Hbitte's page

One thing I don't see anyone talking about is putting weight according to level. a class that is strong at 3rd level is much more relevant than a class that is good at 18th level.

1-5 [4×] 6-10 [3x] 11-15[2×] 16-20[1x]

little played is of little importance.

something can be overpower, average, balance or underpower. The fact that you don't doubt that something isn't overpower probably means it's below average. the detail is known whether a lot or slightly.

I think it's a little bit if you play in the style that the game wants and a lot if you play in the style that would be more fun.

To be clear most of the tactics you can do should work in pfs, combat as war is cool, but the game works fine for combat as sport.

You don't need a sandbox to cast the fear spell or demoralize, flank, raise a shield, use reactions, cast slow, cast haste, spam magic missiles, inspire courage, commit resources to healing, take advantage of failure+success effect chances on spells, use AOO, bait AOO, True Strike, Hero Points, and so forth.

Also... if you're gonna use a maunever use it without any MAP penalty, lots of actions is the player advantage when fighting higher level foes, even one extra hit or crit from an ally that round immediately makes up for any potential damage loss and across a standard party's collective 11 remaining actions, often counts for more.

Hahah!

Combat as war is win cowardly and smart.

In a war you want to atack the enemy without any chance of counter.

In a war like fight, if you know that the boss is in the room. You barred the door and kill hin without a touch. Dont let him eat, drink, sleep or breath.

Pf2 do everything so you cant use strategy to have a easy fight. PCs dont have a lot o methods to make set a trap, and if they make, boss gonna just step on make the save and crit atacks.

Pf2 is not combat as sport because thats not also a even field.

Pf2 is a game that GM dont need to think too much to make a dificult fight.

To me, it's like reading about driving a car. You might know all the theory, but you have absolutely no idea what it feels like to drive in New York vs the UK vs Boston, let alone how it feels to drive different cars, or in different weather conditions.

an aventador is faster than a jetta, whether the person has driven or not.

There is a lot of desire to close discussions, as even said by a post praising reddit and another literally asking that this thread be closed.

PF2 suffers from a small church culture where any criticism of the system is taken as personal criticism.

Dragon claws are functional for a sorcerer. They won’t keep up with your highest level spell slots, and become secondary attack options relatively quickly. But they still work and are useful for sorcerers in the mid game at least. Sorcerer focus powers and witch abilities don’t need to be every combat, every action activities to be functional.

All Focus Power of all classes are literally and exactly to be useful in all combats

And when this is not achieved it is a failure

The God Wizard's best friend was usually something like an Inquisitor, actually. Martials other than the Paladin and very specific types of Barbarian couldn't keep up with that sort of efficiency.

At the least important levels, most of the game played is the other way around.

From what I am gathering from these discussions is that many of the (perceived or real) problems that players may encounter in regards to casters are not always of mechanical but often also of psychological nature and may not easily be solved without breaking the mechanical part of the game.

For example, lets take a look at a "why can't we have shiny things too" scenario considering the interaction of DC and the four levels of success. Regarding spells that target the opposition you usually have four possible distinct outcomes: critical success = no effect, success = minor effect (which may or may not be still good), failure = major effect, critical failure = severe effect.

So what may easily happen now is that due to level and DC differences player casters may see enemy NPC casters having a high chance for their spells to be yielding a major and more than a token chance for the severe effect when used on the party while when used used by the caster themselves the same spells mostly seem to yield the minor effect only and perhaps occasionally a major effect when used versus appropriate opposition.

The physological issue here is that players do always consider themselves as appropriate opposition, even if they shoudn't be considered that in game terms. So a player would likely consider himself as an appropriate enemy when dealing with a level+2 NPC caster (who probably has a +4 DC advantage) but would themselves not consider a bunch of Level-2 or -4 enemies as appropriate opposition to the potentially devastating effects of their own spells. To worsen things appropriate opposition is often considered as player level and up (equals) and this is exactly where one can easily come up with the impression that they have just been handed the short end of the stick (of course this is not considering increasing your accuracy things like targeting the correct saves or increasing your chances of landing spells by debuffing).

And even if your rational you knows how the game is working and why it is working...

I think people disregard how having a good defense influences the game. Spending a slot and spending action to consume action by the boss, has exactly the same effect of existing with a better defense and better health does the same thing, consumes boss action, without spending action or resource.

The same people think that magic runes that give simple buffs are boring, have the courage to say that casting Magic weapon or another buff or debuff with an effect similar to these runes should be fun. Any interaction of a character that can be replaced by an object is horrible, imagine for a part of an object that is already boring.

Most buffs are debuff in this game are boring. Read the conditions pages in that game. This is the result of the vast majority of spells in that game. Because of the 4 steps of success, you lose a lot of flexibility in spells and transform everything into four steps of effects as opposed to a real intervention in the game universe.

You don't create a hole that works like a hole, you have 4 effects, 3 of them falling, 1 of them of Tiny height. If you disagree, show me show me discussions about creative use of magic here.

The game made a clear choice to transform weak creatures in number visibly as a lesser threat, this is not subjective, it is the philosophy of the game, weak enemies in number matter less by definition and this is your niche, being good at killing enemies in number.

In the main battles your job is to help others. You are a helper, if you think it's good, ok. If not, not ok.

Hbitte wrote:

a tank, standing without taking actions has a good chance of consuming more actions from a boss, just by having more AC, any third wasted attack has exactly the same effect and having more HP to consume damage. Doing nothing, standing still and raising shield.

This seems like a good way to get someone with even the highest AC they can pull off for their level... very much hurt. While a shield ally champion can definitely mitigate a lot of the incoming damage, this is assuming that a boss (assuming a level + 2 opponent fits the bill here) is going to Strike, Strike, Strike. Tactically, while a higher level creature has the advantage fighting down, it's likely the opponent has better options.

Not to mention trading actions with inefficient combat healing. Playing this way requires one or more PCs to dedicate their actions to healing and not keeping up with the damage still. While this is to discuss wizards, a champion who even spends a turn Tripping their opponent, Stepping back, and then Raising a Shield is going to mitigate more damage by denying their opponent the ability to hit them at all. This is something that slow does from the safety of range and without having to hit Reflex DCs (and potentially able to stick much longer with a low save).

you are escaping from the argument.

The argument is to spend two actions for and slots to cast slow and possibly consuming a third action from a boss is not very strong.

it is very likely that a second tank will consume more actions from a boss without even spending resources.

Thunder999 wrote:

AnimatedPaper wrote:

This is, by the way, a common talking point. I personally have gone with the idea that "sucessfully saved" is the default effect, and both "failed save" and "critically failed" are increasing bonus states.

I see spells like that and for me it just makes them all look pretty underwhelming slowing someone for a single round really doesn't feel like it should be limited to 2 or 3 times a day.

The only creature consistently likely to make their save against a spell is a higher level creature, most likely facing a full party of heroes by themselves. Stealing one action from a powerful enemy that may only get 12 or 16 if it is lucky is a pretty decent trade off. Especially since the party is getting 12 actions a round unless the monster lays concentrated damage down fast.

Against a horde of enemies with a more equal encounter distribution, it is a big waste. But honestly, slow on a failure is kind of a waste against equal level opposition.

There is no spell that is just always going to be the best option in every situation.

a tank, standing without taking actions has a good chance of consuming more actions from a boss, just by having more AC, any third wasted attack has exactly the same effect and having more HP to consume damage. Doing nothing, standing still and raising shield.

I mean, if that's your list of experiences I sort of see the problem-- they're either exceptionally unlucky rolls or exceptionally poor tactical decisions (such as using summon dragon against a higher level solo boss and expecting it to do more than soak a little damage or get a lucky shot.)

If the bard was making similar decisions, you'd see an equally poor showing. Their focus magic is doubtlessly useful, but they're running out of slots way faster than the wizard is if they're actually casting. I will point out the Wizard does, unlike every other classes perks, give the player control of what they use it all on, so if you aren't selecting spells with a good plan, the game isn't going out of the way to force them into your hands the way other classes do, but it's much more versatile.

For instance, using the extra slots on Magic Missile makes my extra slots more useful than some other first level spell- I can use it to bypass chance and reduce the number of hits the party has to get, more times than the bard can. Flaming Sphere lets me spend two of my slots, and rack up damage across the fight so I don't run out of gas. There are quality buff and debuff spells as you discussed, as well.

The trick is, the Wizard decides what to do with their extra resources, so they have the power to choose well or badly. So far my outlook seems pretty bright, and I've seen spellcasting at all tiers of play.

AOE weakly

This is not to need to know how to play, it is to force a strict style, in a class it is not really good at anything but it was supposed to be flexible.

It is not that some spells are better than others, some groups of spells are much better than others, eliminating game styles.

siegfriedliner wrote:

him throwing two bombs (which ate a significant chuck of his resources).

Second once he ran out of bombs (which seemed to happen fairly quickly)

Guy goes to the doctor, says, "Doctor, Doctor, it hurts when I do this."

Doctor replies, "Don't do it, then."

and the guy died without air, because he had pneumonia.

Yes, I can already imagine a paladin who only uses the sword as a last resort, literally.

Zapp, I am very interested to find out when your attitude about incapacitation effects changed from hating them enough to label abilities and spells that had the tag enough to label them completely useless

Probably in the fact that it uses finite resources and two actions. you are comparing it to a spell but, in fact, you should compare it against raising the shield, demoralizing the opponent or walking.

YES is a legendary skill, but unlike others you can use all rounds, multiple times, like walking, different from spells.

But it doesn't have the same result. It's worse. It doesn't do damage, it can't be repeated, it only hits one target, and you have to build your entire character around it to make it even somewhat effective.

if it is much worse it would be okay to be a cantrip.

Hbitte wrote:

wait two months and show up on that same forum with a 1 action cantrick with the same effect on the same level and ask what people think. You will see very different responses from the same people who think the feat is perfect.

Would said cantrip require you to be Legendary in intimidation and key exclusively off of Charisma?

If it did, it's probably going to be some kind of niche Focus Cantrip that treads the same ground as Scare to Death, and would never be added to the game.

If it didn't, it would be an overpowered ability that outshines Scare to Death and would never be added to the game.

Do you honestly think Cantrips and LEGENDARY SKILL FEATS should be equivalent?

legendary in arcana or the skill that makes sense for class and intelligence is a much worse attribute in the game.

I honestly think that no 1 (zero cost) action should have the same o better result of a 2 ( resorce paid action).

Hbitte wrote:

wait two months and show up on that same forum with a 1 action cantrick with the same effect on the same level and ask what people think. You will see very different responses from the same people who think the feat is perfect.

Would said cantrip require you to be Legendary in intimidation and key exclusively off of Charisma?

If it did, it's probably going to be some kind of niche Focus Cantrip that treads the same ground as Scare to Death, and would never be added to the game.

If it didn't, it would be an overpowered ability that outshines Scare to Death and would never be added to the game.

Do you honestly think Cantrips and LEGENDARY SKILL FEATS should be equivalent?

legendary in arcana or the skill that makes sense for class and intelligence is a much worse attribute in the game.

I think no 1 free action should have the same result of a 2 paid action.

wait two months and show up on that same forum with a 1 action cantrick with the same effect on the same level and ask what people think. You will see very different responses from the same people who think the feat is perfect.

Samurai wrote:

Yeah, RPGnoremac, I knew Suggestion had Incapacitate, but didn't remember that Fear didn't. That seems pretty inconsistent to me.

The difference is actually really simple:

Fear is, unless you critically fail, a debuff (merely applying a numerical penalty), Suggestion is, at least potentially, a Save Or Die effect.

And that's the general standard of all Incapacitation spells, they will, in a one on one fight, auto win that fight if the enemy merely fails the Save against them. Spells where that's not true very rarely have Incapacitation (even if they take people out of the fight on a crit failure), and almost no spells exist that outright win fights but lack Incapacitation (Baleful Polymorph is a notable exception, but it's the only one I know of).

color spray is very far from autowin even in critical fail and have incapacitation tag

For me, I'm fine with Slowed not really effecting Minions much.

That makes zombies particularly good summon targets...but I'd rather that, than that they be verging on useless (which is what results if they only have one action).

Yes and even thematically zombie being mechanically a good summon is adequate.

Hbitte wrote:

KrispyXIV wrote:

Hbitte wrote:

Cyouni wrote:

Given you think having double the top-level slots of a druid is no way an advantage, I'm not sure there's anything you would think is an advantage that doesn't break the game.

The double of 3 is 6

3 base + 1 school + 1 bonded item + 1 spell blending = 6

Hum, wizard can change spell in 10 min

Hum, wizard have spell bleding

Hum, not.

Yeah, thats definitely a thing anyone suggested.

Oh wait, it is not.

A Wizard can have double a druids spell slots. If so, they don't have spell substitution.

...of course, they can have spell substitution at the cost of only having 66% more spell slots. How terrible.

The person literally said that the "Given you think having double the top-level slots" wizard has is different from may have. Things here are so ridiculous that people do the math for what the wizard might have with multiclass and other class feats.

Hbitte wrote:

Cyouni wrote:

Given you think having double the top-level slots of a druid is no way an advantage, I'm not sure there's anything you would think is an advantage that doesn't break the game.

The double of 3 is 6

3 base + 1 school + 1 bonded item + 1 spell blending = 6

Hum, wizard can change spell in 10 min

Hum, wizard have spell bleding

Given you think having double the top-level slots of a druid is no way an advantage, I'm not sure there's anything you would think is an advantage that doesn't break the game.

The double of 3 is 6

Temperans wrote:

Unicore I agree having a +2 bonus is nice in isolation. However, looking at the whole power its just no fun. If it had at least 1 of these: Longer durarion, easier action use, no focus cost, or better range. Than the power would be fine. But as is it fails to provide any benefit.

Also, that Power was meant to replicate the Enhancement School power: An action to get a bonus to an ability score. But then the Enchantment Power scales to +6 (impossible in PF2), was capable of increases AC, and lasted for up to a minute.

So if it at least had gotten that 1 minute duration it would have made the Power a low more useable.

I think giving it a +2 and allowing it to apply to saving throws just made it too powerful to stick a duration on. If it lasted a minute, I think it would be essentially giving the Transmuter a proficiency bonus to a saving throw that they got to chose every fight. I wonder if people would like it better or worse if it could only apply to athletics or acrobatics, but lasted a minute?

What? last a minute, but to use once. +2 in 1 save is not that strong, not at all.

A Wizard doesn't need to build right or worry about sacrificing defense

it's like saying that the good thing about being blind is that you don't have to worry about losing your sight in the dark

Hbitte wrote:

a fight against the boss has 4 turns (let's assume) as almost all spells spend two actions, it doesn't matter much if I have 4 or 300 slots. I will launch 4 spells.

would be, 3 spell max and a 1 max-1. or in the case of the wizard, sorcerer and cleric. 4 slot max.

that one more slot becomes a discrepancy in a turn a 1lvl higher spell. not everything is a boss fight, but it is certainly the most important moment and in other moments who said that there is a lack of slot for more slot to make any difference.

this is what I see people saying that pays off and I don't see how. worse chassis, worse feats, worse focus power.

Just so were clear, you're aware that no one is supposed to be dropping a max level or mas level -1 spell every single turn, right?

For the hypothetical boss you described, a Wizard has a significant advantage in that they can be using spell slots much more freely up until this final encounter than any other class, and still have 1-2 big ones for the final boss.

Lesser spellcasters are going to be holding back and relying on Focus spells to that point, likely with the goal of hopefully having a big spell left to cast.

No one should really be going into most boss fights and going full nova with all their top spell slots in most dungeons or encounter chains, if they're designed well.

Yes, but I still think it shows the difference between having 3/4 lvl slot. how would you calculate?

There is no such thing as lesser spell casting, nobody calls a ranger or champion of lesser martial and these ARE less proficiencies.

a fight against the boss has 4 turns (let's assume) as almost all spells spend two actions, it doesn't matter much if I have 4 or 300 slots. I will launch 4 spells.

would be, 3 spell max and a 1 max-1. or in the case of the wizard, sorcerer and cleric. 4 slot max.

that one more slot becomes a discrepancy in a turn a 1lvl higher spell. not everything is a boss fight, but it is certainly the most important moment and in other moments who said that there is a lack of slot for more slot to make any difference.

this is what I see people saying that pays off and I don't see how. worse chassis, worse feats, worse focus power.

ArchSage20 wrote:

KrispyXIV wrote:

NemoNoName wrote:

"Wizards are spellcasters, same as everyone else, except everyone else gets extra stuff on top."

In exchange for part of their spellcasting.

Wizards cannot get 25-50% more spellcasting and the same amount and quality of stuff as other classes as well.

That would be massively and fundamentally and obviously unfair to everyone else.

I'm sorry you dont see the value of more spellcasting, but that is not the universally held position you are treating it as. More spell slots is and always has been a perk for the classes that boasted it.

Heck, it was a selling point for Sorcerers last edition and it wasn't even really true.

easy then if that is you problem then here is a solution that makes everyone happy

makes a new class like the wizard but without extra spell slots and give it flavorful features

you can keep your precious wizard the way you want and other people can get a flavorful version of the class

you don't even need to make anything new just make it the arcanist class or the psychic if you insist on it being a prepared spellcaster

problem solved and everyone lived happy ever after

You mean like the witch? Isn't that pretty much exactly what they set out to do with the witch?

i would get druid over witch anyday, for mechanics and flavor, and i hate hug trees.

This is similar to Fighters, who are easy to multiclass out of as you will always be the most accurate class regardless of class feats. The class feats are nice, but not necessary, letting you easily go into another dedication.

the only difference is that one has the best Ac, hp, proficiencies and the other has the worst, but apart from having the best and the worst is the same.

the warrior has the disadvantage of having to give up good feats in the low level.

Salamileg wrote:

I consider Magical Shorthand practically a required feat for wizards for this reason.

First World Bard wrote:

My Wizard has Assurance(Arcana). He can’t fail to learn spells that are lower than his highest level slots.

Soo... feat taxes? That is not good. :(

Kyrone wrote:

Anyway, the tests are usually easy, you begin by having to roll an 8 to learn spells of your maximum lvl but it goes down fast as you gain item bonus and increased proficiency, going as low as having to roll a 3-4 to learn spell of your maximum lvl.

Sure, but a Wizard's identity is in large parts his spell collection. There are so many gripes about 'Wizard has no class identity'. But as prepared casters with a spell book, a large part of their power comes from having (at least potential) access to so many spells.

It may not happen often, but if you have been looking forward to a particular spell (having used the 2 guaranteed spells on level-up for the 'must-haves') and then the die falls unfavourably, that might be a turn-off. It's not like most other classes have to roll for their class features.

Has that ever happened to you? I'm playing a Fighter in our RL-TT group and my Wizard pal has had good fortune on his skill checks so far...

Scholar background receive Assurance, so you won't hear a lot of complaints about it since it's the most common background anyway

Hbitte wrote:

Unicore wrote:

Out of curiosity, do fighters in PF2 have thematic identity anymore?

by lore and mechanics warriors are the best with weapons.

So no, they don't have any thematic identity.

This is something I've thought about while I perused this whole dang thread. Wizards feel a lot like the "base spellcaster" (similar to a how a fighter is the "base martial") that the other classes have built off. If fighters did not get that bump in accuracy, they would be absolutely the least interesting martial, but since they can hit and crit more reliably, people put up with the standard-dress chassis long enough to see the fun value in mid to late game fighter feats. I feel like wizard is the same but instead of accuracy they just get spell slots--and clearly that doesn't seem to translate as well.

Anyways, I have no impact on this as no one ever plays wizards at my tables (nor at 5e tables I've played at--I played a wizard once and so did one other player, in a total of three years of play with a ton of character cycling). They just generally right now seem to suffer from being a little bit vanilla. I'm seeing lots of folks saying they work and lots of folks saying they don't, but most agree that you have to bring your own fun if you want a good flavor to run with. Nothing to fix that now.

I do wonder if the witch has officially come in and supplanted wizards as the lowest-tuned full caster class in the game.

Wizard should be the only one able to produce and read scrolls, use staff, do arcane ritual but basically now almost everyone can do that.

it is ridiculous that anyone can read a scroll because 100 years ago the guy's grandmother had sex with a dragon.( sorcerer)

For sure being good at a lot and being the best at something has a superior flavor than being the worst at a lot and the best at nothing.

Out of curiosity, do fighters in PF2 have thematic identity anymore? Aren't all combat style feats that were once fighter only now pretty much available to anyone through focused archetypes? I ask because it sort of feels like the wizard is being held to some unrealistic expectation of thematic/flavor identity that is largely the domain of archetypes now (post APG), with base classes really the domain of core mechanical features. Maybe not every class, but it is probably ok/should be expected for the Fighter, wizard, cleric and rogue to be pretty vanilla in their core class identity.

I think that casters have been left behind, MASSIVELY, in regards to what can be done with flavor and archetypes in comparison to martial characters, but I think we have pretty much gotten a commitment from the developers that the next major rules book is going to address this issue.

By lore and mechanics warriors are the best with weapons.

By lore and mechanics wizard has the worst class chassis. Without best spellcasting.

Temperans wrote:

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

KrispyXIV wrote:

Unicore wrote:

They make up for it in other things they can do, but if casting different spells for different situations is what you want from a character, there is not another character close to the wizard in filling that function.

Wizard is additionally now the go to class for "all I Really want to do is burn things", since a Wizard can sacrifice all that versatility and just bring more fireballs (or whatever specific spell you like) than anyone else by a numerically significant margin.

I've been thinking this the entire time I've been lurking this thread, people are weirdly underrating the additional casts, having to conserve less translates straight into higher DPR. For a relatively straightforward "I want to drop fireballs and other such spells" build, the Wizard can't be beat, if you wanna get really spicy, spell blending for even more high end slots will really make the engine purr.

Like, people are back to talking about "buffs are the only useful thing a caster can do" and I'm just blinking like "we're past this multiple threads ago, I have a post detailing success chances on saving throw blast spells from back then that covered it" where spellcasters are able to rack up way more damage (across multiple targets) or chunk reliably (against higher level targets) by using saving throw blast spells.

Every caster class has AoE spells for those opportunities when AoE is a good option. This is not unique to the wizard. A few extra spells to cast AoE damage has not proven to spike DPR up to say lvl 9 or thereabouts. Once casters pick up some of those big dog AoE spells at about lvl 9, damage spikes for all casters with AoE spells.

Its self evident that Wizards benefit more- they can afford to use such powerful spells more often, ergo the additional

...

removing things like buff and debbufs to which privilege some more than others and the level to which the comparison is made, then possible errors and everything.

You still expect 100% efficiency in correctly guessing and having prepared a spell for the weak save in a high slot.

And 100% accuracy is to be expected as basic efficiency, in guessing, they can end up with high or low saves since it is useless.

To be quite true, I never thought that any system was really good at giving flavor and really differentiating wizard specializations, the best is 5e, due to lack of competition.

In the current magic system everything that is not buff or give a condition will suffer, not that it is a design goal that I agree with, but it is something that I think will not change.

For me this is the design goal of all specializations, less evocation that aims to have good area damage against moks.

Zapp wrote:

So all this talk about a carefully calibrated game doesn't sound entirely plausible to me...

Yeah, because the calibration being to a different goal than what you expect is completely implausible.

It would be plausible to say that the proficiency of the casters is delayed because of the four levels of success, obviously it does not make sense knowing the spells that have an attack have the same delay. But it would make sense with most spells.

So what exactly is the design goal behind these decisions? Please elucidate me.

Do you think that when people see what they believe to be inconsistencies in a system they should question whether that system has been finely calibrated?

Your answer. It does not add any possibility of the reason, it only makes an attack on a possible ignorance of the person who raised the possible issue.

Temperans wrote:

Side note:

While I was learning about reviews, I did find out about the 4 point scale trope.

Which happened to show up in this thread. Basically, the average of the scale might be 5, but anything less than 6 can mean anything from "horrible to barely passable".

Yes! It's a very fascinating problem.

The other puzzle that's hard to solve with these types of polls is what other people touched on, that mostly the people who are more likely to vote are those far more invested, so you're likely to see a spike of high and low numbers, and very few comparatively middle scores. We ran into that a little less than others, but, see literally any website that uses a 5-star rating system: Amazon, app stores, etc. You either get a bunch of 5s, or a bunch of 1s, and very few in the middle, lol.

The way that most sites and polls like that have solved it is by using a simple thumps-up, thumps-down system. This largely solves the problem people may have distinguishing between say, a 4 and a 5, and tends to give much better results for the question of whether or not people would recommend a particular thing.

I agree with the premise that extremes are the most engaged, but a 5-star score is usually a measure of dissatisfaction with the standard of 5 and everything below that is a bad grade.

Yeah, I feel that this poll has questionable value for the reasons you listed, I actually didn't even vote because I've just been GMing this whole time.

I'd personally say we can safely interpret the Wizard bit as being heavily influenced by the recent threads on the subject, and while I'm sure there's some credibility to some complaints about the Wizard, there are some very overwrought people on the boards- and I say this with love, I would not put it past them to skew the results to validate their own arguments.

yes, some people did what you said and assumed to put a 10 note even though they knew it was not deserve and, yes, he probably did it to validate what he thinks.

5E casters, in my opinion, are terribly boring. They are incredibly effective at every level due to the broken cantrips, and the actual spell slots eventually tip then into broken territory.

The lack of challenge in the game as a whole makes me feel that most decisions don't have any weight behind them. I always built some stupid multi-class just so I wasn't bored to tears.

That is to say, I heavily prefer the excitement of just enough power to overcome challenges. I think weaker spellcasters really make that work in PF2, and I'm happy they choked up on them to start. I think it's probably safe to help them out a bit, but I wouldn't want them to go crazy with buffs.

I just wanted to offer my perspective. I really like casters in PF2 better than in any fantasy roleplaying system I've ever played because it really feels like your play decisions matter.

I think choosing between 22 conditions that give -1 to something, extremely boring.

ps. I didn't count.

difficulty to have more to do with module and GM than the system. multiclass is not even vanilla.

Cantrip are not broken. If you consider eldrich blaster broken than fighter in pf2 is extremely broken.

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.

Pathfinder 2e "subclass" is 1 slot/lvl and 1/2 focus power.

5e, wizard ritual casting alone make wizard great.

4 degress of sucess turned many spell into debuff

PF2 like dnd 4e makes creative uses of spells very difficult.

3 actions spells only would work with spell points.

The guys is right, nobody going to use a slot with s+!! 1 actions spell version.

Donovan Du Bois wrote:

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.

Sure, for your average 15 seconds in the spotlight character I agree. But for a decent arch villain who will be shining outside of combat, but eventually drawn into combat, it is nice to be able to build them like a PC, something the developers deliberately intended to be possible.

"Don't make them wizards, because they will be too powerful," runs contrary to a lot of what is being presented in this thread. Wizards have wonderful places to shine. Luckily, "wiping out groups of organized and powerful enemies by themselves" is not one of them, because that would make rocket tag the only game in town.

if make a vanilla wizard villain without special magic items, he is gonna die in 1 round.

If is not vanilla is not a PC.

if situations are necessary for you to perform like others, that means that you will normally perform below others.

So, which wizard builds work without star alignments or without a party focusing on a poorly performing character?

A only know one, buff and debuffer.

Ps. The situations the privilege martials are far more common.

Hbitte wrote:

why against 75?

Why simulate the use of top slot + 1 lvl slot against same level mob?

to burn everything in a fight like this is realistic? you keep talking about turning invisible and flying, but with what resource? if you make heavy use of slot like that.

Some mob? That is an average level 5 enemy, vs a 5level character

I deleted to rewrite. but I had written same level mob. what exactly is what it is.

Except the greatest probability is failure only when you aim for the strong save on an equal level monster, or the middle save on a higher level monster.

Basically if you're aiming to be the strongest vs higher level enemies, you're looking for PF1, where CR/level means basically nothing. The whole design of PF2 is that level is actually a relevant factor.

Which is why critical fails are common among enemies lower level than you. And why incapacitate exists ("normal mobs" being enemies up to one level higher than you is 100% a PF1 reaction - they're literally the same threat level as you or higher).

globinslayer is a great anime but it is not the character that most people want to play.

Most people want to be a dragonslayer.

Yes, if you want to be an efficient support with competence to kill weak enemies, you will be very happy playing as a wizard.

Yes, this is the version that level counts more, is correct. This also means that low level enemies never mattered less.

Ps.Usually people who want to play caster and support play bard or cleric.

So people are unhappy.

when the greatest probability is the failure you will aim for the failure

making META for the wizard simply choose spells that give the wizard the best consolation prize when you fail.

Nobody looks at critical effect. no effect in the game is worth 40 actions and 20 spells.

nobody even cares about incapacitation spells because spending a max sloth on a normal mob seems like a bad idea right off the bat.

Just as they made mistakes with the alchemist they made mistakes in other areas of the game.

The magic in this game is far from the best attempt at anything. The level of satisfaction of casters is regularly low.

wizard simply doesn't have enough sloths to do all of this preparation. Better to just play socerer and take the money left over for scroll and wands. I'm sure that more glitterdust will be cast by scroll that someone will bother to learn and then prepare a spell like that.

Let's define one thing.

the greater the risk, the greater the expected return must be.

So with the same investment, an ability with a 50% chance, could have 50 damage on hit. With expected damage of 25.

in the case of an ability with a 40% chance of success, there would have to be damage in case of success by 80, with expected damage of 32.

Nobody will bet for more risk and with the same percentage return.

Ps.this is an example, I am not stipulating that this would be the proportion, but that with greater risk, greater return. And greater expected damage from ability.

Hbitte wrote:

Unicore wrote:

Hbitte wrote:

32 damage in 5 rounds using 5 limited resources is very bad damage.

The fact that you are telling this as a success story makes me understand how you think the wizard is not so bad.

This is exactly my point. Until that 5th casting of this spell, I was firmly in the camp of "this is a terrible spell and our caster should not be using it, or at least, since she has true strike, should not use it without it."

Then she saved my life with it, and I realized that some players like having a real powerhouse Hail Mary in their back pocket, because it can be pretty legendary when it all works at exactly the right time.

A smart player can even have their back pocket Hail Mary, and still have very reliable spells for leaning on most of the rest of the time ( as the rest of the story indicated.)

considering that these spells only had an high impact on the highest slot, on your average 5 to 1 hit. No, there is literally no room for the hailmary to work.

Can you explain this a little more? I just gave you a real game experience where it worked exactly. I'd say it happens at our table about every 4 sessions in fact, where a powerful enemy critically fails a save we assume they would have easily passed or a caster crits with a spell to spectacular results. How often is a Hail Mary pass supposed to be completed? If a caster gets three chances every rest cycle, and you have two casters in your party. The odds of magic saving the day start to go up very quickly.

1 Casters have 4 top spells, if u need 5. You dont have.

2 Set a average, under is weak, over strong.

Dont say to me that something is strong when most caracter can do better.

Most caracter can do better than 32 in 5 rounds even without use resources.

The true is as wizard you should keep debuffing most rounds. That way you are not that weak. Any other style of wizard are weak at combat.

Hbitte wrote:

If you want to remove results 1 and 2 from a class and want to compare them with the others, it is minimal to remove them from the others as well.

If the sample were larger, it would be better to remove the 5% of highest and lowest grades. but manipulating a group and still wanting to compare with others is wrong.

Here's the entire list of 1s and 2s for power:

Wizard
Wizard
Wizard
Wizard
Wizard
Wizard
Witch
Witch
Druid
Alchemist
Alchemist
Alchemist
Alchemist
Alchemist
Alchemist
Alchemist

The druid's enjoyment rating was a 6 and one alchemist had a 7 and other hand a 4 (the rest--including all of the wizards--were under 4).

Doing the average values on the alchemist, ignoring 1s and 2s, you get 4.9 for power 6.9 for enjoyment. Still a full point below the unmodified wizard in terms of power!

So, only casters scored 1 and 2. The class that everyone says is the worst was the worst. And wizard was the second worst with a low degree of enjoyment.

very surprising results.

Hbitte wrote:

32 damage in 5 rounds using 5 limited resources is very bad damage.

The fact that you are telling this as a success story makes me understand how you think the wizard is not so bad.

This is exactly my point. Until that 5th casting of this spell, I was firmly in the camp of "this is a terrible spell and our caster should not be using it, or at least, since she has true strike, should not use it without it."

Then she saved my life with it, and I realized that some players like having a real powerhouse Hail Mary in their back pocket, because it can be pretty legendary when it all works at exactly the right time.

A smart player can even have their back pocket Hail Mary, and still have very reliable spells for leaning on most of the rest of the time ( as the rest of the story indicated.)

considering that these spells only had an high impact on the highest slot, on your average 5 to 1 hit. No, there is literally no room for the hailmary to work.

Squiggit wrote:

Lycar wrote:

Because, at least as far as the CRB classes are concerned, the role of the casters is *not* to be primary damage dealers. One way to keep their damage in check is their accuracy. And the reason why that is good is so that they don't make the martial classes obsolete. Again.

Except, again, this comparison isn't being made between Wizard Spells and Fighter Strikes, it's between Wizard Spells and Other Wizard Spells.

It doesn't follow to suggest a spell needs to be inaccurate to keep it from outshining martials when literally right next to it is another spell that's just as good and way more accurate and doesn't cause the problems you're suggesting.

Even if you were right though, accuracy gating is a terrible mechanic.

Your premise doesn't hold up though because spellcasters are accurate, with the right spell at least. With the way saving throws work, many spells will have an 80-90% chance of doing something against most CR appropriate enemies and if you can reliably target a low save even the chances of just getting a failure will be comparable, sometimes even better than the martial's odds of landing a hit. It's just a handful of spells whose overall numbers don't quite add up.

It is important to remember though that the developers were made aware of the issue of damaging spells not feeling good enough during the playtest, and chose to correct the problem by increasing the damage die and quantity, not by adjusting the accuracy. It seems like spell attack roll spells are designed to be spells that are swinging for the fences.

A story from my game last night: Our 2nd level party has a sorcerer, a cleric, a barbarian, and a rogue. We (I, the cleric) tried to get clever with a Bear and a bunch of enemies and the plan fell apart. The bear beat me to initiative, and crit me into unconsciousness, in the dark, with no party members around. It was lights out for me because none of the martials could make it to me before the very hungry...

32 damage in 5 rounds using 5 limited resources is very bad damage.

The fact that you are telling this as a success story makes me understand how you think the wizard is not so bad.

If you want to remove results 1 and 2 from a class and want to compare them with the others, it is minimal to remove them from the others as well.

If the sample were larger, it would be better to remove the 5% of highest and lowest grades. but manipulating a group and still wanting to compare with others is wrong.