|1 person marked this as a favorite.|
Gaterie wrote:If tiers are a measure of versatility, there's no difference between wizards and sorcerer. A sorcerer is limited by his repertoire, a wizard is limited by his spellbook. A wizard needs scrolls to expand his spellbook; if he can find scrolls, so can the sorcerer.Not exactly. Scrolls are one way, but a Wizard can also learn new spells from other spellbooks or anyone who knows said spell.
There's no rule to access a spellbook. No rule, no price, etc. Since the spellcasting service of a spell with a casting time of 1 minute costs more than a scroll (... and even more if the spell is uncommon or rare - anyway there isn't any rule to access uncommon or rare spells), any decent GM will set the price for accessing another spellbook to the scroll price (at least).
Anyway, is the tier a function of the class only, or a function of the houserules and the DM ?
If it's a function of the class, the tier shouldn't take into account the fact there's a DM somewhere who gives access to every spell for free to wizards and doesn't give any scroll to sorcerers.
If it's a function of the DM, then the whole concept of tier vanishes to nothingness: I know 1 DM who allows fighters to get a NPC wizard groupie, a fighter with a wizard is better in every conceivable way than a wizard.
And scrolls aren't really that expensive. Being able to spend nominal GP costs and get pretty much every spell of all but your top few spell levels makes Wizards vastly more flexible than Sorcerers in terms of problem solving tools. The Sorcerer can buy scrolls, too, but they can only use them once rather than the infinite times a Wizard can use the spell they've learned.
This is not how it works and you know it.
If you intend to casts the spell an infinite number of time, why isn't it in your repertoire already ? There aren't *that many* spells you intend to cast every time everywhere.
Basically, from a "casting frenquency" standpoint there are 3 kinds of spell:
1/ Spells you want to cast everyday, several times per day. eg ??? I can't see any such spell in PF2. Maybe Invisibility and Fly ? In PF1, it would be Glitterdust, Blindness Haste, etc.
2/ Spells you don't want to cast everyday, but you may need to cast it several time in a short amount of time. eg Teleport (although it isn't a common spell, so there's no rule to get it in PF2).
3/ Spell that are handy in a very precise situation; you won't cast them often, and you don't usually need to cast them several time at once. eg Breath Water, Freedom of movement...
For the first kind of spell, wizard = sorcerer. It was the case in PF1 and it's still the case in PF2. Those spell are cast so frequently, scrolls would be too expansive: both the wizard and the sorcerer rely on slots. The wizard can know Glitterdust and Blindness, but he can't access both at the same time: he has to chose which spell he puts in his slots beforehand. He can change everyday, and decide this day Blindness will more efficient than Glitterdust, in the other hand the sorcerer doesn't have to decide beforehand how many time he'll need Glitterdust and how many time he'll need Invisibility this day.
For the second kind of spell, wizard = sorcerer. Maybe a very small advantage for the wizard, but I'm not even sure. It was the case in PF1 and it's still the case in PF2. If the wizard know he'll need teleport exactly 4 times this day, he can memorize it exactly 4 times and that's awesome. In the other hand, every other day, either he memorizes Teleport once (and lose his slot if he doesn't need it that day), either he relies on scrolls. Sorcerer can either rely on scrolls (as the wizard most of the days), either have it as a spell known, in which case he doesn't lose a slot everyday and he can cast it more time than he though he'd need it in the morning when the situation comes up.
For the third kind of spells, let's look at the scroll economy. The wizard buy a scroll, and copy it in his spellbook. It costs more than just buying a scroll. In the other hand, the sorcerer buys a scroll, it's cheaper (no cost to copy the spell) and can use it whenever he wants (he doesn't need to memorize it at morning). If the spell is useful only once in the whole campaign (and let's be honest, in a typical campaign you need Breath Water only 0-2 times), then Sorcerer >> wizard. Now, let's assume the wizard needs to have access to the spell at any time (if he needs Freedom of movement at one point of the campaign, he'll need it at the moment, not after 10 minute of quick preparation). So he writes two scrolls. He needs a feat for that (but let's be honest, there aren't many useful skill feat), and it's still more expansive than buying two scrolls (copying the spell in his spellbook had a cost). So the sorcerer does that: he buys two scrolls. In the end, if you need the spell 2 times or less during the whole campaign, Sorcerer > Wizard. If you need the spell 3 times or more, Wizard > Sorcerer. On average, Wizard = Sorcerer. It was the case in PF1, it's even more true in PF2 given every nerf on spellcating.
In PF1, the versatility of the Wizard compared to the Sorcerer is mostly a myth, based on the idea the wizard knows exactly every spells he'll need every morning. In actual play, the Sorcerer has versatility thanks to scrolls, sometime the Wizard is better because he knows exactly what will happen in the day and can prepare the right spells, sometime the Sorcerer is better because this day he needed 5 Glitterdust (no wizard prepares 5 times the same spell). The PF1 wizard can cast any spell with his bonded item - doesn't exist in PF2. The PF1 wizard can scribe scroll and change his spell during the day - costs feats in PF2. Fun fact, quick preparation is a feat, any multiclass character can take it at level 8. Ie any multiclass character can fill his spellbook with a lot of spell, and access the right spell at the right moment with this feat. Since quick preparation is especially useful on the third kind of spells, the number of slots per day isn't an issue. A fighter-wizard is infinitely better than a wizard during fight, and can access any spell at any time if needed.
Finally, in PF1, the wizard is far more powerful than the sorcerer at every odd level (ie half of the time): more slots, more powerful slots. The wizard is in a higher tier than the sorcerer because he's more powerful - in term of versatility, he's exactly the same, except in a strange campaign where the wizard get a lot of spellbook while the sorcerer doesn't get any single scroll. In PF2, this advantage vanishes. There's no reason to put the wizard in a higher tier than the sorcerer, except "it was the case in PF1 so I guess it's still the case maybe ?"
Well, first, Fighter is only +1 to hit over most other martial characters.
Didn't they change UTEML to -/0/+2/+4+/6 ? Did they introduce a strange exception for weapon proficiencies ?
Secondly, no, this isn't how Tiers work. Spellcasting remains an excellent problem solving tool, and is only gonna get powered up for the final game. Fighters and other hardcore martial characters reign supreme in their area (doing damage in a straight fight)...but that's a narrow area, not versatility.
What can a level 5 wizard do that a level 5 fighter can't do ? Using only common spells, since tiers shouldn't be a measure of how generous the DM is.
There's at least one area where the fighter contribute while the wizard does nothing: fights. Everytime there's a fight, the turn of the wizard is a waste of everyone's time - especially with the new UTEML.
Even if there are some useful spell, it requires 1 feat to be able to use any scroll. Fighter/Wizard >> Wizard, in term of power and versatility. If you think spellcasting is useful in PF2, you should play a team of fighter/wizard, figther/bard, fighter/druid, and maybe a fighter/paladin (for the canalization), and compare how it perform compared to a more traditional team.