura, and occasionally a silver bullet answer to an encounter.

Flaming sphere is a high risk, high reward spell that promises big damage on a failed save, but nothing on a success. It's best use is to clear out weaker foes and probably shouldn't br a first pick in your highest level spell slot.

All that said, it's absolutely fine to enjoy playing the bard more. That doesn't mean that wizard isn't fun to play or is a poorly designed class. You're attempted to turn a subjective thought into an objective fact.

The math would say otherwise. It is an objective reality that can be analyzed with math in real game situations.

Bard is far more effective than the wizard.

The wizard isn't useless, but he is clearly not as effective as the bard. In PF1 he his spell versatility was a huge bonus, perhaps too powerful. Given time a wizard could do a lot. I played a lot of them. They were a lot of fun.

In PF2 the limits on spells make spell versatility just ok. The Incapacitate trait, high saving throws, the limits on Summons having to use one action to sustain a summon and cause it to us two actions, the rule your summons can't use higher level spells than the level of the spell used to cast them, the need to move to position to attack, and the variable effects from saves all just make spell versatility nowhere near the advantage it used to be.
The innate abilities of the wizard don't do enough to make up for that loss.

That's why I don't see a single argument with actual wizard abilities to make them seem great. That alone should be sending you all a red flag that something is wrong, since I've listed inherent cleric, druid, and bard abilities unique to each class that they can use to be effective beyond their spells.

So what unique wizard abilities make the wizard stand out compared to bard compositions, druid pet and shapechange, or cleric domains and healing?


Rysky wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
HumbleGamer wrote:

Guess you don't know what are you talking about.

A wizard chooses from Arcana, which has a wider pool of spells for any situation, while bard chooses from occult, which is a hybrid between support/control.

A wizard is versatile and can set up his spells depends the fight.

The number of slots is irrelevant since it is the same ( until the wizard gets or craft his ring of wizardly ), but being able to choose ( talking about a competent wizard and not a beginner ) is a solid choice better than few known spells.

You acan increase int but you will be renouncing other stats. Your choice in terms of balance. But you can also have 8 in const an 10 in dex. All choices are allowed.

The class doesn't need a rework since it is fine.

The problem here is, apart from earlier levels, the fact that a party could chain spam medicine to rest.

But sometimes people forget that if both blaster and healer run out of spells, then a long rest is required.

Imagine at some point 3/4 fight per day.

A wizard will be able to handle them easily.

The class does need a rework.

What you say isn't working in actual play because you don't usually have time to sit there and let the wizard adjust, much less do all the scouting necessary for the wizard to meaningfully switch and then have him have all the spells needed in his book to switch for every situation.

Not sure why some of you are so up in arms about this. The wizard lacks good 1 action ops. Spell versatility doesn't come close to making up for it.

We as a group don’t let the Wizard use tactics or you as the GM don’t let the Wizard use tactics?

And you don’t like the 1 Action abilities they have. That doesn’t make them bad or not exist.

What tactics? Explain these tactics? Do you think every party wants to spend the time scouting, waiting an extra day for the wizard to change out spells, and then attack when it isn't necessary for anyone else?

What do you mean? Specifically slowing the game down to allow the wizard to perfectly prepare for an encounter to somewhat match what the other characters can do without the same preparation?

Why would we do something unnecessary like that to accommodate a class weakness?


So far the alchemist has been highly effective and useful. Splash and persistent damage is big for the alchemist. It adds up over the course of battles. Then elixirs like mist form and cheetah provide useful group combat effects.

Cantrips on paper may look more effective. In place the alchemist is a nightmare to deal with usually deals the most damage in a combat.

An alchemist can brew endless 1st level bombs. A 1st lvl fire bomb does 1d8+6 and 3 PF damage on a hit with intelligence splash damage to all adjacent targets endlessly.

The alchemist in our group tries to stack acid and fire persistent damage in single target fights. That damage adds up when you're doing 2d6 PA and 3 or more PF.

I think the alchemist is another one of those classes that on paper is not impressive, but once you put it all together with feats is incredibly effective.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Strill wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Strill wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:


See the problem with the wizard? He has no options for his 1 action other than move or erect a shield spell. They didn't make the wizards support abilities provide some useful one action option that makes them seem special or standout.
Fortunately, all the metamagic is 1-action modifiers that let the wizard do exactly that, or they can Recall Knowledge, or they can move to be in the best spot for that spell.

And how does that help the wizard provide equal fun and support as other caster classes? Any class can do those things.

Metamagic is fairly useless. I tried to use metamagic. It didn't do much at all. I figured Reach or Widen would do something moderately useful, but they didn't. The martials cut everything down without the need for my spell help. My bard inspire courage composition was far more helpful than anything a wizard can do. Bows are inherently longer range than most spells even with a reach ability.

My bard has as many skills as my wizard. He can recall knowledge just as easily if needed. Given the stat boosts, I gave him intelligence as one of his boost. He has a nice high intel, charisma, and wisdom. The only physical stat I need on the bard is Con for more hit points.

Not sure why people keep making excuses for a wizard class that is poorly designed given the new paradigm. It should be absolutely required that if a caster is going to be support, he should have 1 action support options that are useful. The wizard is sorely lacking. Metamagic that most caster classes can access is not comparable.

You're saying the fights were too easy, and you never fought enemies difficult enough to justify using metamagic, therefore metamagic is underpowered because it's too powerful to bother using? What kind of argument is that?
How do you interpret this in this fashion?
From the part where you say that you stopped bothering to cast...

I want you to do the math on that and show yourself why that statement is false.

Our party is being challenged. The martials do more effective damage supplement by a bard than the wizard doing his cantrips or spells.

There is theory and then there is practice. In theory the wizards spells should be good and they should have solid options, in practice that is not the case.

I tried to summon a creature so I could use my one action to sustain it and attack like having a pet, but the summoned creature had trouble hitting equal level creatures and if I spent one action to move, I could do nothing but sustain the summon. That lowered my damage substantially. The creature could often spend it's third attack once engaged to destroy a summoned creature since it had a much lower AC.

Then I tried the old flaming sphere strategy using my sustain action, that did ok damage when I was in position and if they missed their saves.

It seems pathfinder 2 wants combats fast and furious both ways. So the monsters do a lot of damage, healing is high, and the PCs put out a lot of damage, so I spend a 2nd level flaming sphere spell that I could do two times a day at 3rd level to do very little. Yet the bard was adding +1 attack and damage rolls to all the attacks.

If you have fun playing in that type of scenario, then have at it. I personally found the wizard lacking in effective options. They played very underwhelming. My party is much happier with a bard than a wizard. I'm happier playing one and feeling far more effective and helpful.


HumbleGamer wrote:
oholoko wrote:
HumbleGamer wrote:


The number of slots is irrelevant since it is the same ( until the wizard gets or craft his ring of wizardly ), but being able to choose ( talking about a competent wizard and not a beginner ) is a solid choice better than few known spells.

Wizards get an extra spell of every slot(Limited to a spell from the school school) and can recast a spell from the arcane bond, unless he is an unversalist then he can recast spells of every level. So wizards got at least 1 extra spell per slot.

Hasn't also the bard a feat which allows him to cast extra spells in a similar way?

He has that feat.

And he can also take wizard multiclass feats to expand his wizard casting and get the best parts of the wizard: their spell versatility. Which lets them cast even more spells with versatility than the wizard.
The best use for the wizard is multiclassing.


HumbleGamer wrote:

Guess you don't know what are you talking about.

A wizard chooses from Arcana, which has a wider pool of spells for any situation, while bard chooses from occult, which is a hybrid between support/control.

A wizard is versatile and can set up his spells depends the fight.

The number of slots is irrelevant since it is the same ( until the wizard gets or craft his ring of wizardly ), but being able to choose ( talking about a competent wizard and not a beginner ) is a solid choice better than few known spells.

You acan increase int but you will be renouncing other stats. Your choice in terms of balance. But you can also have 8 in const an 10 in dex. All choices are allowed.

The class doesn't need a rework since it is fine.

The problem here is, apart from earlier levels, the fact that a party could chain spam medicine to rest.

But sometimes people forget that if both blaster and healer run out of spells, then a long rest is required.

Imagine at some point 3/4 fight per day.

A wizard will be able to handle them easily.

The class does need a rework.

What you say isn't working in actual play because you don't usually have time to sit there and let the wizard adjust, much less do all the scouting necessary for the wizard to meaningfully switch and then have him have all the spells needed in his book to switch for every situation.

Not sure why some of you are so up in arms about this. The wizard lacks good 1 action ops. Spell versatility doesn't come close to making up for it.


Squiggit wrote:
Bluescale wrote:


Yeah, I just *love* my Undead Sorcerer's level 1 focus spell. After playing through to level 4, I have never spent a single focus point on it, as I've yet to encounter a situation where I would need to heal someone with a Harm spell instead of just using a Heal spell. If there was an archetype that exchanged the focus spell for something useful, like a cantrip from a different tradition, I would take it in an instant.

When I first got to the spell I didn't read it very closely and thought it reversed a creature's polarity instead of just turning everything into heals. That would have been kind of cool, since you could have dropped it on an enemy and then healbomb your allies the next round while also damaging the enemy.

That would have been kinda cool.

Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
So we’re just gonna completely overlook the fact that Angelic Sorc can spam 1st level 3-action heals for guaranteed better minimum than a Cleric’s Divine Font then?

A sorcerer who spends a focus point and then all three of their spell slots at first level gets all of 6 extra healing per target over four rounds.

That's.. slightly better than a single use of divine font, I guess. And then the sorcerer has nothing but cantrips for the rest of the day.

So you can make a sorcerer healer? Interesting.


Martialmasters wrote:

I was excited to see in 2e martials being able to do more than full attack more easily.

I was excited to casters reigned in.

I've seen many players complain of casters being over nerfed. But vast majority just state it without examples or any explanation.

I've discussed it with my play group and nobody seems to be of the opinion that they were over nerfed. In fact several typically martial only players have expressed interest in playing casters in 2e.

So my question to the people of this forum is to fill me in. Enter a discussion. Even a debate. Though let's be civil as I've seen a bit of animosity in regards to this subject. I'll share my opinion but keep in mind it is just that.

I think casters are largely balanced now.

I think perhaps some utility spells have suffered. Biggest example I've seen used is unseen servant. I think paizo looked at this stuff less from a Nerf it it's too powerful and instead thought they did too much and were too open to interpretation or shenanigans. This more speaks to paizos idea of what their game should be and it is clearly at odds with some players.

I think making one dimensional caster's who focus on mainly one thing has always bad. I think the blaster caster was never as good as the utility caster. But it's clear you in for a rough time if you like comparing your dpr to the fighters. Especially on single Target. You can actually best out any martial in AOE effects though.

I think a lot of players dislike prepared casting and due to this they feel worse to those players. Me personally I feel it's a skill gap. The truly skilled players will make a prepared caster shine.

I think if anyone tries to compare 2e to 1e and expect equivalency your going to be upset.

These are my opinions. I welcome anyone to challenge them and change my mind if you can.

Besides the wizard, I think casters are balanced now too. I reserve opinion on the sorcerer until I see one in action. Wizard is boring and slightly weak.


Strill wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:


See the problem with the wizard? He has no options for his 1 action other than move or erect a shield spell. They didn't make the wizards support abilities provide some useful one action option that makes them seem special or standout.
Fortunately, all the metamagic is 1-action modifiers that let the wizard do exactly that, or they can Recall Knowledge, or they can move to be in the best spot for that spell.

And how does that help the wizard provide equal fun and support as other caster classes? Any class can do those things.

Metamagic is fairly useless. I tried to use metamagic. It didn't do much at all. I figured Reach or Widen would do something moderately useful, but they didn't. The martials cut everything down without the need for my spell help. My bard inspire courage composition was far more helpful than anything a wizard can do. Bows are inherently longer range than most spells even with a reach ability.

My bard has as many skills as my wizard. He can recall knowledge just as easily if needed. Given the stat boosts, I gave him intelligence as one of his boost. He has a nice high intel, charisma, and wisdom. The only physical stat I need on the bard is Con for more hit points.

Not sure why people keep making excuses for a wizard class that is poorly designed given the new paradigm. It should be absolutely required that if a caster is going to be support, he should have 1 action support options that are useful. The wizard is sorely lacking. Metamagic that most caster classes can access is not comparable.

You're saying the fights were too easy, and you never fought enemies difficult enough to justify using metamagic, therefore metamagic is underpowered because it's too powerful to bother using? What kind of argument is that?

How do you interpret this in this fashion?

No, what I'm saying is the wizard's spells didn't do nearly the same damage as the martials. After casting wizard spells, I found they were far less useful than the bard using his composition cantrips. Launching a fireball did less over the course of combats than a bard using a cantrip or a cleric healing.

Once we got rid of the wizard, no one even noticed. He added nothing to the table. In fact, some of his damage rolls for spells, especially after saves were made, were so low as to be laughable compared to martial weapon damage backed up by a bard.

In fact, I started casting cantrips for damage as a bard and using my Inspire Courage cantrip to boost my bard cantrip damage and attack roll and the entire party's abilities. Whereas my wizard could cast one spell here and there of variable effect.

It's a fairly easy situation to see. You have a bard who can use one cantrip to provide everyone with +1 attack and damage, while also casting an attack cantrip or support spell or make a few attacks. Then you have a wizard who can do nearly nothing with his single action and cast one spell or cantrip a round. Isn't that an easy disparity to see?

You have the same thing with a cleric who can take someone from nearly dead to full health with a two action heal while also swinging a weapon or firing a bow from range.

Or a druid who can send his animal companion in to set up flanks and make an attack while also launching a 2 action spell or cantrip.

Whereas the wizard can do a reach spell to extend his 30 foot attack cantrip to 60 feet which often isn't necessary or use 1 action to widen his fireball to 30 foot radius which also often isn't necessary.

I gave the wizard a try. I used metamagic. I tried different spell strategies. They are not as effective as an a bard, cleric, or druid. I honestly can't speak on the sorcerer because I haven't seen one in action.

The best way to use the wizard class for mechanical effectiveness is to take the multiclass archetype.

I think the class could be easily fixed by reworking their school and thesis options and feats to give them more 1 action abilities that are useful and don't require focus points. Class would be more fun and useful. I would even recommend turning the familiar option into more of a summoner type of companion equal to an animal companion. Then they don't need to make a summoner class, they can just use the wizard as a chassis for a summoner type of archetype.

Not as though the wizard class isn't easily fixable. It just needs its powers tweaked with more 1 action options like the other casters seem to have that are useful in a party environment.


HumbleGamer wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:


See the problem with the wizard? He has no options for his 1 action other than move or erect a shield spell. They didn't make the wizards support abilities provide some useful one action option that makes them seem special or standout.
Fortunately, all the metamagic is 1-action modifiers that let the wizard do exactly that, or they can Recall Knowledge, or they can move to be in the best spot for that spell.

And how does that help the wizard provide equal fun and support as other caster classes? Any class can do those things.

Metamagic is fairly useless. I tried to use metamagic. It didn't do much at all. I figured Reach or Widen would do something moderately useful, but they didn't. The martials cut everything down without the need for my spell help. My bard inspire courage composition was far more helpful than anything a wizard can do. Bows are inherently longer range than most spells even with a reach ability.

My bard has as many skills as my wizard. He can recall knowledge just as easily if needed. Given the stat boosts, I gave him intelligence as one of his boost. He has a nice high intel, charisma, and wisdom. The only physical stat I need on the bard is Con for more hit points.

Not sure why people keep making excuses for a wizard class that is poorly designed given the new paradigm. It should be absolutely required that if a caster is going to be support, he should have 1 action support options that are useful. The wizard is sorely lacking. Metamagic that most caster classes can access is not comparable.

That is your point of view.

A wizard has a more balanced set of spells than a bard ( offense, defense, utility, debuff ) and it is way more skilled in knowledge stuff ( and crafting, which also means repairing shields ).

On the other hand, a bard has better social skills, and a better use of the last action because of compositions.

A wizard by lvl 8 could take inspirational...

The wizard has more spells, but can only memorize the daily the same amount plus one. The number of useful spells is relatively equal.

The bard can equal a wizard in crafting, so not sure why you believe that. They are also equal in knowledge since it is easy to put stat points in intel to build it up. If your the type of bard that focuses on knowledge, then you're also better at skills overall.

I focused on crafting with my bard. My focus skills are Performance, Crafting, and Occultism. I have most of the knowledge skills. I took the wizard multiclass feat which gives me far more access to what a wizard does well than vice versa.

Bottom line is the wizard needs better designed class powers, so they can do stuff that makes them standout. They seemed to have a done a good job with nearly every class but the wizard. I think they should do some more thinking within the new PF2 paradigm on now to make a wizard standout and feel useful compared to the other caster classes. At the moment the best use of the wizard class is as an multiclass archetype.


Carog the Fat wrote:

After much discussion I came to accept battle medicine doesn't require you to touch the target, just be adjacent or use a healer's kit. I was wondering if this was the intent of the feat and if it will get errata to clarify that you make a medicine check using the DC AND REQUIREMENTS of Treat wounds.

Bold empasis on what need to be added to make this skill somewhat vaguely resemble first aid rather than someone wiggling thier fingers so they dont have to drop thier weapon to heal people.

Wish after taking so much painstaking effort to make good explanations for most abilities, they wouldn't have done a poor job on Battle Medicine. I don't much like it either. I mostly chalk it up to stim pack use, but it requires hands to use, period. Ridiculous that you wouldn't need at least one free hand to do battle medicine.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:


See the problem with the wizard? He has no options for his 1 action other than move or erect a shield spell. They didn't make the wizards support abilities provide some useful one action option that makes them seem special or standout.
Fortunately, all the metamagic is 1-action modifiers that let the wizard do exactly that, or they can Recall Knowledge, or they can move to be in the best spot for that spell.

And how does that help the wizard provide equal fun and support as other caster classes? Any class can do those things.

Metamagic is fairly useless. I tried to use metamagic. It didn't do much at all. I figured Reach or Widen would do something moderately useful, but they didn't. The martials cut everything down without the need for my spell help. My bard inspire courage composition was far more helpful than anything a wizard can do. Bows are inherently longer range than most spells even with a reach ability.

My bard has as many skills as my wizard. He can recall knowledge just as easily if needed. Given the stat boosts, I gave him intelligence as one of his boost. He has a nice high intel, charisma, and wisdom. The only physical stat I need on the bard is Con for more hit points.

Not sure why people keep making excuses for a wizard class that is poorly designed given the new paradigm. It should be absolutely required that if a caster is going to be support, he should have 1 action support options that are useful. The wizard is sorely lacking. Metamagic that most caster classes can access is not comparable.


HumbleGamer wrote:

Currently I am playing a paladin, and I am in Constant need of an ally to fully shine.

The ally ( a fighter ) can easily resist the hit because of me, and I can trade back some the damage they receive.

I am planning to go even further in protection stuff, cause my role would be to ensure the fighter life more than dealing damage.

Without support or healings ( which also means DR ), a combatant, especially with a 2h and cause of that with no circumstance AC bonus, won't last too much if not supported ( and i prefer to leave casterz the blasting part ).

We also only have a druid which is a shapeshifter, so it is likely some of us will go down during a moderate encounter.

Champions are tough to deal with. That high armor class with high hit points makes them a pain. Then if you try to go after their allies, it just gets worse. Then they can deal good damage all on their own, especially against enemies vulnerable to good.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wizard is the red-headed step-child of PF2. The class needs a rework within the new framework of PF2. Most of the casters are balanced save for the wizard. It's the worst class of the bunch.

Bard is really fun and helpful. I took Wizard archetype as a multiclass feat. I was able to gain enough wizard to have a great spell selection to supplement my bard abilities. This combination far, far exceeds what I could have done as a base wizard. All my support abilities from feats far exceed what a wizard gets.

Druid is good too as is cleric.

Sorcerer I'm not sure about, but they look more interesting than wizards.

They have this new paradigm in PF2 with actions. The wizard lacks the ability to take advantage of the new action paradigm. They really need to do a wizard class re-design to give the wizard something useful to do like other casters.

I'll list some examples of what I'm talking about:

1. Cleric: Does a 1 action touch heal and launches a cantrip. Does a 2 action heal and swings his weapon or raises his shield. His abilities give him options. Even some of the domain spells are 1 action abilities.

2. Druid: Commands animal companion to attack and launches a spell or cantrip.

3. Bard. Casts a composition while launching a spell.

See the problem with the wizard? He has no options for his 1 action other than move or erect a shield spell. They didn't make the wizards support abilities provide some useful one action option that makes them seem special or standout.

Even [i]haste[/] works better on the cleric who can move, cast a two action heal, and still raise his shield or swing his weapon or move, cast a 1 action heal, and cast a spell.

Unless you want your wizard to use a weapon, which they usually aren't built for given their sad weapon selection.

They could rebuild the wizard with expanded martial capability creating a Gandalf which might help. I think it would be better if they did a rework of the wizard's magical school capabilities providing much better 1 action support or offensive abilities they can do each round to provide them some options that are fun, appropriate, and cool for a wizard.


Gorbacz wrote:
Martials are DPS, casters are debuffers/buffers, working as intended.

Not really true.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I like the APs. Stories are usually good. You get lots of little extra bits in them as well that might be useful like magic items, monsters, and lore. Paizo APs are way better than anything Wizard has put out since 2E and 3E. Their 5E material doesn't have the bang for the buck in modules and such.


Be nice to get an official answer.


hyphz wrote:

Area C2 the level 10 Clay Golem. If it hits, the PC must make a Fort 29 save or be cursed to be healed only by magic and need to make a DC 29 counteract check or lose the healing. The golem's counteract level is equal to its level, which is 10. Because this is higher than 8, when level 8 PCs meet this golem, if they are cursed they must roll a critical success on the counteract check which is a 39.

A level 8 character will probably be Expert in spellcasting, and if they have a +4 in their spellcasting stat, then their total bonus for this roll will be 8 (level) +4 (stat) +4 (expert) = +16, which means they have no chance of rolling a 39, and their only option is to roll a 20 and have a success boosted to a critical success.

Is it really intended that characters hit by this golem will be healable only by magic and then 19/20 healing spells cast on them are lost?

According to the rules, this is not how it works. The counteract check goes by spell level, not character level. The highest level spell they can cast is 4th. They can't even counteract the Clay Golem curse.

We had this discussion a while back. The way we healed it according to the rules is with magic healing potions and healer's gloves. These do not cast a spell since the clay golem specifically says spells. So that worked.

8th level characters have no way with spellcasting given the rules to remove the curse. The clay golem is unique in that it specifically states the counteract level is equal to the creature level rather than half. That is unique and specific wording. It's very much like an old school 1st edition clay golem.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I am surprised it as fun to play as it is. It reads pretty dry, but the game play is really enjoyable as a DM and player. The three action round was a RPG advancement that was long-needed to make everything about the game more fluid and easier to adjudicate rounds where move and attack wasn't a good option. It makes the entire round progression seem more natural and believable.


Yes. They eliminated touch AC, so casters should get the same bonus to their attacks as weapon users since they now attack the same AC.


Hmm. That is interesting. Per the wording, healer's gloves and potions don't use spells.

This should work. Thanks for the help figuring this out. Good to have other eyes when you're focused on how older editions worked. I think the wording of the curse does lead me to believe the potions should work.


Ubertron_X wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Counteract doesn't go off the casters level, but the level of the effect. 8th lvl caster can only cast 4th level spells.

I stand corrected.

However while reading the exact curse description, how about healing potions? They are magical healing that is not a spell, so they don't need to counteract the effect.

You can't regain hit points at all until you are fully healed by magic according to the curse. Not by rest or non-magical means. Magic has to beat that lvl 10 DC 29 counteract effect.

It's a very painful recovery process. Still not sure why they tossed this creature in where they did given how hard a standard party would have recovering from this at the given level. They didn't even have the courtesy to throw in a Gygaxian means of recovery where once you defeat the monster, you find the method of recovery.


Ubertron_X wrote:

I guess you got this wrong, however counteracting level+2 is not especially easy as you need a critical success to make it work.

CRB wrote:

Critical Success Counteract the target if its counteract level is no more than 3 levels higher than your effect’s counteract level.

Success Counteract the target if its counteract level is no more than 1 level higher than your effect’s counteract level.
Failure Counteract the target if its counteract level is lower than your effect’s counteract level.

So while a level 8 character might easily be able to beat the DC29 roll (spellcasting ability modifier plus your spellcasting proficiency bonus), the problem is the level difference, which will require a natural 20 to go critical.

Once you reach level 9 you only need regular successes to heal the cursed wound which will make it much more easy to succeed.

Counteract doesn't go off the casters level, but the level of the effect. 8th lvl caster can only cast 4th level spells.


Party just fought a clay golem.

Is Cursed wound meant to be a throwback to 1st edition D&D when you had to be a 17th level caster to heal wounds after being cursed by a clay golem?

Our party was forced to leave due to Cursed Wound. We had no way to get rid of it at lvl 8. It's a DC 29 counteract check with a level of 10. Normally a creature level 10 would only be a lvl 5 counteract effect, but the text says it's a level 10 effect.

That would require a lvl 15 caster getting a critical success or a level 17 caster getting a success with a heal.

Is there any errata on this?

Clay golems were never this tough in Pathfinder 1st edition. Not that I don't like a much more dangerous golem, but boy it sure drove us out of the adventure. It's going to takes probably a month to get this cleared up of downtime.


I do like tiered saving throws. It's a better guide for flavoring the effect of a saving throw. Even if you succeed, something might still happen to you.

1 to 50 of 375 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>