Mabtik's page

The argument is now that Wizards are great because spells are their niche and so they can just go take dedication feats to ...copy other classes?

I don't know how to explain to you that extra uses of a limited resource isn't, in my play experience, enough of an advantage to Wizard to make them a more valuable party member than other spell caster options.

Nor do I know how to explain to you that being able to steal, copy, or add, other class's abilities to Wizard isn't a great opportunity to have.

I understand that using these options will make the Wizard more useful than it was previously. I also understand that other classes already have these options available so what, precisely, is this supposed to accomplish? Showing me that the system allows you to branch out? Everyone has that option. It's not a unique and class identifying power of wizards. Extra per day slots, according to some, is the identifying power...but what happens when you run out of that power like I have consistently seen happen? Your wizard is a reskinned lightcrossbow bolt. That's not a great party contribution nor is it a great filler action -unlike the options available to almost every other class.

I don't want to add power to a wizard in order to overshadow all the other classes. I want to make it so that a wizard isn't a liability to the party the moment they run out of spells unless the party decides to rest. The party wizard should not be the primary determining factor on when it's time to rest - especially in this edition where the emphasis is on long term adventuring for almost every other class with short 10 minute breaks.

Honestly, most of you sound like HR trying to explain to me why Unions are bad.

Mabtik wrote:

Then we're playing different modules. I'm only playing Age of Ashes...

Well, no, as it turns out. Our memory of the same module series is just focused on different parts.

My group that was playing Age of Ashes fell apart as we were going through book 2 (where there were some more open areas, but the terrain made getting a clear shot a lot easier within 30' of the target so that's where most of the range-using characters stayed) - but almost the entirety of book 1 happens in areas that aren't even 30' across.

We just opened up the doors and used them as extra large areas to fight in. Different approaches.

Mabtik wrote:

Unicore wrote:

I am just confused as to why intensely lore centered feats shouldn't be the purview of archetypes.

Mechanically, the wizard offers unparalleled access to spell slots, that is its niche. You get the most spells per day, the most flexible spell list, and prepared casting which lets you switch up your memorized spells every day. The vast majority of its feats relate to how you use spell slots. Most metamagic feats are about casting spells through spell slots. Most thesis options relate to how you cast spells through spell slots. School specializations primary benefit is giving you more spells you can cast out of spell slots every level. It is not quite as clean or direct as the fighter just getting better weapon proficiency, but it is the same in terms of its one track focus.

Even more, without this wizard focus on spell slots, anything like increased proficiencies or more blasty 2 action focus spells (the only kind that will provide the kind of damage output that people are asking for when they compare storm druid to evoker), would be a terrible trade off that reduces the wizards area of specialization, if they didn't just keep the same access to number of spells per day. If those things happen, it makes a lot more sense for them to come through archetypes that through the wizard base class options, because to do otherwise is to just give the wizard more, which is 100% about power and not theme or flavor.

Again, some specializations need more or better options, but those options should focus more around how the caster uses spell slots than in giving mega focus spells or all day/every day powers. The witch, the oracle, the druid and the bard are already the casters more focused on these kind of options.

Other than the spell slots, the Bard has better access to what you're talking about if you go down the Polymath feat chain.

Ends up with all four schools of magic available, changing signature spells, and re-picks daily. Heck, the Polymath

...

And I feel like you're giving it too little credit when the Wizard is supposed to have the largest spell list available and the Polymath has all four lists available there.

Mabtik wrote:

thenobledrake wrote:

Mabtik wrote:

...30' range. Being that close to enemies isn't something most Wizards I've played, or seen, relish being.

Where as being outside that range is something that I rarely see any character do because thus far my group has only played the published adventure and adventure path content, and most of the encounter areas the included maps present don't provide many opportunities to be further away and still have line of effect and line of sight.

Then we're playing different modules. I'm only playing Age of Ashes, we're about halfway through book 3, I believe, and there have been quite a few places (almost all of them) where I could be more than 30' away from an enemy and still cast on them. Heck, there have been several encounters where my Bard's 60' aura hasn't been able to reach every friendly combatant.

It gets claustrophobic in Age of Ashes as well. I saw that first hand as a wizard. It is why low saves is the really big problem for me with wizards. They are defensively weak at later levels without any good way to avoid spells or attacks. I was more often in spaces with too little distance than too much.

Interesting. I haven't gotten to those fights then, my problem was usually the opposite when it came to low saves: I was too close to the enemy if they succeeded to get far enough away.

There's a list of familiar/animal companion items in the CRB, page 604.

Barding, two types of collars, and some horseshoes. Companions have to invest them which requires your help and the companion has an investment cap of 2 items.

Honestly none of them seem terribly good for familiars, they really seem to be focused on Animal Companions/Special Mounts.

I am just confused as to why intensely lore centered feats shouldn't be the purview of archetypes.

Mechanically, the wizard offers unparalleled access to spell slots, that is its niche. You get the most spells per day, the most flexible spell list, and prepared casting which lets you switch up your memorized spells every day. The vast majority of its feats relate to how you use spell slots. Most metamagic feats are about casting spells through spell slots. Most thesis options relate to how you cast spells through spell slots. School specializations primary benefit is giving you more spells you can cast out of spell slots every level. It is not quite as clean or direct as the fighter just getting better weapon proficiency, but it is the same in terms of its one track focus.

Even more, without this wizard focus on spell slots, anything like increased proficiencies or more blasty 2 action focus spells (the only kind that will provide the kind of damage output that people are asking for when they compare storm druid to evoker), would be a terrible trade off that reduces the wizards area of specialization, if they didn't just keep the same access to number of spells per day. If those things happen, it makes a lot more sense for them to come through archetypes that through the wizard base class options, because to do otherwise is to just give the wizard more, which is 100% about power and not theme or flavor.

Again, some specializations need more or better options, but those options should focus more around how the caster uses spell slots than in giving mega focus spells or all day/every day powers. The witch, the oracle, the druid and the bard are already the casters more focused on these kind of options.

Other than the spell slots, the Bard has better access to what you're talking about if you go down the Polymath feat chain.

Ends up with all four schools of magic available, changing signature spells, and re-picks daily. Heck, the Polymath even keeps them in a spellbook. I was honestly astounded that they weren't wizard feats.

Some of this is always going to be about power - you can't have a class that has trouble contributing the party at the same level as another class without addressing the fact that the class that is having trouble contributing is less powerful than one that doesn't. The why can be debated back and forth, but it another class is a better fit for a particular role then it is by nature more powerful at that particular thing.

Mabtik wrote:

...30' range. Being that close to enemies isn't something most Wizards I've played, or seen, relish being.

Where as being outside that range is something that I rarely see any character do because thus far my group has only played the published adventure and adventure path content, and most of the encounter areas the included maps present don't provide many opportunities to be further away and still have line of effect and line of sight.

Then we're playing different modules. I'm only playing Age of Ashes, we're about halfway through book 3, I believe, and there have been quite a few places (almost all of them) where I could be more than 30' away from an enemy and still cast on them. Heck, there have been several encounters where my Bard's 60' aura hasn't been able to reach every friendly combatant.

While I disagree with some of Temperans points (although I do agree with them that Wizards need a rework), I'd like to point out that Force Bolt is a 30' range. Being that close to enemies isn't something most Wizards I've played, or seen, relish being.

Mabtik wrote:

And no - Has more Spell Slots isn't a real benefit when you can, and do, regularly run out of spells per day.

This here is something I have a hard time with. How all in do you go with spells that you regularly run out? How many encounters are in your adventuring days?

There were only a few times in all of Age of Ashes my party I ran for had to really go into spell conservation mode, and that was with a Bard. 5-6 spells in the top 2 levels of slots generally meant one of those per encounter at least, and a Wizard can have double that.

And then a Wizard still has access to all the skill actions, cantrips, and focus spells at their disposal (seriously, these aren't that bad).

And then sometimes, you use lower level slots - you know you're not supposed to use your best actions every turn, right?

Wizards should be stronger than any other caster over a long adventuring day, as they have significantly more resources - and my experience tells me that Bards, Druids, and Sorcerers all have sufficient resources for most of the published content I've ran if they're reasonably careful.

Because those compounding slots don't come online until mid to late levels and when they're your only major option for contribution in a fight you run through them quickly even after that.

Even with moving spells up and using the Bond Focus I ran out of spells consistently. Personally I had huge problems landing spell attack rolls, and frequently have problems with critical saves. I once threw three consecutive Grim Tendrils for 0 damage. With multiple targets in each line. (Mercenary fight in the forest when pursing the book keeper.) Is that part normal? No, but that was three rounds of combat and 3 spells is not an unusual number of spells to cast in a combat. Even at higher levels if we assumed eight spells of "peak" contribution level that's roughly a third of the Wizards daily expected contribution in a single fight, and that assumes that three spells is enough to see the end of the fight. If it is, the Wizard has a one or two remaining combats of contribution left before the party needs to rest if they want Wizardly support. So far in AoA, outside of major boss fights, it wasn't unusual to see 3-5 combats per day.

That's my largest problem with the Wizard cantrips and focus abilities. None of them add sufficient flexibility to the wizard to be easily worked into the Wizard's combat routine. Courage/Defense/Doom are probably at the peak of those options on the power scale for cantrips, but even the Focus options aren't sufficiently useful to make them go-to secondary abilities in place of a spell slot. The Wizard is also too squishy and with poor weapon proficiency options to engage in melee/ranged weapons combat most of the time.

I don't want a drastic increase in Wizard power. I am more than aware of the fact that this system's design goals are to make the contribution of classes roughly equal. My disagreement and dissatisfaction with Wizard is entirely with how closely Wizard meets that compared to the other classes at my table and that I've played.

I will say that I'm very excited to play an Illusion/Enchanter Gnomish Wizard, it looks like I can have fun with that especially since I think I can convince my group to play Agents of Edgewatch next and that'll really play into the whole disguised caster thing.

I never said silent spell was primarily a combat feat, but it is a terribly useful one action ability that wizards can use in many different kinds of encounters. Bond conservation is like a "wand of any spell you already cast this day." Not exactly, mechanically, but that kind of utility is far greater than something you can buy, unless you are buying wands of every lower level spell in your spell book.

But your criteria here is clearly impossible. You are not excited by current wizard options and the bard gives you the options you are looking for in play. Play a bard. I understand that you are frustrated because you liked playing wizards in other versions of the game, and now the wizard is not the class that fills your mechanical desires for a class you want to play. Bards simply do not have anywhere near the ability to cast as many spells from spell slots per day as the wizard. 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.

Well, if you look at my posts you'll see that I've stated I went from Wizard, to Wizard (Bard Dedication), to Bard (full). I cast more spells per day that notably impact combat than any Wizard will and as a Charisma caster with decent intelligence I have enough skills to fill in for all the required out of combat roles I fill. Party is: Ranger/Champion(Liberation)/Rogue/Barbarian(Dragon)/Bard. We're on Book 3 of AoA; I played the Wizard or Wizard(Bard) until midway through book 2.

None of that means that, "Oh Just Play Something Else" should be the answer to, "Hey, this class has a really negative play experience. What can we do to fix it?" And no - Has more Spell Slots isn't a real benefit when you can, and do, regularly run out of spells per day. Every other class has things they can do for the entire day, and most of them are interesting and fun. This matches the design goal of getting rid of mandatory 15 minute adventuring days; why are Wizards (and I believe Sorcerers) not part of this?

Mabtik wrote:

A Bard (I have the most experience with them) can both sling a two action spell and then follow it up with a variety of 1 action cantrips that can be picked by situation. Courage, Defense, and Dirge are all single action effects with large AoE's that massively swing the scales (regardless of party size - more targets is a larger swing, but even with a single friend the cantrips are good) while still being unique to the Bard. What single action can the Wizard take that, without save or contested roll, can do the same thing?

We're back to power.

You appear to be unhappy with the Wizard 1 action options, which are things like Metamagic or managing your familiar, because they compare unfavorably to the actions a bard can take.

As far as I'm concerned, that's extremely important- Bards themselves are overtuned and their one action compositions are probably more powerful than they should be because of how sensitive the system is to Math Manipulation. No one needs actions that powerful.

Asking for options as good as what Bards get is also missing the fact that bards get only 50-70% of the spellcasting of a Wizard...

Witch is probably what a "balanced" version of the Bard action economy looks like, and they are a much more equitable comparison to Wizards.

So ignore the power of Inspire Courage/Inspire Defense/Dirge of Doom then, I was more talking about how they're unique, and valuable, Bard cantrips that consistently contribute but if you're stuck on their relative power we can look at a different spell.

House of Imaginary Walls. 10'x10' wall adjacent to you, and while it does allow a save, it still has Hardness 2(SL) and HP 4(SL). As a cantrip it auto-heightens and is a single action. You can even use it out of combat since it specifically states your allies can use it to climb up on.

Not a terribly powerful spell, all things considered, but extremely useful and can be cast all day.

Compared to some (most) of the wizard class feat options this would be a fantastic addition to the Wizard, particularly for an illusionist.

@Whoever said "silent spell" as a cool unique action option in combat, sure, I guess if I'm really driving at it the ability to cast just by waving my hands is...a Wizard only thing (I think, I didn't look to confirm) and totally worth no moving, no adding a useful effect to the combat that will end the fight sooner, not something that stops as soon as I run out of spell slots (unless you can apply it to cantrips?), I think you're able to see where I'm going with this. Silent spell is boring, highly situational, and if you're using it in combat there's a really specific corner case that makes it viable.

Wizard has several metamagic/class feats focused on stealthy casting, and if you're in a campaign that makes that useful then you're going to get great mileage out of the feats. Otherwise they're not terribly useful things to pick up and the alternatives are...equally boring.

Also recalling cast spells is essentially just saving gold. I can duplicate that by buying a Wand. I'd prefer a pearl of power/runestone but those were removed from the game for...reasons?

I'm not looking to catapult Wizards into a game solo'ing power level. I'm looking for options that make me excited for my next round of class level feats, and for something that I can do in combat to consistently contribute (personal preference for things that don't require me to roll dice) in fights that don't feel like a reskinned crossbow bolt or only require limited resource expenditure.

Martialmasters wrote:

i am talking about their flexible use of their actions between spells and 1 action class specific cantrips, along with unique flavorful sub choice at creation that influences how you play through out the span of your character as opposed to what wizards get that just adjust your micromanagement activities.

Which is the role that metamagic or managing your familiar is supposed to fill, in class. Its unfortunate the raw power of these abilities doesn't satisfy folks. They maybe could stand to be a bit better, but too much better and they'd invalidate all of the non-class options you have for this.

Outside of your class, you can have Recall Knowledge or Demoralize or other skills, or an animal companion, etc. Several of these are really good, and shouldn't be dismissed just because they aren't tagged "Wizard".

I'm not sure if you're responding to just Martial, but I brought this up as an issue as well and feel like you're missing the point.

Adding an action to a spell to use a metamagic effect to a spell is actually compounding the problem of a lack of interaction with the 3 action system. You've gone from using 2 actions (standard) to do the default wizard contribution in combat to three and in most cases you haven't added more than usual to the combat. A Bard (I have the most experience with them) can both sling a two action spell and then follow it up with a variety of 1 action cantrips that can be picked by situation. Courage, Defense, and Dirge are all single action effects with large AoE's that massively swing the scales (regardless of party size - more targets is a larger swing, but even with a single friend the cantrips are good) while still being unique to the Bard. What single action can the Wizard take that, without save or contested roll, can do the same thing?

All of your other listed items aren't being dismissed. They're just not included because, when talking about unique, class specific, methods of interacting with a system one doesn't include things that everyone can do.

Mabtik wrote:

Bards. Seriously, have the people arguing that the Wizard is fine looked at Bards?

Bards are at the current top end of the balance scale, and bordering on OP.

The only reason I say bordering on is because they are a support class, and are OP by way of allowing other players to shine. Its hard to argue to nerf that - but my experience says that having a bard in your party is worth more than an extra non bard character.

We absolutely do not want any additional classes as powerful as Bards are. They are not the benchmark for a balanced class.

My Bard does both? I rebuilt my initial Wizard (Evoker) into a Wizard(Evoker)MC Bard, and finally just a pure Bard for Age of Ashes. I spend a fair amount of time just using the support cantrips to good effect but when we really need something done I start dropping some pretty nasty spells. The occult list is really powerful and the APG just added some really nice spells that I intend to either retrain into or add at the appropriate level.

I really feel like other classes can do similar, Bard just worked best for my 5 man party, but Wizards lack a good, repeatable, combat option that other classes seem to have.

As an avid wizard player this entire thread is just an exercise in frustration and really makes me wish this forum had an ignore button.

Problems I've run into as a wizard:

Lack of interesting feats, and lack of feats to that add to build concepts if you don't play to the expected style the feats support. Wizard has so many open class feats that multiclassing has been a feature of every build I've either theory crafted or played.

A lack of interesting ways to interact with the three action economy. While single action spells do exist, they are fairly small in number and frequently highly situational making them difficult to justify preparing and most of the focus spells a wizard gets don't have significant impact on the fight. (Contrasted with other casters, particularly Bards, this just feels...lacking.)

As a prepared caster reaction spells are interesting but even more difficult to justify preparing since you're already trying to predict the saves (or AC) of the monsters you'll fight, puzzles you'll need to solve, and emergencies you'll have to respond to and with APG they added some pretty cool spells darn it.

With highly limited number of spells per day the player is playing a game different from other players (even casters) that determines how effective they want to be during each fight. Either you're using fairly abysmal focus spells and mediocre cantrips (particularly in contrast to other classes), or you're throwing spell slots.

The success ladders can feel terrible when you're throwing out spells and the enemies are suffering effects that, in some cases, can be duplicated with either a skill check or cantrip from another class. Is it better than having no effect? Yes. Is it *good*? Rarely, especially when you watch another player duplicate your spell with a class feature that isn't limited in number of daily uses.

Bards. Seriously, have the people arguing that the Wizard is fine looked at Bards? Depending on the build a Bard can eventually gain access to all four schools of magic and before that they still have the ability to switch spells known, which spells are signature spells, and generally just collect spells like they're some sort of occult wizard and they still retain potential access to their amazing cantrips. If wizards had similar interesting and robust options within their class I'd be ecstatic.

Things I believe would help fix the problems I've encountered:

Items that can help math fix spell attacks. I'd like to see something like staves that can help with a specific school's DC's but I recognize that might be a tad outlandish. Spell attacks really need some help though.

Feats (for the Wizard, not cross class options) that are interesting and effective for multiple wizard options.

A rework of cantrips and/or focus spells that give Wizards options similar to Druids and Bards (less familiar with Cleric) so that all up spell slots don't need to be used to gain the same effect.

24d10, no roll above 7.

Was playing in a New World of Darkness Changeling game and wanted to kill a fetch, went in after it with my swords at 12d10 (focused character, used glamour, etc.) and failed to hit a single time. Triggered an ability to re-roll all failed dice, must accept new totals. They all failed. Again. ST blinked a few times and tried to figure out how to narrate the villain's response. I went and got a daiquiri from the drive through across the street.

You only get Master in spellcasting via multiclass if you invest in it real heavily and hit 18th level. 18th level and above are more relevant now than in PF1, but I'm not sure it's worth quite this level of controversy...

Also, at the moment, from a math perspective, part of the reason spellcasters get to Legendary in spells is to make up for missing out on magic weapon enhancements. So yes, multiclass spellcasters hit Master, but multiclass martials get to take full advantage of magic weapons, which evens them out pretty well.

For comparison, a 20th level Ranger multiclassed to Druid with Wis 22 has Save DC 42 (vs. an average Save of +33 for moderate Saves, so they save on a 9, Saving 60% of the time), while a Bard Multiclassed to Champion focusing on weapons with Str 22, has an attack of +33 (vs. an AC of 45 for High AC, so they hit on a 12, 45% of the time).

That number is actually skewed more towards the Caster multiclassing Martial than the reverse. The odds are better.

Except that, as I've been repeatedly reminded, many spells still have an effect on saves while a miss does nothing so if feels like you should actually be looking for Strike Miss Chance vs Crit Spell Save on everything but Spell Attacks and then the Champion MC is better placed to benefit from Flanking and other benefits that a Caster is less likely to take advantage of, granted Bard and Druid are both much more likely to use those than a Wizard, and most Sorcerers. I will admit that those tend to wash out in the math since a spell caster *could* use the benefits, even if it's unlikely.

Additionally, the proficiency rarely matters when used for utility and buffs which is supposed to be the strongest build point for Wizards (or casters in general), although the limited number of slots does prevent the MC from making as much use of heighten mechanics which feels almost mandatory to making some buffs relevant at higher levels.

One thing that interests me is how people say that a Wizard is fine for being, "Only -1 or -2 behind" while simultaneously saying that a Wizard is fine for applying a -1 or -2 with a spell that is saved against because "a -1 or -2 is a big deal." Which is is? One or two behind is fine, or one or two reduced is a big deal.

Mabtik wrote:

Only because Bards have large (60'AOE) one action cantrips that target allies. And they still get a good spell list, a fair number of spells per day, and other interesting class feats. Heck, I could probably make what amounts to an Occult wizard if I wanted to via the Polymath feats. Which is...fair(?) somehow.

No, I'm pretty convinced you can do this very successfully on a Wizard or Cleric, or any other spellcaster you care to name, though Bard is easier I'll grant you. The difference is in the spells you use, not mostly in the Class.

Several Wizard spells are very solid for debuffing enemies, and a few are even solid buffs. Focusing on those you can be a solid and contributing party member quite reliably (occasionally you'll run into a crit save, but failure some time is inevitable).

Not all day. Please tell me which Wizard cantrip does a 60' party buff.

I honestly don't see how Wizards came out even with other spell casters, regardless of build type. A blaster wizard came out the worst in the new edition, which is the primary source of my frustration with my most recent character, however, I don't see a way for any of the casters to compete with a dedicated support/CC Bard. Which is fine if that was the niche for Bard, but it appears to *also* be the design niche for Wizard and right now a wizard is pretty far behind.

Mabtik wrote:

Not my thread. Not what I said. Have a nice day putting words in people's mouth though, you seem good at it.

You come all flustered about how nonsense is the discussion, referring again to your anecdotal data. Sorry for reading a dismissive tone in your post, I apologize.

"But Wizards are fine, don't look behind the curtain, the math is clearly spotless and the design irreproachable"

Sorry for misrepresenting what you said, I should have said the exact same words in agreement next time.

Hey look! One line, no context. Clearly the entire point of the post.

Maybe pay attention to the previous block of questions. It's in reference to the fact that several months of collected rolls don't bear out the pre-calculated expected results. As I've said, multiple times, this surprised me. It's not like I'm new to playing spell casters. I've spent roughly two decades playing almost exclusively wizards, mainly Illusion & Enchantment wizards to be precise.

@Deadmanwalking

Only because Bards have large (60'AOE) one action cantrips that target allies. And they still get a good spell list, a fair number of spells per day, and other interesting class feats. Heck, I could probably make what amounts to an Occult wizard if I wanted to via the Polymath feats. Which is...fair(?) somehow.

@ Unicore

I don't want to be the hero, not even consistently. I want to be a consistently and reliably benefit to the party on the scale of the rest of the players.

@TSRodriguez

Not my thread. Not what I said. Have a nice day putting words in people's mouth though, you seem good at it.

This thread has turned into one side arguing that a wizard is fine because the math shows that a limited resource can, with enough luck, out perform a martial class temporarily and the other side pointing out that is terribly unreliable.

Frankly the only lessons I've taken from this thread is that I need to be okay with marginal success rates -in other words, accepting that my spells will consistently have reduced effects because clearly it's fun to have spell consistently saved against- and that missing with limited resources on a consistent basis is fine because when they do hit they can be cool!

Don't worry, I'll take my badwrong fun blasting character and put him away. I've switched to Bard anyway since they actually seem to have positive impacts on the field.

For you math folks I spent literal real world months playing through Age of Ashes, once a week for 2-4 hours. If the party needed to stop early in the adventuring day it was almost exclusively because I was out of spells and my cantrips were ineffective compared to the martial characters and the players could tell that my turns weren't terribly fun. Enemies consistently saved or crit saved against my spells that had saves and unless I was using true strike I was consistently missing, and even then I was consistently missing anything remotely in the league of a boss monster was missed with regularity even with true strike.

There was a single combat in which my spells were effective. I was put at Dying 3 to do so, and that's only because we forgot that a critical hit puts you at Dying +1, so technically my wizard died in that combat. Fun.

While I understand that by the math this character was unlikely, but at what point do you stop blaming the unlikely scenario and start looking at the math? How many consecutive sessions where you character is a quantifiable (not perception, actually by the numbers) burden on the party before you start looking at mechanics or switch characters?

Right now, playing anything but a wizard that is focused on debuffs and field control is remarkably unfun. This is doubly so when compared to the cool things other casters get (I'm ignoring martials because you all like to pretend they don't get things as cool as spells, you're wrong, but I can't change that pretense) in my personal case, particularly Bards.

My bard regularly has +1Att/Dmg & +1Ssaves+Physical Resistance up, then I can attempt to demoralize or position so that my whip with reach provides flanking. That's a fairly massive swing in to hit and damage for the party for *Zero* per day investment. We haven't even touched my spells yet. There's nothing a wizard can do to have that same impact for that same resource investment. But Wizards are fine, don't look behind the curtain, the math is clearly spotless and the design irreproachable.

Mabtik wrote:

If I wanted to stay out of melee range I was using spells with a range greater than 30', using an action to Stride after casting a spell, or using my extra action to use a metamagic feat to extend the range of my spells. Where, precisely, am I supposed to be using the Force Bolt?

Force Bolt is directly competing with your cantrips for space, and since cantrips are two actions but generally have a short range (where you don't want to hang out) you're either using them and moving, or using metamagic to extend them. Alternatively if you want to help your spells land via skill actions, then you're Demoralizing (or similar) then casting.

I just don't see a viable and consistent window to throw out a Force Bolt if you're doing everything else that a Wizard "should" be doing to make good plays.

I don't think you need to be worried about ever being within 30 feet. That seems like excessive caution to me, particularly since it won't even protect you from someone Striding twice and attacking.

Demoralize isn't always what you want (and requires you to be trained in it and have high Cha, not to mention within 30 feet). Cause a Diversion is the same, assuming that's what you meant by 'similar'. Force Bolt is also a consistently higher damage increaser than either, even if you're throwing down a shocking grasp, the highest damage level 1 spell.
(Level 1 Wizard with +7 trying to hit a level 1 enemy with 15 AC, shocking grasp, 2d12. Averages 10.4 damage in a vacuum, 11.7 vs frightened 1, 13 damage vs flat-footed, 15.6 damage vs frightened 2 + flat-footed. In all scenarios, adding an additional 3.5 guaranteed damage will always be better, especially given that you don't have to actually succeed on any checks for it.)

Stride x2 means that they can't use most special 2 action abilities that monsters tend to have. As I found out the hard way.

You also forgot the entire rest of my party gets to tag off the Demoralize. Granted they're immune for 10minutes, but you can always tag the next guy in the combat.

Yeah, count me in with those rolling their eyes at claims that Force Bolt and Evokers are too weak.

Pu-leazzee!

I'm genuinely sorry to hear that the "I blast every turn all day" for maximum DPR playstyle that evolved over the last 25 years is something people grew attached to, but frankly, it was parasitic and actually detracted from both the balance and fun of the game.

Your sustain is better than ever, you get more spells per day that are actually useful as well as an infinite reserve of moderately powerful cantrips, but still, some complain that they cant do Area Damage to 2-15 enemies equal to what a fighter can output with 3 actions on a single target. Cant please everyone I guess.

Ah, yes. Purposely and radically distort what's being discussed because some how spell casters are evil party wrecking forces that automatically detract from the balance and fun of the game. Thank you for your input.

I do not really beleive that it is fair to say that PF2 as a system has been "rebuilt from the ground up." It leans heavily upon previous versions of fantasy roleplaying games for its lore, feel and mechanics.

The PF2 force bolt is 300% better than the PF1 version of the same ability because it only takes one action, rather than your standard action, for doing the same thing damage wise. It is really cool that the evoker has access to one of very few focus spell options that do damage and take only one action. The other ones all require a spell attack roll, meaning that they have to contend with MAP and have limited utility as a 3rd action, especially with how much people hate using spell attack roll spells. Force bolt hits and does damage automatically. The evoker occupies a unique design space in PF2.

Sure anyone with the arcane list can cast magic missile as a one action spell, but the returns on doing so are minimal, since it occupies a spell slot (and must be a highest level spell slot to keep up with what force bolt does), and is 3x better cast with three actions. In that regards it is much less tactically diverse than the heal/harm spell used offensively. But the fact that the evoker gets a version of this spell that is built to always be a one action spell means that they should have at least one round in every battle where they are likely to get two damaging spells off in the same turn.

What I am really hearing from you squiggit, is not that the evoker's ability is terrible, but that it doesn't interest you personally, and you hope to get more diversity of options from future material released for the wizard. That is a perfectly fine opinion. Lots of classes have options that are boring and uninspired to me, that I will probably only play when I run out of other options that excite me (I am not a fan of the Thief rogue in much the same way you are not a fan of the evoker, because the ability feels uninspired, but I get that it fits, is balanced, and it works for a lot of people).

PF2...

My problem with Force Bolt was that it was next to impossible to utilize frequently...actually really at all unless I went out of my way to do so. It's also boring, but that wasn't nearly so concerning to me.

If I wanted to stay out of melee range I was using spells with a range greater than 30', using an action to Stride after casting a spell, or using my extra action to use a metamagic feat to extend the range of my spells. Where, precisely, am I supposed to be using the Force Bolt?

Force Bolt is directly competing with your cantrips for space, and since cantrips are two actions but generally have a short range (where you don't want to hang out) you're either using them and moving, or using metamagic to extend them. Alternatively if you want to help your spells land via skill actions, then you're Demoralizing (or similar) then casting.

I just don't see a viable and consistent window to throw out a Force Bolt if you're doing everything else that a Wizard "should" be doing to make good plays.

I realize that not all posters are advocating the same things, but right now it seems like Wizards are fine if we just assume that they always make optimal spell choices, optimal skill choices, and optimal use of board state. That doesn't seem like Wizard is terribly well designed in relation to the other classes if the assumption is, "If they're playing optimally then they're fine." Not all of us want to play optimally at all times, other classes do a good job of leaving room to do things that may not be optimal (mechanically) but still make viable contributions to the party. Wizard really feels like Viable = Optimal and there isn't any room for other choices because your impact falls off sharply if you're not doing those things.

Not a wizard, but primal sorcerer who uses evocation (read: fireball) mainly, in my party has not had any problems being as effective in the group, if not being the linchpin in most cases. This was especially true after we hit level 7 and the rogue got evasion. The rogue would run in and usually evade the damage of the fireball, while holding a creature in place (the creatures just would rather use three actions on the rogue than moving to the back lines). This became even better after we hit 13 when the rogue got improved evasion, allowing the wizard to blast fireball with impunity, as the rogue usually acts first and attracts all the attention; while the rogue gets damaged quite a bit and requires healing, it's a strategy that has been working for my group to allow the melee rogue to do his thing while the AOE specialist sorcerer can cast and blast. The real game changer, though, was chain lightning. That spell makes evocation great even in the messiest combats.

I do admit that there are some problems with attack spells, especially at levels 5 and 6, but I think the choice between between reflex and attack as well as the ability to target weaknesses makes up for that minor weakness. If anything, I think spell attacks can be increased by one or two by sacrificing the spell DCs in equal measure.

Which might be my problem. I got tired of not being effective before we got to 7+.

Mabtik wrote:

And all of those other things have a roughly 50% success rate built in with the way that the variable saves work out, and, in my experience, the Barbarian in my party has zero problem putting out the damage.

Cmon man, that's a huge anecdotal fallacy, mathematically, at level 4, the barbarian has 5% more hit chance, with no failure effect, and the enemies at that level have 65-40% chance to save against DC20, with almost always failure effect.

Hence why I've emphasized that these are my in-play experiences and that they're atypical from the expectations.

Mabtik wrote:

Furthermore, it would appear that the problem is doubled by the way that spell school specializations are presented as "The Thing You Do" instead of, "The Thing You Get An Extra Use Of." If I follow the general outline provided in the wizard class section I focus around building up my specialization.

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying evocation wizards should only cast evocation spells? maybe I'm misunderstanding. That wasn't my impression reading the book anyway as there really aren't many reasons not to diversify your spells. Only 1 slot per level has to be evocation.

Mabtik wrote:

Why am I playing a wizard again? I can do all of those things as a non-wizard. Magic is supposed to be what makes the wizard special, not the tag-along ability the wizard happens to have.

I'm still not sure I understand. What are these non-wizard things people are suggesting?

Sample builds in the CRB tend to focus around the theme they're going for. School Specializations are the themes for wizard. If you're focused on a theme you're likely not using just one spell slot per level on the theme.

Non-magic options: All of the options being used to paper over the weaknesses inherent in the relatively high failure rate of spells to stick combined with the fact that spells are limited per day.

I'm not in this game to go river boat gambling. I like reliable, impactful results that I can plan around. Currently I haven't been able to get that out of the Wizard class.

My point wasn't directly aimed at you but I'll bite!

If you want to succeed at targeting higher level foes the problem has nothing to do with the Wizard class or the spells, it has to do with you failing to seek advantage over your foes before wasting your resources.

Also, let me be clear - Damage is no longer the game-winning-secret ingredient in PF2 that it has been for the last 25 years. Applying debuffs and conditions is STILL something you should be doing as an Evoker. If you're preparing almost exclusively damage-dealing spells in your slots then that is your first mistake because doing so actively hurts your functionality and reduces your usefulness.

Attempting to be a pure DPR machine instead of contributing to battlefield control, applying conditions, disabling or otherwise distracting creatures IS a selfish endeavor in PF2. Expecting to be able to just blast through a higher level creature without doing anything at all to lower their defenses or provide yourself with advantage is something even a raging Barbarian will have a similar failure chance with.

And all of those other things have a roughly 50% success rate built in with the way that the variable saves work out, and, in my experience, the Barbarian in my party has zero problem putting out the damage. She frequently solos 1-3 enemies per encounter depending on their relative level while the Rogue/Champion tag team the rest. In fact, she was so successful at it that most of my blast spells were aimed at the things she wasn't engaged with because she was more likely to kill them without assistance than she was to need the help.

The problem *is* the class. There are fewer built in modifiers for offensive spell casters (no runes, flanking only works on spell attack rolls and you don't want to be in melee, the status effects that help you are better used to help people with higher hit chances get assured hits, etc.) than there are for martial classes and there are even fewer feats, at least for wizards, that really change or add options to what the caster is capable of. The wizard feats are so lacking for an evocationist that most of my planning involved just taking rogue dedication feats so that I could get more skill advances and skill feats to expand my options than in taking wizard feats to do more magic stuff.

Furthermore, it would appear that the problem is doubled by the way that spell school specializations are presented as "The Thing You Do" instead of, "The Thing You Get An Extra Use Of." If I follow the general outline provided in the wizard class section I focus around building up my specialization. If what people are saying about how wizard is fine if you just use all these other non-wizard things to help you is true then...Why am I playing a wizard again? I can do all of those things as a non-wizard. Magic is supposed to be what makes the wizard special, not the tag-along ability the wizard happens to have.

/intro snarky reply

-BODY- Heh, people are really mad they can't roll a Wizard and consistently deal more damage than every other party members combined in most combats for up to 5 combats every day huh?

Shame, it's almost like they actually fixed the basic math behind damage and encounter levels. Fact is, if you felt weak as a Blaster Wizard it is because you're used to being the undisputed king-of-the-hill in terms of damage output and you should probably learn how to coordinate your blasting with the rest of your party instead of hoping for easy opportunities to be handed to you on a silver platter. Work with your other players to try to go get some Conditions and Debuffs on enemies on the first few rounds of combat and then watch as your 2 or 3 action spell quickly mops up 2-4 creatures at once, I promise you, blasting is still effective, you're just trying to shoot the opponent through an iron door without opening it first.

/snark off

Really, the message you should take from this is that this is TEAM game more than every before, and if you're failing to coordinate with the Party it doesn't matter what class you play, you're going to have a bad time.

Yeah, thanks for that. I'm glad that wanting to match my friends damage output and being a contributing member of the party is such a selfish goal. I'll remember that when I make my next character. It's also good to know that the battlefield control and buff/debuff wizards are normally play in a party support role never taught me how to be a team player.

I hope you're able to make a positive contribution to the next threat you post in instead of just putting people down. Best of luck.

Mabtik wrote:

However, in this case I'm referring to spells with saves and the fact that the variable result mechanic seems to expect that roughly half your targets will be succeeding against your spells and I don't find that mechanic/expectation fun. I'm sorry if my wording mislead you. Thank you for verifying the math I had...

It's ok, are you playing an AP, Society or Homebrew?

I agree with Unicore here, your party comp is horrible for an Evocation Wizard. Sadly the damage of the Casters is on average, lower than the Melees, to balance their versatility and safety.

Age of Ashes AP at home, relatively by-the-book group. I understand the theory of being more versatile and safe than martials but of the party the only person that has run into more trouble than my wizard was the rogue who kept rolling natural 1's on his saves versus the spell traps you run into (trying to avoid spoilers). My wizard his dying 1 regularly, dying 2 on several occasions, and on one memorable fight hit dying 3. From what I can tell looking at the table and talking it over with the DM, only on the Dying 3 occasion was my placement poor for staying safe. Unfortunately at low levels most of the spells available to my wizard had a range of 30' which mean being inside range of stride and strike on things that could easily drop my wizard in a hurry, or using my entire turn to cast a single spell with Extension on...and still being close enough for most enemies to reach if they really wanted to. If it wasn't for the Champion holding his reactions to get me out of trouble my wizard would have died several times more than he already came close to.

Versatility would have been higher if I'd had either more access to magic item consumables or just not so few spell slots. I was consistently struggling to squeeze in non-damaging spells after the first few encounters where my spells had such a lackluster impact and the only way I could see to get more damage out was to prepare more damage spells. Not ideal, but there aren't any feats or items that I could find to increase the output of an individual spell. We did find several caches of scrolls but most of them turned out to be divine which is to be expected given that we were in a former Hell Knight stronghold.

I don't mean to come across as overly negative or combative, I'm just trying to relay my in-play experience which has so far been directly counter to what these forums, and my own predictions, seem to expect. At least for a Wizard, as a Bard I'm having an absolute blast.

This is exactly what I am saying. Everyone else in your party wanted to focus on getting into melee range and focus on their own attacks, not on setting you up to land powerful spells. Which is fine...for everyone except an evoker. Any party with three melee focused characters is going to absolutely love a bard, far more than any other possible character you could make. The advantage you are providing affects 3-10 attack rolls a round which is massive. An evoker needs other characters debuffing the enemy or else it is absolutely an exercise in futility to cast spells at higher level enemies.

I mean sure, but an evocation wizard in an adventuring party isn't uncommon. Granted I normally play an Enchantment/Illusionist or Universalist Wizard but I decided to play a character build I'd wanted to explore and it seemed like a good time to do something new with the new edition. It didn't work, and in the previous edition it would have been doable -enough so that there are several guides out there showing that it's a non-trivial contribution to the party to do so. In this game I was just taking up space and adding time to combat relative to the effectiveness of the other characters. In my opinion that shows pretty clearly that Wizards were nerfed.

Mabtik wrote:

The biggest problem was actually that I couldn't land spells for the life of the character. Acid Arrow consistently missed, including on occasions that I used True Strike, and on spell saves I had zero crit fails on non-cantrips during the entire life of the character and several crit successes. It didn't help that enemy casters were higher level than the party so their offensive spells landed effortlessly and hit like a truck. Throwing around limited resources for half and zero effect as the default assumption just isn't fun and there's nothing I can do -in my build- to change that for the character. In an adventure based around a life and death struggle it just isn't fun to me to have an expected 50% success rate.

50% chance? Against same level enemies? With true Strike? A 7 level Wizard has +15 Spell attack against AC 24 (Level 7 enemy) 60% chance - IF you do True Strike is 84% chance of hit. This is without taking into account any effects on the enemy's AC (Clumsy, Flat-footed, Frightened, Sickened, etc)

I can also crunch the numbers, and I tracked at the table to see how effective I was being - my default character is wizard for a reason after all. I missed well over 50% of spell attacks made from level 1-5 (I switched to Bard at the level up to six), and as previously stated enemies frequently made their saves against my spells with an almost expected critical success in any given group that I managed to land an AoE on. This was particularly frustrating in boss encounters where I might as well have been chucking paper airplanes at the boss for all the effect it normally had unless I just prepared all magic missiles for the day.

However, in this case I'm referring to spells with saves and the fact that the variable result mechanic seems to expect that roughly half your targets will be succeeding against your spells and I don't find that mechanic/expectation fun. I'm sorry if my wording mislead you. Thank you for verifying the math I had already done though.

I have a theory about the Evoker Blaster wizard. But before I share it, I wanted to say that I am generally in favor of players making characters that are fun, and that only you get to decide what that means.

My theory about strikers in PF2:

four preliminary observations

1. Most characters require support from their allies to be maximumly efficient in their action usage, but what kind of support they require varies significantly.

2. Traditional D&D-like games have had casters who can support and casters who can damage, but not usually much in the way of martial characters who provide advanced levels of party support (4e was an exception that will get talked about later).

3. Party's tend to have at least one character that wants to get into melee combat as quickly as possible and this often shapes the team tactics of the entire party.

4. Traditional Dungeon design encourages melee combat in confined quarters.

Because of these 4 factors, it is very difficult to build a damage centric wizard that will be supported well by the party and not often getting in the way of how most parties expect to play.
This is too bad because blasting casters (and ranged martials to a much lesser extent) end up looking bad in many games, when they can easily be the most powerful characters in the game if the party composition was built around supporting them instead of supporting effective melee martial combat.

Mobility, tactical awareness and un-returnable firepower are how modern warfare is fought, and it can only be accomplished with casters in PF2, with Wizards being competent at doing all three and being the best at the game at combining tactical awareness and un-returnable firepower. However, none of that matters if the entire party is not built to take advantage of the advantages given by the wizard.

It is the same as trying to build a sniper sneaky rogue in a party with a plate wearing Paladin that begins every combat charging in with a massive battle cry while you are still trying to move into...

Five man party: Dragon Barbarian,Champion of Cayden, Combat Cleric(bow), Rogue, and Evocation Wizard.

With a Champion, Rogue, and Barbarian in the party the wave of melee characters charging in was an issue in round one, but it normally meant that I could throw electric arcs and move for position to throw out Burning Hands and Grim Tendrils in following rounds. The biggest problem was actually that I couldn't land spells for the life of the character. Acid Arrow consistently missed, including on occasions that I used True Strike, and on spell saves I had zero crit fails on non-cantrips during the entire life of the character and several crit successes. It didn't help that enemy casters were higher level than the party so their offensive spells landed effortlessly and hit like a truck. Throwing around limited resources for half and zero effect as the default assumption just isn't fun and there's nothing I can do -in my build- to change that for the character. In an adventure based around a life and death struggle it just isn't fun to me to have an expected 50% success rate.

Changing to a Bard allows me to focus on actions that help my party and once I have my Inspirations up and running (things that can't miss) I can focus on reshaping the battlefield and attempting to debuff the enemy where the marginal returns are at least useful if still somewhat disappointing to be the expected result.

Interestingly enough the Cleric decided she wasn't having fun playing a support character and switched to Ranger so while our party lost some important divine support my Bard's impact is even higher than expected - when she remembers to add my buffs anyway.

Evocation based blasting wizard was so consistently disappointing that I switched to a party buffing Bard.(Evocation wizard through book one of AoA; switched the character to be a bard ~25% of the way through book 2 as I wasn't having fun anymore.) Not only am I having far more fun than I was before, but my entire party is more successful and several of the other players are now excited to play each week as their characters have more of an impact on play. If I do try a wizard again it'll probably be a CC focused build, and only if there's already a Bard in the party. One action 60' party buff cantrips? Insanely powerful.

Sounds like an issue with a general pattern of behavior than a specific instance. Too many characters that have a habit of trying to push the very edges of probability rather than more pragmatic actions, perhaps?

Unicore pretty well describes my in play issues with wizard which you can find in either this topic or others in the forum.

I'm less concerned with issue three *except* for how it plays into the system designed to have a roughly 50% failure rate. For myself this is mostly an optics issue as fairly consistent failure doesn't feel great and, to be quite honest, I absolutely do not see 50% success as anything remotely approaching acceptable performance for a specialist.

As for the intentional importance of die rolls - it's only fun when you don't have to stop adventuring for the day because of it. If I'm playing a martial character I'm sad when I get consecutive misses. If I'm playing a primary spell caster I'm asking the party to stop for the day if I'm out of spell slots and have any sort of indication that anything difficult is still ahead as a series of poor attack rolls or lucky saves means that I'm out of my primary contribution to the party. Yes, there are cantrips but while they're great filler between rounds they're a terribly unfun option to be the only thing you have left.

Personally, I'd like to see more interesting class feat options for Wizard (comparing Bard and Wizard class feats was a real eye opener for what could be done), and at least some sort of adjustment to success rates for per day spells as I feel that limited resources should have more reliable success rates than unlimited resources. And yes, there's a difference between "reliable" and "guaranteed" before we start assuming that I just want automatic success.

Human/Wizard/Male

Arrogant, Foppish, Indefatigable

Its the mechanics by which tension in the moment-to-moment arises.

"I hit him with my sword"
"Ok, he dies."
"Cool! I hit the next guy with my sword"
"He dies too."

You pretty much described how I feel watching martial characters play.

I normally play enchantment/illusion characters as dice rolling just isn't my thing, and adding more reasons for me to touch the accursed things isn't fun - for me at least.

Sapient wrote:

I lack the experience to have any real opinion on the relative strength and usefulness of casters. I do wonder about the level of fun a caster has when using certain spells and cantrips in combat.

Our party has a Storm Druid, who will typically use Electric Arc for half her combat turns. Since Electric Arc targets the saves of a creature or two, she doesn't even roll her dice. And that doesn't seem fun. Would it make any statistical difference if she rolled against the creature's save+10?

It's almost exactly a 10% bump in effectiveness, which is actually pretty big in Pathfinder terms. You could have saves be save+12 to keep the math the same, or just be okay with more powerful spells.

save+11 is a good small bump if you play with a group who doesn't want to be really tactical about spells, and most importantly: Rolling is fun.

One day I'd really like to know where the idea that rolling dice is fun came from. It's my least favorite thing to do in the game, although judging by consistent design changes across the genre I'm in the minority.

Quote:

meaning my lower level slots turn into what feels like mostly dead space or last choice options.

This is one I have to disagree with. DCs scaling automatically has made low level slots vastly more usable than in PF1, where they were pretty much just fodder for whatever random quality of life spell you felt like by midgame.

I usually used them with them for the utility buffs and similar for the party. Most of those either don't exist or have to be heightened to get the useful durations. I do plan to put some of the more generic control spells into those slots now in order to capitalize on the universal DC's. We'll see how that turns out.

A short overview from a long time Wizard player:

Spell Durations vastly decreased-
Many spells I used to use to buff my team have had their durations reduced so that they last 1-3 combats maximum depending on pacing while offensive spells have a fairly high chance to be saved against and then last only a single round meaning I traded 2 actions for 1.

Spell Slots heavily reduced-
You will normally have 3(+1 Specialty) slots per day. I like to play party support reducing the number of slots per day makes it difficult to be ready to offer my teammates buffs since I run out fairly quickly. In my current game I'm stuck throwing cantrips out which really feel like I have a magic flavored crossbow which for me personally, is less than inspiring. Take away the cantrips and give me back cool useful magic. I'm a Wizard not an Electric Arc/Ray of Frost/Acid Splash turret.

New Heighten Mechanic-
My spells never get better when I level up. Or rather, to be more accurate, they only get better because I can throw more power behind them by putting them in a higher level slot. They don't last longer, target more people, or reach further unless I put them in a higher level slot however most of the time the higher level magics are more relevant meaning my lower level slots turn into what feels like mostly dead space or last choice options. When my level 20 wizard's burning hands is exactly the same as it was when I was level 1 it feels...meh. It's not necessarily a bad rules from a mechanical view but the feel of it is pretty disheartening.

DC's are relatively flat-
I have no way to boost my spell attacks or DC's with items or feats. At least not that I've found. I can use actions or spells to reduce the enemy saves, but all of them require multiple actions, and sometimes entire rounds, of set up in order to achieve. This makes boss fights in particular something that is difficult to handle because I'm normally the one making it so that my team can handle the boss via buffs and debuffs and the boss has increased saves due to level. I have fewer slots to prep either type in and if they're offensive debuffs I have to deal with them being fairly unreliable to apply. I feel very ancillary is most boss fights as I'm throwing things in hoping for exceptionally low rolls or trying to find enough spell slots to keep buffs going.

I don't get to interact with the cool new action economy-
Spells are almost entirely two actions to cast, sometimes three. Many spells have a fairly short range meaning I'm using Reach metamagic in order to be somewhat safe (at least one stride away) from the target(s) so my entire turn is one spell. Alternatively it's one spell and either Recall Knowledge or another skill. If you're aware of mechanics during character creation you might buff charisma so you can make semi-reliable intimidate checks to demoralize foes for better spell chances. It's not terribly fun when you get to see the rest of the party run around and do a variety of things per round and your turn is to pick one of the following:
Stride & Spell
Skill & Spell
Spell
I'm essentially using PF1 action economy.

Cyouni wrote:

Figuring out the weakest (or second weakest) save is really not as challenging as you seem to portray it.

I mean, it's more than that. Because it's figuring out the weakest save and then hoping you happen to have right spell prepared in the right spell slot in the right quantity too.

Knowing it has a weak will save doesn't mean anything if you prepared Fireball today instead. Or if you prepared Will saving spells but used them on the previous fight.

The whole 'just target the weakest save' supposes a certain foreknowledge about what encounters the wizard is going to face.

If we assume the wizard targets the lowest save always, and always has a spell of the appropriate save prepared and uncast on something else, that adventuring day is either really short or the party has a really good idea of what they're facing. And the wizard is still only shooting for a 35% success rate (in this example). I know you feel that I'm looking for only the bad in things, but that really doesn't...feel like a great potential experience. That's what my posts are trying to point out- while the mechanics are solid the way they can make players feel about the game is really negative.

Mabtik wrote:

Narxiso wrote:

My stuff

I've talked to you about this in another thread, but honestly as I said there I'm not talking about the mechanics of the abilities so much as how they make me feel... (and several other subsequent posts)

Yeah, we did, and you brought up really good points that I hadn’t thought about before. Unfortunately, the thread dissolved into something else and the conversation didn’t continue. I’m glad to see you’re back though.

Anyway, after our conversation, I thought about the many tools wizards have at their disposal and that a narrowed focus on wizards’ individual spells (and even individual schools) is probably not the best way to look at them (or even play them) after seeing how the caster in our group plays (a primal sorcerer, who has only used spells that are also on the arcane spell list aside from heal). In every combat, our sorcerer uses the most effective spell for that situation, and he has been a main reason we haven’t wiped so far. From what I’ve gathered, over specialization and over-reliance on one tactic is not going to serve a Wizard (or any character for that matter) well.

Instead, wizard characters must be adaptable, using their available spells and abilities to make the best of their situations (this may be easier for a spell substitution theorist). By this, I mean to adjust not only to the terrain and enemies, but allies as well. If all your allies rush into combat so that you can’t use any AoE damaging spell, try single target spells after demoralizing. Or try something like goblin pox and move away plinking enemies with reach spells. That’s the thing about wizards, their lower health is balanced by their ability to do battle from afar. And if creature(s) break off to attack you, you’re free to use those AoE spells. Wizards shouldn’t passively wait for the best conditions to use the spells or abilities they want, they should make those conditions, just like every other combatant should.

As for the perception that spells...

Yes, I talked to the party about consistently clogging up the field and it was clear that while it wasn't intentional it wasn't going to change. I've picked up Acid Arrow for single target damage, and snagged Magical Shorthand to start researching spells that will round out options. I think I'll look at using hydraulic push to try and help the barbarian avoid flanks. Over specialization may be a problem, probably a hold over from most other games where occupying a narrow focus on a team of specialists works out better than trying to make a very broadly focused character. Perhaps a mental readjustment is in order.

I do feel that wizard ranges are somewhat deceptive though. Many spells have a 30' range, at least the ones I've been looking at, which leaves me within a single stride of most enemies and that makes me exceptionally nervous given the high amount of movement and lack of clear battle lines at my personal table.

I was originally planning to go for crafting feats at the start, but it looks like I'll be picking up a fair number of social feats instead, potentially. The only question is stepping on players' toes as 3/5 party members are already fairly invested in social skills already and I don't want to try and elbow into their space.

As for the spell failure perception I don't know if that's going to change for me personally. I'm not a huge fan of an expected fail rate in the range of 50%. I don't find that an acceptable rate of failure in...well, anything I'm making a serious attempt at, but I acknowledge that's a personal foible that's making this system difficult for me to grasp in a positive manner.

@Squiggit-

At no point have I intentionally tried to frame my issues as ones that are more than a perception issue with the way the rules work. Mechanically they work very well and seem to mesh with a minimal internal conflict. I do, however, feel that I'm not choosing to view everything in the most negative light possible. Martial builds look very interesting and flexible, Bard options are honestly very exciting for the type of spell casters I like to play, and the entire world setting is my second favorite RPG to play in. Those things haven't come up because this is ostensibly a thread about wizards which happen to be both my favorite class to play in games, and the character I'm currently playing so I contributed my point of view as it currently stands.

stuff

Thank you for explaining the rulebook to me. None of this changes my perception. Have a nice day.

Ckorik wrote:

Yes - the 'internet builds' that no GM would allow at a table really are ridiculous.

Arguing that a GM would just ban or otherwise restrict the broken stuff doesn't mean the broken stuff doesn't exist though.

In fact the idea that you need to ban a whole bunch of stuff to keep the game from falling apart is more of an argument in favor of the people you're saying are wrong.

Mabtik wrote:

It's a consolation, "Hey, your ability was totally wasted..." mechanic.

Why is that a bad thing though? I'm legitimately confused. A spell doing something like 90-95% of the time because it only doesn't work if the enemy crits their save is uh, really good.

Most of the time your spell is going to do something good or awesome, sometimes it's going to do something a bit weak but still functional and only very very rarely is it actually going to do nothing.

I can't fathom how we're twisting that of all things into a downside.

Minor correction: Half the time my spell does something good, half the time it does something weak. Rarely is it ineffective or exceptionally effective.

As I said, it's mostly a morale/perception issue. It doesn't feel like a good return on investment to consistently expect my opponent to save against my spells and get the diminished effect. Please note, I don't expect them to consistently critically fail. I view both critical failures and critical successes as unexpected events. I do, however, generally expect my spells to hit for their listed basic failure effect. I normally play CC/status wizards as I find orchestrating my party's victory more fun than just blowing things up. Sleep, for instance, gives -1 Perception for one round if the target(s) succeed at their save. This isn't terrible as it means my party is more likely to go first or sneak past now, but it's a far cry short of "falls unconscious for 1 minute" and can have drastic changes on how the plan goes. The is exceptionally true if I'm supposed to assume 50% of the targets will fall asleep and 50% of them stay awake. -1 Perception isn't going to stop you from noticing half your friends have suddenly fallen asleep.

This mechanic persists across spells. Slow at level 5 feels like a really poor choice as a 50% chance to trade two of my actions for one of the opponent's which isn't attractive (although from what I understand of monster building it's actually decent on things designed as rapid attackers), but then I can heighted it to (to a level 6 spell at level 11) hit multiple creatures which is actually somewhat viable so that's nice...ish.

The largest problem with all of this is that martial characters have the ability to apply many (possibly all?- I haven't exhaustively catalogued all of them yet) of the diminished spell effects built into their existing abilities. If I'm satisfied with the reduced status effect, why wouldn't I just play one of those and apply it constantly? That's my problem. My character *feels* like a net negative on my party's resources and pacing which could be fixed by switching characters. I'm trying to find a way to manipulate the mechanics to change this and so far I've been unable to find a way to do so.

Mabtik wrote:

I'm not changing my perception of language to make the design mechanics of a game more palatable.

Well then I don’t know what to suggest when you read Success as Failure instead of a Success.

Combat is adversarial. The opponents' success is my failure, or at least my net neutral. They Succeed at their save. My spell Fails to have full effect. The diminished return is an indicator of my opponents' success(es), and frequently worth less than what it feels that two actions & a limited resource should accomplish. It's a consolation, "Hey, your ability was totally wasted..." mechanic.

Some spells do get additional effects as they heighten, which is more than what happened in P1 for the most part (i think there might have been some that gained extra stuff but the only one that comes to mind is Phantom Steed).

Duration, Damage (dice or flat value), Number of Targets, Range, and I'm sure I'm forgetting some spell specific modifiers such as Phantom Steed, were all improved as the wizard leveled while the spell stayed in the same spell slot. The wizard literally became better at using the spell as they leveled up and this is no longer true. All wizards cast identical level one magic missiles or burning hands. Apprentice or Archmage the spell is the same. Metamagic feats can adjust that slightly (Overwhelming Energy being the stand out) but that's an applied feat. The spell itself is still the same and that...bugs me.

Your save DCs and bonuses to hit go up as you level. So not an increase in power, but an increase in finesse, exactly like you just asked for. Can't help you with the rest though, you seem very intent on detesting as many aspects of magic in PF2 as possible.

That's power, not finesse. The spells gain no extra utility, effect, or viability (unless used on lower level foes) than they had when they were obtained. The only aspect of magic I actively detest is the heighten mechanics, as for the rest I'm seeking to obtain mechanical understanding and the ability to use them to achieve my in and out of character goals. You seem intent on applying the stated tangent to the entire post.

I don’t see the spell save DCs and different tiers of success as any intention of failure on spellcasters’ part. On the contrary, I see them as reasons to keep using spells as well as to encourage smart, tactical, and team-focused play. As spells almost always have some effect, casters will always have some incentive to cast spells that require saves. From the side of target, I find needing to critically succeed in order to not be hampered a threat worth seriously considering. On the other hand, the same cannot be said for martials, who have diminishing returns on each strike after the first (and I don’t think including certain strike is a fair argument, as it is a level 10 fighter feat that will usually only add strength damage, while competing with other really good feats).

I've talked to you about this in another thread, but honestly as I said there I'm not talking about the mechanics of the abilities so much as how they make me feel. Casting spells that have a stated condition of X, that is reduced on a successful save, makes me feel like I'm not getting full value out of the spell when it consistently lands for less than that. And looking at the mechanical math it really feels like that is an intentional design aspect of the game, one that I find demoralizing. When my party decides to stop and rest because I run out of useful spells and it's clear that they could keep going but they're stopping because I'm bored of throwing cantrips it doesn't get any better.

Mechanically I have a problem with the fact that I have nothing that I can do to move that chance of success that doesn't involve spending actions and making checks. If I wanted to be more likely to hit with a crossbow or dagger, I'd buy runes. Paizo removed those options from the game after the playtest as far as I can identify. So I'm left with taking options that may, but not certainly, reduce my opponents' save chances. The same goes for my damage, I could buy runes for my crossbow or dagger, but my spells can only be heightened.

I do feel it's fair to call the ability out as it breaks the mold of expected success. Just as it's fair to call out that magic gets a benefit for being a limited resource - I just feel like the benefit magic gets is actually a disguise for the fact that spell casters are supposed to be planning around their abilities being only partially effective. If I throw a fireball I need to be counting on only 0 to 50% damage. If I throw a slow I need to be counting on only Slowed for 1 round. This expectation of the target consistently saving is my problem point. A martial doesn't count on minimum weapon damage per hit, nor do they do so as an extremely squishy caster who's abilities seem determined to put them inside the 1-2 stride range of enemies OR have them use all three actions while standing still (Reach Metamagic + 2 Action Cast) and hope that the enemy isn't angry enough to spend a turn chasing them down.

As for diminishing returns on additional strikes after the first, that's still not entirely true. As they level Martial characters (fighters in particular) get access to increasingly interesting class feats that allow them to get more use out of their 3 actions per turn. Often times allowing multiple attacks at the same attack value. With the exception of Quickened Casting (that's limited to: Once per day, a spell at least 2 levels below max, and only reduces by 1 action so a three action spell is still 2 actions) Wizards in particular actually -lose- action economy to use their class feats. Metamagic adds an action to a spell locking the wizard in place in a highly mobile combat environment. The other spells allow for limited changes in how wizards function out of combat with magic but many of them seem to duplicate item abilities or skill feats which isn't terribly fun.

Total tangent, but I actually detest the heightened mechanic they have as I feel -again feel- like my wizard isn't really getting better at using magic as he levels. He gets access to more *powerful* magic, but he isn't getting more skillful at it. My magic missile will always be the same at level 1 and level 20 unless I heighten it. Meaning, from my perspective, that I'm throwing more power at the problem -not skill. Essentially every magic user appears to be Harry Dresden, if you're familiar with the series. I can throw power in to get power out, but I don't have an option to leverage finesse for more accuracy or to get more use out of the same level of power.

change your perception

I'm not changing my perception of language to make the design mechanics of a game more palatable.

Uh, your spells aren’t designed to fail.

Which is why I said, "appears" as in: Comparing DC's to saves, and in play, saves happen more often than fails which makes it *appear* this way.

A successful save means the spell failed to have full effect. The incremental success ladder makes it so that my spells feel to be failing when the enemy consistently succeed at their saves. This is a design choice when Paizo decided that the d20 was going to be more important in this edition. My spells are, quite literally, designed with a higher intended chance of full or partial failure.

This also means that they're designed to have a full or partial chance of success, but we don't call it a partial failure when they take half damage because they succeeded at saving, my spell failed to have full effect.

Which is a long winded way of saying that the perception for me, as the player, is that my spells are consistently failing to take full effect despite being a valuable and limited daily resource that when it runs out I'm firing a fancy elemental crossbow, sorry I mean using cantrips.

You realize that any time your spells are half as effective swinging a sword would have done nothing, right

Like that's how rolls work

Spells get compensation on a miss because they're a limited resource but if you're always missing with spells then boy howdy would you feel useless playing a martial

Incorrect. There's a fighter feat that allows for minimal damage on misses, although I gather you meant usually rather than absolutely.

The fighter (and other martials) are spending a single action- or possibly two for some combat options- for a swing and can frequently try again in the same round. I can't try again with my spells in the same round, and eventually at all. I've tried a martial during the playtest. I didn't feel terribly useless when I missed because I could, unless I died, *always try again.*

At low levels on spell casters a few poor rolls means that you're relegated to cantrips until the martials run out of HP which depending on the party mix is quite a while and two action cantrips leave you fairly vulnerable to more nimble foes catching you because they can stride twice and still strike while you can only stride once and cast.

I can't speak of personal play experience from high level casters (I didn't hit that during the playtest and my campaign isn't there yet)but looking at it feels like I'll be throwing high level blasts on my current evoker followed by low and mid-level buffs which is at least somewhat interesting.