Scarvinious

Donovan Du Bois's page

Organized Play Member. 228 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 6 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 228 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

'Conscious Mind' says "You automatically add the spells listed here to your spell repertoire, in addition to those you gain through psychic spellcasting. At 1st level, you gain a 1st-level spell, and you learn the other spells on the list as soon as you gain the ability to cast psychic spells of that level, learning the 2nd-level spell at 3rd level, the 3rd-level spell at 5th level, and so on."

'Swapping Spells in Your Repertoire' says "As you gain new spells in your repertoire, you might want to replace some of the spells you previously learned. Each time you gain a level and learn new spells, you can swap out one of your old spells for a different spell of the same level. This spell can be a cantrip. You can also swap out spells by retraining during downtime."

I can't decide if I'm allowed to swap or not, the discord seems to say that this is an oversight and it should not be allowed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A friend of mine wants to run a final fantasy inspired game, so I've been working on some classes inspired by classes from that series. So far I've got the Geomancer and the Dark Knight, let me know what you think.


Temperans wrote:

Regardless of the source. Armor bonuses to AC do not stack unless told otherwise.

+1 Varisian Dancing Scarves grant +3 AC bonus when you move. +1 Haramaki grants +2 AC all the time.

Having both would give +2 when not moving, but +3 when you move.

Dancing Scarves do not make it a +2 Haramaki.

But the +1 Haramaki have an enhancement bonus to armor. So does that enhancement bonus to armor apply to your dancing scarves, because the scarves do not have an enhancement bonus to armor.


Java Man wrote:
vhok wrote:

well that was your question.

How is this done without having two items occuppying the magic armor slot?

No.

My question, if you will read my post and and the previous ones in the reply chain, is how would you have magic dancing scarves and a seperate enhancement bonus to AC that is not from a second item occupyimg the magic item slot.

What if you crafted a version of bracers of armor that gave an enhancement bonus to armor instead of an armor bonus?


Java Man wrote:
You only have one "armor" slot for items.

What if you received an enhancement bonus to armor from another source.


So the Varisian dancing scarves (https://aonprd.com/EquipmentArmorDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Varisian%20dancing% 20scarves) say:

"Varisian dancing scarves provide no benefit while you are standing still. Whenever you move at least 10 feet during your turn, you gain a +2 armor bonus to AC until the beginning of your next turn. Varisian dancing scarves add their enhancement bonus to this armor bonus instead of providing a constant benefit; other magical enhancements (such as light fortification) apply whether or not you are moving."

So, the scarves apply their enhancement bonus as an additional armor bonus when your activate them. Could you potentially stack an enhancement bonus to armor from another source, because the scarves are not adding an enhancement bonus, but increasing the armor bonus?

If so, could you just wear a cheap enchanted set of armor underneath them?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm thinking of taking the Pyrokineticist prestige class from Dreamscarred Press, and one of their abilities is throwing me through a loop. So this is the Pyrokineticist's Fire Lash ability:

Fire Lash:
Fire Lash (Ps)
A pyrokineticist gains the ability to fashion a 15-foot-long whip of fire from unstable ectoplasm as a move-equivalent action. She takes no damage from a fire lash she creates, and if she releases her hold, it immediately dissipates. The lash deals 1d8 points of fire damage to a target within 15 feet on a successful ranged touch attack. A pyrokineticist can take Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization (if she otherwise meets the prerequisites) in conjunction with the fire lash, as well as any feats that apply to the use of a standard whip. The whip remains in existence as long as the pyrokineticist holds it and is treated for mechanical purposes as a whip.

If the character has the ability to fashion a mind blade and has the Altered Blade blade skill, her fire lash may be treated as her mind blade for mechanical purposes such as enhanced mind blade and other class abilities. All damage dealt by the mind blade in this form, including psychic strike damage and bonus damage from weapon abilities, is fire damage, and the pyrokineticist may not use the fire lash to perform disarm or trip attempts unless she has selected the appropriate Weapon Special blade skill.

I've got a few questions, but they all boil down to "What is this thing?"

Is this a ranged weapon because it makes ranged touch attacks?

Is this a melee weapon that just happens to make ranged touch attacks? Is it just a strange whip?

Do you need precise shot for it? Does it benefit from point-black shot?

If you are a Soulknife and this is your mind blade, do you need the ranged trip feat to make trip attempts with it?

Does it get melee or ranged enchantments? Both?

Do you threaten any squares with it at all?


I was looking for a conversion of IotSV, but couldn't find one anywhere, so I made one using the rules from the conversion guide. There are three differences between this conversion and the original, and I wanted to explain my reasoning behind them:

1.) The DCs for wardings were made to be equal to an equivalent level abjuration spell cast by the initiate. I did this because the original value of 18+primary casting modifier seemed arbitrary and didn't match up to the example IotSV given in Complete Arcane. I feel like this works better with how DCs are calculated in pathfinder and is easier to remember for the players, as each veil already has an associated spell level.

2.) Initiates get an additional use of warding per day at every level, increasing their total wardings from 4 to 7. I did this because Pathfinder designers often discuss how prestige classes are particularly bad for spellcasters, and 4 uses per day isn't enough to match Pathfinder's recommended 6 daily encounters. Once per level matches IotSV's '7' theme and feels better for the more powerful Pathfinder spellcasting classes.

I've rolled this back, although I'm not sure that 4 uses of a single ability is worth 7 class levels for classes like sorcerer or arcanist. I might be looking to over-tune though, more feedback is needed from experienced players.

3.) The wording of Kaleidoscopic Doom was changed to reflect the change in the way greater dispel magic works in pathfinder, to maintain the ability's original functionality. The initiate can make a dispel attempt against each active spell effect, as was the function of dispel magic in D&D 3.5.

You can read the full conversion here: Google Doc

I would love feedback!


Melkiador wrote:

I'm not a fan of basing an entire class around the obedience mechanic. That feels more fitting for archetypes and prestige classes. To each their own though.

I do like the general idea of an arcanist-style divine caster, but I think it should be less attached to a deity than the standard cleric, instead of more attached.

The way I interpret it, the cost of being able to pick and choose which divine spells you get to cast and how many of them you get to cast is that you must be extremely close and devoted to the deity that gives them to you, so much so that they grant you special favor.


So, one of my players really wanted to play a divine caster with arcanist style casting. We searched through, but realized that there aren't any. So, I decided to try my hand at making one.

The paragon class is a mixture of the arcanist and oracle, using cleric, oracle, and shaman mechanics to create something that is hopefully very close in scope and power level to other pathfinder classes. You can read the full class description here:

Google Doc

I would love feedback!


Someone on Reddit mentioned that strange condition progression. I copied the Toxicant progression, but I thought I would try my hand at smoothing the curve.

How does this condition progression look?

3rd—dazzled, fatigued; 6th—bleed (2d4), sickened; 9th—blinded, staggered; 12th—exhausted, nauseated; 15th—confused, dazed; 18th—stunned.


Hey everyone! One of my players really wants to play a poison based vishkanya ninja. Poisons are not very well supported by the ninja class, so here is my adaption of the Toxicant alchemist archetype as a ninja.

Poison Dragon:

Poison Tricks

A poison dragon may select the Celestial Poisons, Concentrate Poison, Designer Poison, Elemental Destabilizers, Enduring Toxin, Malignant Poison, Poison Conversion, Precise Poison, or Sticky Poison alchemist discoveries in place of a ninja trick. The poison dragon treats their ninja level as their alchemist level for the purpose meeting the level requirement of one of these discoveries. The poison dragon uses their Charisma modifier in place of their Intelligence modifier for any discoveries gained this way.

Toxic Secretion (Ex)

At 2nd level, a poison dragon has learned to harness the potential of their natural ability to produce harmful toxins. Once per day, in a process that takes 10 minutes, the poison dragon can create and imbibe a tincture that causes their skin to secrete a more powerful version of their natural vishkanya toxin. The poison dragon is immune to this secretion, but any creature that hits them with a natural attack or unarmed strike must succeed at a Fortitude save (DC = 10 + 1/2 the poison dragon’s ninja level + the poison dragon’s Charisma modifier). On a failed save, the target takes an amount of damage equal to the poison dragon’s Charisma modifier.

As a swift action, the poison dragon can collect and concentrate this secretion into a poison they can deliver as a touch attack or apply to a weapon. Targets of such attacks must attempt saving throws as if they had touched the poison dragon’s toxic secretion. The poison dragon can do this a number of times per day equal to their ninja level + their Charisma modifier.

This is a poison effect. The poison dragon can suppress this secretion as a standard action, in which case it remains suppressed for 1 hour or until the poison dragon reactivates it as a standard action.

This ability replaces the the ninja trick gained at 2nd level.

Improved Secretion (Ex)

At 3rd level, a target that fails its save against the poison dragon's toxic secretion must succeed at a second save 1 round later or take the same amount of damage again. This effect repeats as long as the target continues to fail its saving throws, to a maximum number of rounds equal to 1 + 1 for every 3 ninja levels the poison dragon possesses (to a maximum of 6 rounds at 18th level).

Additionally, 3rd level and every 3 levels thereafter, the poison dragon can choose a condition to have their toxic secretion impose. This choice is made when the tincture is imbibed and can’t be changed for the remainder of the day. A creature that fails its save against the toxic secretion also gains the condition until it succeeds at a save against the secretion, or until the toxin’s duration ends. At higher ninja levels, the poison dragon gains access to stronger conditions. The following conditions are available at the given ninja levels: 3rd—bleed (1d6), dazzled, fatigued, or sickened; 6th—dazed or shaken; 9th—blinded or staggered; 12th—exhausted; 18th—stunned.

This ability replaces the no trace ability.

Toxic Digestion (Ex)

At 14th level, a poison dragon can drink a poison as a standard action and suspend it within their own body. They are not affected by the poison, and do not need to attempt saving throws against it. When the poison dragon next uses their toxic secretion on a creature that attacks them with a natural or unarmed attack, they can expose the attacker to the digested poison (with that poison‘s normal duration, effects, and save DC) rather than their normal toxic secretion, even if the digested poison isn’t normally a contact poison. The poison dragon can maintain only a single digested poison at a time. If they digest a new poison, any older digested poison is lost.

This ability replaces the ninja trick gained at 14th level.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:

A working day has still 8h, and if they were to write these useless explanations, be they free or paid, would mean I'd get my stuff later, if at all. So, still a pass.

Not to mention that a Paizo PDF still needs to have layout, be edited and proofread, approved and produced. All that is hitting workstations I'd rather have put out adventures, rulebooks, board games, fiction or whatever else I enjoy Paizo putting out.

The explanations aren't useless, they just don't appeal to you.

Since you've made it clear that there really isn't any discussion about things you don't care about though, we can leave it here. Since your desires aren't any more important than mine, you can say "I don't want it" I can say "I want it" and neither of us is any more right than the other.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

We have blogs for explanations and intent.

I only want that from the Editorial Department if it’s something they’re interested in doing. Demanding dissertations is not something I’ll push for.

There's no demand here, it was an off the cuff idea about making explanations and intent profitable if that's a major concern. No one is "demanding a dissertation", that's ridiculous. Something as simple as the Smite patch notes are really what's being asked for here.

Example:
CHANG’E

"This elegant goddess brings a unique play style to SMITE, and a unique role flexibility. Chang’e has alternated back and forth over the years between damage and frontline builds. As her stats have dropped a bit, we are looking to bring her back with a damage buff through power scaling, to make sure those aggressive Chang’e players out there can impact a fight."

MOONFLOWER DANCE: Increased Magical Power Scaling from 50% to 60%

It's not a 5 paragraph essay, let alone a dissertation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
They're taking the time developers could spend writing something useful for me, so yes, they do take away from me. So yeah, I have a dog in this fight, and fights I have a dog in go down like this. No, I'm not interested in sharing, caring or taking you into consideration, I'm rather obnoxiously selfish when it comes to my money.

If you want to go that way, perhaps a PDF. A 'Designer Insights' series. After an errata is posted in bare bones and plain text as you like, they release a PDF that discusses the changes and looks into the design philosophy of the recent errata. Charge a few bucks for it. Now the developers can make a profit from something you consider to be a waste of their time, and people can spend a buck or two for the extra content they desire.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:

Fixes, as in "we printed +1 instead of +3"? Sure.

Essays explaining why it's +3? Nope.

Official solving of people's problem with making decisions, rule calls or resolving conflitcts? Nope.

But those essays are optional, if you don't want them don't read them. It doesn't take anything away from you so I don't understand your animosity.


nick1wasd wrote:
Me and one of my tables run Runes as almost like Materia, where there are preexisting slots in the armor/weapon, and the Runes are physical gems/plates that you have to socket into them, and the 1 day of crafting is essentially "setting the gem" in the slot, making sure the magic flows out of the rock and into the metal blah blah. So with our fluff the Runestone doesn't crack afterwards, but that's not that big of a deal, they're just 1gp chunks of special treated stone, after 3rd level you can just get a bag of them en masse and it's no big deal. Rule #1 baby, Rule #1!

This is how my group has been envisioning them, Dragon Age style runes.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

While I disagree that Rogue is a problem class, I think it's one of the most powerful classes right now, I understand your frustration with character building.

Several classes only give class features at level 1, and the other 19 levels are left to the feat system. This wouldn't be a problem, but both skill feats and class feats fail to be exciting a majority of the time. There are a lot of levels in 2e where you are just picking the best from three mediocre feats. Wizard level 6 is particularly bad, only two feats that are both simple numerical bonuses, yikes.


I really don't see why PDFs can't just come as a standard resolution and a high quality resolution, and you just download whichever you need.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd also like to throw my hat in for the return of the Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil, I just love that prestige class so much <3.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ExOichoThrow wrote:
Donovan Du Bois wrote:
Nerkios wrote:
A lot of people here say that the wizard is underpowered but after playing 5th I have to say that I find the wizard version of Ptf2 much more fun and versatile
I have to hard disagree here. 5e vancian-light spellcasting is so much fun. I absolutely love it to bits and pieces.
Unsurprising that you enjoyed the system that made spontaneous casters far worse than prepared casters, as a wizard die-hard. in 5e a wizard can prepare more spells than a sorcerer even knows, and then doesn't have to even worry about how many slots he commits to each spell

I never played a spontaneous caster in 5e, so I would have no idea. I did play a ranger though, because I'm not a wizard die-hard. Being able to prepare a variety of spells and then only using the ones you need felt so much better. You never ended up with a dead spell slot and you could spread you list a little wider.


Nerkios wrote:
Donovan Du Bois wrote:
Nerkios wrote:
A lot of people here say that the wizard is underpowered but after playing 5th I have to say that I find the wizard version of Ptf2 much more fun and versatile
I have to hard disagree here. 5e vancian-light spellcasting is so much fun. I absolutely love it to bits and pieces.
But the wizard itself is not really that great,they only get one class feature (arcane recovery) and the subclasses are quite weak and don't do anything to help make each wizard feel unique, they give a couple small features, but that's about it.

Wizard is not the most flavorful class in 5e, but they are all about the spells and 5e's version of casting feels so much better to use.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nerkios wrote:
A lot of people here say that the wizard is underpowered but after playing 5th I have to say that I find the wizard version of Ptf2 much more fun and versatile

I have to hard disagree here. 5e vancian-light spellcasting is so much fun. I absolutely love it to bits and pieces.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
Temperans wrote:

I already stated some things in the new thread that is solely for how to benefit casters/Wizards. And here I have stated multiple time that a +1/+2 bonus item/rune would go a long way to make casters feel more useful.

But of course that was before I realized its useless, and no matter how casters feel people will have problems.

I can tell you that more abilities that cost 1 or 2 actions will probably make Wizards feel even worse without some fix to the action economy.

And no, waiting till level 16 to be able to use metamagic is not fun for a class who should have been able to apply them while preparing since level 1.

How many pages was it until one of you finally understood a +1 wont harm balance and make casters feel better? 34? 36?

I'm going to be honest, I don't think PF2 will ever fit what you want.

You don't like how spellcasting is set up with the action economy as being based around 2 actions for a spell.
You don't like the fact that you no longer have to muck with "effective slots" vs "actual slots" for prepared metamagic, and the fact that you don't have to prepare known metamagics at the start of the day.
You don't like how different options are based around the action economy.

I really don't think there's any middle ground here. This is basically a "PF1 or bust".

This doesn't seem fair to me.

You don't like how spellcasting is set up with the action economy as being based around 2 actions for a spell.

This is one of the most common complaints about casters is 2e. They don't interact with the action economy almost at all and that's a problem. Spells need to be adjusted to have variable action costs so that casters have more tactical options.

You don't like the fact that you no longer have to muck with "effective slots" vs "actual slots" for prepared metamagic, and the fact that you don't have to prepare known metamagics at the start of the day.

You frame this as 'mucking about' but this entire thread is full of people saying that wizards are the kings of preparing ahead. You can;t have it both ways. Preparing ahead can't be 'mucking about' but also be the wizards strength.

You don't like how different options are based around the action economy.

This is directly related to the fact that wizards don't get to play with the action economy. Martial classes have so many ways to use their three actions with flourishes, presses, combined actions, finishers. The casters got nothing. Wizards are already pressed in their action economy, making them give up more actions doesn't help at all.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
Ubertron_X wrote:
Unicore wrote:
How to prevent enemy casters (one of the most common NPCs) from using those numbers at level +2 or 3 from TPKing the entire party with minimal effort?
Simple, just remove the inherent +2 (or more) they seem to have above PC casters...
How do you remove this from the NPC built like a PC?

Don't build your NPCs like PCs if you want them to be in combat, enemies are not created like players.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Donovan Du Bois wrote:
Okay, let's talk about 'spotlight'. Wizards don't have any right now.
No class does. That’s a good thing.

That's bull.

Fighters, Rangers, and Barbars all shine in combat. Rogues, Rangers, and Bards all shine in skill challenges. Sorcerers and Bards both get to shine bright in social challenges.

Classes get spotlights in 2e.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
In most parties, Wizards are the smart character. They will have, and be able to use successfully, all the Int-based skills (Arcana, Occultism, and Society, most often) whenever those come up. They are a wealth of information on several diverse and important topics. That's not nothing, and an important skill role.

Rolling recall knowledge isn't a fun or exciting thing to do, it takes my actions and I'm the only one who even cares. It's important maybe, if your party gives a damn, but that doesn't make it fun in any way. Cleaning your bathroom is important. Not that it matters anyway, the bard is better at this than you.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
And they are indeed a combat character in some ways (as are all PF2 characters in different ways). They excel at both minion sweeping, and potentially at debuffing single large threats. Trust me when I say that both those are memorable and exciting things when done right.

Trust me when I say they are done right about once a session because my spell are limited and miss half the time.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
They also, if focusing on blasting even a bit, shine when using their spells specifically against those who have a Weakness to them (which they are likely to know about due to the Int stuff above). And if they build for it, they can also eventually grab Clever Counterspell and very effectively shut down a lot of enemy casting.

Yay! I can spend my money to buy a ton of spells so that I can use my limited resources to counterspell. Enemy casters will of course always have more spells than you, and counterspell doesn't even work every time, but this is so much fun.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
And then there's this: In terms of non-combat challenges, if you grab the Spell Substitution Thesis and invest in your spell book, you can solve literally every single problem there's a spell to solve as long as you have 10 minutes. You're some combination of MacGuyver and the oft-touted Schroedinger's Wizard in a way basically no other Class can readily duplicate. You just spend 10 minutes and have whatever spell is...

If we remove spell substitution, fly, and invisibility from the game will you let wizards be fun? The potential that a wizard can solve a non combat challenge is not a guarantee they will solve every non combat challenge. Like I said, I get to solve a problem maybe once or twice in a 4-6 hour session. And I have spell substation!

You seem to forget that 10 minuets is enough time to just let the normal skill characters solve the freaking challenge without you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lycar wrote:

]We are talking about class feats here presumably?

All right, I'll bite. List 3.

Still waiting...

Sorry to keep you waiting. I know you only asked for three, but I really wanted to go all out on this one boss.

(Incomplete) Martial Utility Feat List!

Barbarian:

Fast Movement: Movement speed boost.
Dragon's Rage Breath: Lets you hit elemental weaknesses.
Spirits' Interference: Gives all ranged attack rolls against you a flat miss chance.
Renewed Vigor: Temporary healing.
Dragon's Rage Wings: Gives Barbarians a fly speed and prevents all fall damage. (Guess we need to nerf Barbar, they have access to Feather Fall and Fly!)
Spirit's Wrath: This is a ranged spell attack and you can choose the damage type.
Dragon Transformation: Barbars get dragon form too! Except they can do it as many times per day as they damn well please!
Quaking Stomp: They can cast earthquake too? Once per 10 minuets!?

Fighter:

Assisting Shot: Aid actions at range? Easier than you think!
Revealing Stab: Fighter's can't be invisible, but they can end invisibility.
Reflexive Shield: Saving throw buffs? You got it!
Blind-Fight: Fighter's can't be invisible, but they can IGNORE invisibility.
Shield Warden: Shielding allies? Ten four good buddy!
Felling Strike: Fighter's can't fly, but they can end flight.
Certain Strike: Ohh, failure effects for basic attacks.
Debilitating Shot: We got slows!
Mirror Shield: We got ... spell reflection? It's a good thing spell attacks arn't likely to critically fail right?
Incredible Ricochet: It's not true strike, but it's kinda true strike.
Determination: Cleansing spell effects once per day, just fighter things.

Ranger:

Wild Empathy: Talking to animals, didn't this used to be a spell?
Scout's Warning: Initiative bonuses for everyone.
Blind-Fight: Ranger's can't be invisible, but they can IGNORE invisibility.
Camouflage: It's not invisibility, but it's kind of invisibility.
Warden's Step: Everybody sneak!
Lightning Snares: This is the creation spell for snares.
Second Sting: Ohh, failure effects for basic attacks.
Sense the Unseen: Rangers can ignore the sneak skill too.
Warden's Guidance: EVERYBODY ignores invisibility!
Targeting Shot: Rangers ignore cover now too?
Shadow Hunter: Rangers DO get invisibility!
Quaking Stomp: Rangers can cast earthquake too.

This is an incomplete list of course, but there's plenty of utility there, and at least three of them actually just give you the effects of a spell.


Accidental Double Post


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lucas Yew wrote:

Bolded my main gripe in this 4 decades old quarrel.

Anyway, like they say, it's a team game; and spotlight stealing is criminally toxic in a team game, especially if one side can only truly shine in only one of many aspects of the gameplay.

Of course, a martial player giving up their spotlight voluntarily in a private session may be fine if done with mutual consent, but you should never ever expect as such in a random Organized Play.

Okay, let's talk about 'spotlight'. Wizards don't have any right now.

Wizards clearly are not a 'face' class, they do not excel in social situations. Wizards clearly are not a skill character, they do not have the skills needed to defeat most skill challenges. Wizards clearly are not a combat character, they do not shine in combat right now.

Where is the Wizards 'spotlight'? Once in every 4-6 hour session when one of their spells matches the current challenge and lets them skip it? That's the LEAST fun thing I can imagine, and why a lot of people are trying to explain that Wizards are boring right now.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
While that can certainly be true, I feel obliged to make the counterpoint that this is the first edition in which "full casters > everyone else" is not in effect. (Barring 4e, because output was incredibly similar between classes.) That is true of BG2, is true of 3.5, is true of PF1, and is true of 5e.

As someone who played 5e as a rogue, 5e felt very balanced to me.

Cyouni wrote:
That alone will make a wizard feel weaker and "boring". Going from being able to singlehandedly end encounters by yourself and resolve problems solo to actually needing to work with a party is definitely weaker. Similarly, a caster will have lost the quadratic wizard syndrome in moving to PF2, meaning their absurd resources as they get higher and higher in level is no longer a thing.

I think you are misunderstanding what people are saying. I've played a 2e ranger and I've played a 2e wizard. As a ranger I always have something powerful and impactful to do on every turn of combat, and I have a few tricks up my sleeve. As I wizard, most of my turns in combat feel wasted, and my tricks fail me half the time.

When people say that wizard is boring, they don't mean it feels boring compared to 1e wizard, they mean it feels boring compared to other 2e classes.

Cyouni wrote:

I am not going to deny that, but I think that's a lot better for the game. The fact that save or suck is less effective against higher level foes means that you don't have to worry about hordes of low level casters destroying the party through sheer "whoops you failed a save and are now out of the fight".

The fact that rocket tag/save-or-die is significantly reduced means that you no longer have to push the boundaries of what needs to be done to ensure you don't die. (I'm also a person who failed a save vs ghoul fever and got CdGed, and failed a save against Destruction on a 6 and was out of the final fight of the campaign on turn 2. And I'm the optimizer of the group.)

I've played ALOT of 3.5/Pathfinder in my day, both behind the GM screen and as a player. Never have I ever had ANY of these problems. A wizard has never derailed my campaign, or one turned my boss. My players have never complained about wizards being overpowered. In our last long term campaign, our goblin ranger was the most effective member of the party by far, and the party had a wizard and a arcanist.

Cyouni wrote:
The fact that the sheer utter utility of the full caster has been reined in means that a full caster can't just sneeze and accidentally wreck the plot, or that a GM has to jump through a ton of hoops to ensure that doesn't happen.

This has never happened in any game I have ever played in my 14 years of playing RPGs. I don't know if this happens to other people on a regular basis, but this has never happened to me ever.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
ExOichoThrow wrote:
The problem is we know who is giving what type of scores based on threads on this forum. I'm not saying we take them out of the poll or ignore the data but we should also be honest about their reasoning. We had an entire thread where somebody complained that Wizards didn't have enough skills, for christ's sake-- Some people are going to whine that their favourite class needs to be buffed more than anyone will just blindly vote their favourite class because they like it-- that's where the enjoyment vs perceived power stats come into play. Votes like that are objectively less valuable than others, in my opinion.

First of all, rude.

Second, I gave the Wizard class a 3 enjoyment and 4 power. So even though I have complaints about the class, I tried to be as honest a possible. I would have given wizard a lower score if I hadn't played Alchemist first.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:

Blaster does not equal spell attack roll. You have to be belligerently unaware of the strategies of PF2 to think it is a good idea to be a caster and ONLY pick spells that target AC with a spell attack roll.

Spells that move enemies around or restrict movement become a lot more powerful if you have some kind of battlefield control spell or circumstance on the table. Flight is a terrible spell in a 10 ft hallway with a 10ft ceiling.

All spells have circumstantial advantages and disadvantages . Spell attack roll spells are great spells to cast against enemies with low ACs and when you have a spare 1st level Truestrie and an action to cast it with. If making it your general thing is your plan, you also probably need to memorizing spectral hand to take advantage of the additional circumstance bonus to hit from flanking. That one lasts for a minute though so it is your desired pre-buff/first round but only when you have enough distance between yourself and the enemy to make it worth it.

Spells will always be determined by the circumstances you cast them in. If your party is consistently, (more than 50%) of the time finding yourself in circumstances where you have no idea what the battlefield will look like (narrow corridors vs open) or what types of enemies you will be facing when you go to select spells, Wizards are going to start looking pretty bad to you.

However, that is more than like a playstyle choice of your party* And wizards definitely suffer when the rest of the party is inflexible about adjusting its play style to accommodate the wizard's flexibility into their strategies.

*PFS does present a unique situation that I am not that familiar with and I am willing to concede that the blaster caster wizard might not a good PFS2 class, because of its dependency on foreknowledge and party support.

Your party shouldn't have to adjust their playstyle around your one character. I can't think of another class that requires the party to work around them instead of just working within the party (with the notable exception of Alchemist, the other poorly implemented class of 2e)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lycar wrote:

Okay, now you are just being wilfully obtuse. :(

All these things, Wizards have for themselves, and ONLY for themselves.

But the things you accuse martials of having outside of 'hit things with other things' are things EVERY class has, INCLUDING Wizards. And what's sauce for the goose...

I don't know what you arn't understanding about this, but other classes have feats that wizards can't have. These feats are good, some of them even mimic the effects of spells, and most can be done an infinite number of times per day.

Martial classes have abilities, they have utility, and it's utility that wizards don't have access to. Wizards don't just own all of the utility in the game, and you can't just keep saying "Wizards have utility so they don't get to be decent at combat."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:

The fact that wizard feats interact with spells is very much the point of the class. But many of them do interact well with cantrips as well as spell slots and give you more spell slots than other casters.

Wizard is the wrong class for anyone who is more interested in all day class features than casting spells.

I want to focus on spells, I like spells. I also like having feats that interact with my spells, and I like spells being a limited resource.

With all that said, if your entire class is based around the limited resource of spells, those spells need to be worth it to cast.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lycar wrote:

You mean, the basic attacks of a non-martial class are not as good as the basic attacks of the dedicated damage-dealers? Next you tell me it gets dark at night... :p

Or more to the point: You have offered no justification whatsoever for why they should be in the first place.

I actually, factually, in the sentence you are responding to, said the phrase "I don't think they need to rival the damage a fighter does". I don't want wizard cantrips to hit like a broadsword, I just also would like to feel like I'm participating!

Lycar wrote:
Because you come off as someone who sulks because he does not get to end all encounters, every day, with his awesome spell power.

Oh, look. Words I have literally never said.

Lycar wrote:
Can't you accept that other classes can end encounters with THEIR class features too?

I just said other classes can do things while wizards cast spells. Characters can all have cool abilities. Are even reading what I'm saying?

Lycar wrote:
And that no, the Wizard is not required to 'carry' the party through the day with their spells.

Oh, look. More words I have literally never said.

Lycar wrote:

Casters have abilities outside of spells! Good ones! Effective ones! Utility ones! You are pretending that casters just don't have abilities or powers once out of spell slots when they all do.

There, fixed that for you. :p

DO THEY NOW? Let's you an I take a quick peak into wizard feats.

COUNTERSPEL: Requires a prepared spell slot.
ESCHEW MATERIALS: Augments a prepared spell slot.
FAMILIAR: Found one!
HAND OF THE APPRENTICE: This one let's you hit someone with your stick once an encounter.
REACH SPELL: Augments a prepared spell slot.
WIDEN SPELL: Augments a prepared spell slot.
CANTRIP EXPANSION: More bad cantrips.
CONCEAL SPELL: Augments a prepared spell slot.
ENHANCED FAMILIAR: Improves the familiar, possibly the only non-spell focused archetype enabled for wizards, and it specifically avoids spells.
BESPELL WEAPON: This one let's you hit someone with your FLAMING stick once an encounter.
LINKED FOCUS: This one let's you regain some focus, so that you can continue not having much to do with it.
SILENT SPELL: Augments a prepared spell slot.
SPELL PENETRATION: Augments a prepared spell slot.
STEADY SPELLCASTING: Augments a prepared spell slot.

Wow, by level 6 I can have a familiar or I can hit people with a magic stick, if I refuse to take any other class feats, but at least I can do SOMETHING when all my slots are gone. Much fun.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Donovan Du Bois wrote:
Cantrips are worse than the basic attacks and abilities of every other class in the game, I don't think they need to rival the damage a fighter does, but they simply are not good.

Electric Arc actually does really solid damage if you've got two enemies to target with it. Like, legitimately solid even compared to martial characters damage.

This is admittedly less true of other cantrips, but it's worth noting, especially since not all casters have Electric Arc but Wizards do.

Electric Arc is by far the best blasting cantrip, and I like it a lot. If all cantrips were up to that power level and versatility, I think Wizard would be in a much better place.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lycar wrote:
You know what a caster's class feature is? Casting spells. And they too can do that all. Day. Long.

Cantrips are worse than the basic attacks and abilities of every other class in the game, I don't think they need to rival the damage a fighter does, but they simply are not good.

Lycar wrote:
Just because you have exhausted your daily complement of spell slots does not mean you can't cast spells any more. Sure, cantrips are not nearly as powerful as 'real' spells, because of course they aren't. But a caster player running out of spells because they can't be bothered to pace themselves because 'gods beware' other people get to play their characters too have nobody to fault but themselves.

Why do you have this idea that a caster having spells stops everyone else from playing their characters? Casters can cast spells WHILE other party members do things.

Lycar wrote:
Spells are at a premium because of their devastating potential. Sure, that potential doesn't always get realised, but non-casters do not have that potential to begin with. So maybe learn to pace yourself and cast a damn cantrip if they rest of the party don't need you to waste spell slots on fights that are already in the mop-up phase.

Non-casters have abilities! Good ones! Effective ones! Utility ones! You are pretending that non-casters just don't have abilities or powers when they all do.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

The data analysis going on in this thread is really fascinating. :D

I think it's important to remember, though, what the data is actually saying, either way. Wizards getting a low score in this poll does not say "wizards are weak". It says "wizards are perceived to be weak".

That could be because they actually are weak, or it could be for other reasons - such as most people aren't playing wizards to their strengths, or the wizard writeup does a bad job in guiding people on how to play powerful wizards, or people's expectations of wizards is out of line with reality.

I love how we can find every reason for wizards not being fun or powerful, except that wizards arn't fun or powerful.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lycar wrote:
So, scarcity of resources is a thing, but it is not nearly as much of a thing as some people wish you would believe. Casters, check your privileges...

Have you ever played a 2e caster? Just like for a month or so worth of sessions? Running out of spell slots is a regular occurrence, and spell slots are ALL YOU HAVE.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TSRodriguez wrote:
ikarinokami wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Wizards don't need more skills, period. They can solve problems by altering reality, let's have those who can't cast spells be better at "mundane" ways of getting ahead.
I think wizard's ability to alter reality is greatly overblown until level 10 wish.
How about; Wizards don't need more skills period. They can solve problems by using their versatile bag of spells available.

I agree. In fact, why do wizards even get skills? There's never going to be more than like 10 skill checks in a session anyway, by level 5 the wizard has enough spell slots to use a spell to skip all of them. It's not like spell slots do anything else.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ruzza wrote:
What if -and hear me out- we give the wizard one more trained skill.

You know what? You've convinced me. Pathfinder 2e is perfect, nothing is wrong with the wizard class, people who are not having fun are just objectively wrong, and there is no war in Ba Sing Se.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TSRodriguez wrote:
Donovan Du Bois wrote:


Because it's not a simple question, and you know it. You are also completely ignoring the fighter's entire feat list of other abilities they can use, many of them also infinite times per day. Fighters are not just empty-handed with one single trick.

Yeah, but he cannot turn invisible or fly, or make your buddy resistant to fire, ergo letting him using his bag of feats more often.

As you are not telling me how much damage you want (I say average 52 is pretty decent against 75hp 3/day, but that's me) I will ask, how much do you want to do with cantrips, so you can do it all day long, like the fighter and his feat.
Using telekinetic projectile, you can do 13 damage on average, throw some focus ("unavoidable" Force Bolt) and you do 20 damage, a little less than the fighter. So how much more do you need to not feel bad doing it

If we just remove the fly spell from the game can Wizards have good offense spells? I will make that trade. You can have fly, invisibility, and every 10th level spell that no one ever gets to actually use if wizards can be fun and useful during combat, the thing that takes up most of the game time.

I don't know why killing one enemy (average 52 against 75hp 3/day) is worth 22% of everything a wizard gets to do today, but that seems completely unreasonable to me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TSRodriguez wrote:
Donovan Du Bois wrote:


So using your two or three times a day, would you be fine with fighters only being able to double strike four to six times a day and then needing to using single attack actions and other abilities (utilities and cantrips) for the rest of the day?

But the fighter doesn't have utility tricks... If the fighter can turn invisible, then yes, as currently presented though, Im gonna have to say no.

Why dont you answer the simple question, how much damage to a 75hp enemy, the spell has to do, for you to be happy doing it at max 3/day.

Because it's not a simple question, and you know it. You are also completely ignoring the fighter's entire feat list of other abilities they can use, many of them also infinite times per day. Fighters are not just empty handed with one single trick.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ruzza wrote:
Donovan Du Bois wrote:
So using your two or three times a day, would you be fine with fighters only being able to double strike four to six times a day and then needing to using single attack actions and other abilities (utilities and cantrips) for the rest of the day?
In this scenario, do the fighters get to fly and turn invisible?

No, I'm afraid they are stuck with the ability to attack all enemies within their attack range and infinite number of times per day.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TSRodriguez wrote:
Ubertron_X wrote:


Also your figures are off again. With +14 versus AC21 you have 36% chance of critting, doing an average of 52 damage and 4.5 persistent but having a real chance of one-shotting the monster (you probably need an average of at least 8.5 per die instead of 6.5). Ressource consumption is debatable, but when using spell level as an indication you are using 4 levels of your existing 18, so roughtly 22%.

But that was what I said (I said 92% chance of hit, not crit), and the average die you need for the kill is a 9.

If you can pull that damage every fight it would be kinda unfair, don't you think? 2 times or 3 times per day, Il take it. Filling the rest with utility and some cantrips.

Using the math as presented, the average shocking grasp does ~ twice as much damage as a double strike. Because shocking grasp has such a high crit ceiling, and multiple double strikes take more actions, I'm going to say that 3 double strikes are 'worth' the same as a single truestrike shocking grasp.

So using your two or three times a day, would you be fine with fighters only being able to double strike four to six times a day and then needing to using single attack actions and other abilities (utilities and cantrips) for the rest of the day?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Donovan Du Bois wrote:
Unicore wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:


From my experience playing Pathfinder, a lot of the AP dungeons are small or divided into sections that you're supposed to do in 1 visit. Whatever spells you came in first with will have to suffice for the mooks + boss of this "dungeon level". And then the next one will just be something totally different.
Exactly! Taking a little bit of time to find out what kinds of things are likely to be in that dungeon is critical to your caster's effectiveness. You might not be able to guess all of it, but it is very rarely the case that biggest meanest thing in the dungeon is unknown to anyone, or if not the biggest/meanest thing (some times dungeons surprise you) the most common monster usually is known. That's not to say you shouldn't have anything else prepared, but if you are never encountering clues about what lies ahead in your adventure, your party tactics might need to change, or you might need to talk to your GM, if you are taking actions/expending resources to try to have some foresight and it is never giving you useful results.
This is BS, Paizo's own modules rarely give clues on what kind of encounter the big bad will be, and several of them are randomized.
... no?

Oh really? Just the scenarios I've run:

PFS2 Scenario Spoilers:
Scenario #1-00: Gives you a hint, but punishes you for taking too long to reach the final encounter, stopping to let the wizard change spells will lead to a disadvantage.

Scenario #1-01: Has no big bad, encounters are randomized, no way to predict.

Scenario #1-02: Purposefully pulls the rug out from under the players at the end, preparing for the predicted encounter is actively wrong. Players taking too long will be punished by NPC death.

Scenario #1-03: This entire scenario is on a timer and there is no time to change spells at any point.

Scenario #1-04: This entire scenario is on a timer and the player's rest is actively interrupted by an encounter, the big bad is unpredictable anyway though.

Scenario #1-05: This scenario is one where you CAN actually rest and prepare for the final encounter.

Scenario #1-06: This scenario is randomized, although not on a timer. The players could rest and change spells if they make good guesses on the nature of the final encounter.

Scenario #1-07: This scenario has no information on the nature of the last two encounters and gives no time for a full rest.

Scenario #1-09: This scenario is one where you can know the final encounter in advance and prepare for it.

Out of these nine scenarios, less than half of them have the potential for predicting and resting before the final encounter to let you change your spells.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:


From my experience playing Pathfinder, a lot of the AP dungeons are small or divided into sections that you're supposed to do in 1 visit. Whatever spells you came in first with will have to suffice for the mooks + boss of this "dungeon level". And then the next one will just be something totally different.
Exactly! Taking a little bit of time to find out what kinds of things are likely to be in that dungeon is critical to your caster's effectiveness. You might not be able to guess all of it, but it is very rarely the case that biggest meanest thing in the dungeon is unknown to anyone, or if not the biggest/meanest thing (some times dungeons surprise you) the most common monster usually is known. That's not to say you shouldn't have anything else prepared, but if you are never encountering clues about what lies ahead in your adventure, your party tactics might need to change, or you might need to talk to your GM, if you are taking actions/expending resources to try to have some foresight and it is never giving you useful results.

This is BS, Paizo's own modules rarely give clues on what kind of encounter the big bad will be, and several of them are randomized.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TSRodriguez wrote:
Donovan Du Bois wrote:


Enough to be worth over 10% of your total daily resources. You should probably have a decent chance of actually hitting your target and not fizzling out completely, and when you hit it should hurt a little more than what the fighter can do 9,599 more times that day.
With the setting im doing you do have massive chance of hitting, with a 7 with the best of 2 d20, that is 92% chance of hit. But then again, how much more do you need?

I don't have a precise integer value for you, I havn't looked at the hp of every monster to see what percentage the wizard and fighter are doing, I don't know the average number of encounters modules run to see how many times the wizard can do this practically. I have incomplete information, and even if I knew all of that, I'm not sure there's a single number I could pull from the aether that would be perfect.

What I know if that spending two of your limited spell slots and all of your actions for a round is not worth a chance to slightly out damage the fighter this once.


TSRodriguez wrote:
Donovan Du Bois wrote:


You're assuming true strike here with your damage, which is yet ANOTHER limited resource. That's hardly fair.
Yeah, thats the fun part though, Im expending 2 spells to deal more damage that one of the greatest damage dealers of the game, my question remains the same, by how much do I have to surpass him to call it "Good" or "Viable"

Enough to be worth over 10% of your total daily resources. You should probably have a decent chance of actually hitting your target and not fizzling out completely, and when you hit it should hurt a little more than what the fighter can do 9,599 more times that day.

1 to 50 of 228 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>