1) Yay for White Necromancy
2) Yay for Universalists NOT getting bonus spells
3) Yay for Web changes
4) Why the loss of at will abilities? It doesn't break the game either way but it seems unnecessary and is contrary to Paizo's goal of eliminating the 15 minute adventuring day.
5) Meh on changes to Hand of the Apprentice and Metamagic Mastery. The abilities were good but not overpowering in beta and the loss of bonus spells was enough to balance Universalists against Specialists. These nerfs were probably unnecessary.
6) Boo on the changes to Ray of Enfeeblement. Maybe this spell could have used some balancing, but giving it a Fort save is just adding insult to injury. In one stroke this goes from being one of the best level one spells, one of the few that held up in higher level play, to virtually worthless. Note: Balancing a spell does not mean nerf said spell into oblivion.
combat casting and defensive combat training will be no brainers for wizards
Combat Casting has always been a required caster feat. It is in every statblock of every wizard ever published.
I always thought Skill Focus was a better deal, because it was both mechanically simpler, and applicable to a much larger range of disruptions. But overall, the changes to concentration seem good. It's a feat tax on wizards, but a backwards-compatible one done in a way that minimizes other skill taxes.
I don't think that Defensive Combat Training will be required for all wizards, just a sound option. 3e had a similar option for wizards who were grappled: grease. But grease was never a mandatory spell, just a good option.
I really like the choices made in reference to the results of the playtests and the numerous discussions around them.
Great idea for prohibited school: easy to implement and IMO limiting enough.
Universalists shouldn't have bonus spells. That was the edge of the specialists. I'm glad it's back.
Metamagic is awesome, and I mean just enough! It brings something from the sorceror's edge into the wizard's playbook, but only so. You can't do it too often, and yet, it allows you to improvise if in need. Silent spell and Still spells are now better options for wizards.
I'm actually very happy with the "nerfs". I think they were needed.
And a question: was there a final ruling on the effect of RoE on carrying capacities (can you immobilize the full plate tank with it)?
Thanks for the great work, the listening, and I can't wait to see if something happened to multiclassing rules (which we'll see a bit with the next preview)-(personnaly, it's the arcane trickster that I would like to see...).
DW
lol, I wonder if my proposal about evokers and the electric engine had any influence in the nerfing of at-will powers... if that's the case then yay! Now I can say I had influence in the game LMAO.
Do I like it? Hell no, but I saw this coming soooo long ago that I'm not the least bit surprised. I had some time already to make my peace with the fact that I don't have to -like- PFRPG to use in my games the few things I'll be taking from it (namely the skills system, (beta) combat mechanics, and campaign setting).
I keep reading that preview and I don't see anything which explicitly says that the evoker zapity zap power is no longer available at will. Maybe you can assume it from such things as the necromancer getting a use per day power, but I don't see it for sure yet.
I must assume that this knowledge of the power going away must come from another source.
|
I'm a big lover of 99% of the changes I'm seeing in the final wizard. They are definitely much more balanced from my experiences playtesting. I played in a game with a universalist wizard and believe me metamagic mastery needed nerfing, maybe the nerfs to universalist were a bit harsh when veiwed all at once, but once you get past that you still see that a universalist has some major advantages in versatility over specialists, but now you aren't hurting yourself and are in fact encouraged to specialize because a specialist will have a bit more power. Hand of the apprentice was a b#~@@ to adjudicate, I'm glad to see this simplified version.
20% chance to fail casting his best spells defensively. At level 10 with a 22 int and combat casting. Oh well it's lame but too late to be debated so either black marker it or don't use this new melee focused edition of 3.5. Some of 3.5 melee is good even excellent, some not so much so, and some plain bad.
RE: The Hand of the Apprentice change...
I think putting a limit on its uses works fine. As it is in the Beta, there is very little reason for a wizard to ever actually wield a weapon that isn't controlled by the Hand of the Apprentice. Now it falls under the category of useful backup power. A 1st-level wizard can probably use it 6-7 times a day, which is almost the equivalent of having another 6-7 first-level spells on hand.
|
|
or don't use this new melee focused edition of 3.5.
Until the 5' step is eliminated and the 90% of spells that cast as a standard action, dimension door, and the withdraw action are eliminated. Spellcasters are still going to be better than melee only types. Yes a lot of spells got nerfed, boo hoo. I'll still take a 20th level wizard over a 20th level fighter. Now it just so happens that if you're dumb enough to let the fighter close into melee with you you'll be dead.
Man if only there were a bunch of spells that would make you faster and harder to hit. To bad there aren't any spells that give you miss chances, or make increased movement speeds and types of movement a fighter couldn't follow. If only there were spells that allowed you to move distances away from others without them being able to follow, short range teleports or something. But all of those spells were removed from the game because this is the melee edition.
20% chance to fail casting his best spells defensively. At level 10 with a 22 int and combat casting. Oh well it's lame but too late to be debated so either black marker it or don't use this new melee focused edition of 3.5. Some of 3.5 melee is good even excellent, some not so much so, and some plain bad.
80% chance to succeed casting his best spells defensively.
This is a problem how?
or don't use this new melee focused edition of 3.5.
Until the 5' step is eliminated and the 90% of spells that cast as a standard action, dimension door, and the withdraw action are eliminated. Spellcasters are still going to be better than melee only types. Yes a lot of spells got nerfed, boo hoo. I'll still take a 20th level wizard over a 20th level fighter. Now it just so happens that if you're dumb enough to let the fighter close into melee with you you'll be dead.
Man if only there were a bunch of spells that would make you faster and harder to hit. To bad there aren't any spells that give you miss chances, or make increased movement speeds and types of movement a fighter couldn't follow. If only there were spells that allowed you to move distances away from others without them being able to follow, short range teleports or something. But all of those spells were removed from the game because this is the melee edition.
Totally dripping with sarcasm, LOL. A smart wizard/sorcerer player will almost always win in a relatively fair fight. As much as the warrior have been improved it is hard to fight a well played wizard.
I like the changes to the wizard class and hope the specialist abilities remain much the same as they did in the Beta. For the first time since 2e I feel the evoker at lower levels at least is worth playing.
Doug
20% chance to fail casting his best spells defensively. At level 10 with a 22 int and combat casting. Oh well it's lame but too late to be debated so either black marker it or don't use this new melee focused edition of 3.5. Some of 3.5 melee is good even excellent, some not so much so, and some plain bad.
If that 80% chance of success isn't enough for him, he can take a 5-foot step back and cast. Or, if that's not an option, he can cast dimension door defensively with a 90% chance of success. Or he can cast fly defensively and go airborne.
I personally like that the combat casting rules encourage spellcasters to move out of a melee when possible. If a wizard thinks he can stand toe to toe with a fighter, he should be dead meat, in my opinion.
You know... I hadn't thought of it before, but he's right.
Most of the Wizard's combat skills and weapon proficiencies seem to improve ranged attacks. Crossbows at first level? Yep.
Even my diviner is armed with a starknife or two. (Combine it with a casting of true sight and she's got dead-eye accuracty at 60 feet.)
And why not? A high intelligence character would definitely find ways to do massive amounts of damage without being anywhere near the actual battle. (Can I push the red button now?)
Hmm... more to ponder.
Well, I have not actually played a Universalist yet. I'm extremely happy with my diviner! (Improved Initiative, Harrowed, Reactionary trait, Aww here, I'll post as her.) +7 to Initiative! And always act in surprise round! Ka-ching!
And I remember 3.5 saying something about Diviners being the weakest of the specialists? That was before Pathfinder got a hold of it.
|
|
And I remember 3.5 saying something about Diviners being the weakest of the specialists? That was before Pathfinder got a hold of it.
Diviners were the best specialist class in 3.5, you got the bonus spells and you only picked one prohibited school especially when splat books were factored in. Heck even if you wanted to play a different specialist it was still pretty much better for you to pick diviner and then use all your normal slots for specialist spells from the school you prefered and then just have a div spell in your bonus spell slot. Only having one prohibited school was a rediculously poorly thought out balance. And the restriction against picking divination as an oposed school was just dumb and non-sensical.
The wizard looks cool. I'm very interested in seeing all the spell changes myself.
In the preview, shouldn't Ezren have a pearl of power 2nd level? It says 3rd, but he has 5 2nd level spells and 4 of 3rd level.
6) Boo on the changes to Ray of Enfeeblement. Maybe this spell could have used some balancing, but giving it a Fort save is just adding insult to injury. In one stroke this goes from being one of the best level one spells, one of the few that held up in higher level play, to virtually worthless. Note: Balancing a spell does not mean nerf said spell into oblivion.
Come on, it's only a save for half, you'll still be lowering the monsters chances to hit and damage output.
Now I can pick Necromancy as a prohibited school without the pain of losing The Ray!
|
He can also enchant his cane as if he had the feats required, so long as he is of the minimum level to get the feat (such as 11th level for a staff using Craft Staff, or 7th level using Forge Ring).
Is it safe to assume that in Ezren's case its Craft Magic Arms and Armor at 5th level since his "cane" is treated as a club?
I also assume this means weapons can still be Arcane Objects ...
Hmm, I like the bound item bit. Kind of reminds me of the way Harry has to use his blasting rod or staff in the early books, but the Merlin just kind of wiggles his eyebrows.
Wait. You can Arcane Bind your EYEBROWS!?
Bravo mr. bulmahn...
|
One of these days I wish somebody from The Den would come over and gave a short essay on what's the caster vs. melee problem in vanilla 3.5 ... with liberal use of the word "fael".
Anyway.
I'm really curious about spell book changes. I remember somewhere ... someplace ... somebody dropping a hint about gp value of spell book pages going down. Is that the case ? One thing that annoyed the hell out of me in RotRL was having to stat up all these blasted spell books in PF 5 - because they were so money-worthy, my players demanded detailed info on each and every one of them and it drove me NUTS.
He can also enchant his cane as if he had the feats required, so long as he is of the minimum level to get the feat (such as 11th level for a staff using Craft Staff, or 7th level using Forge Ring).Is it safe to assume that in Ezren's case its Craft Magic Arms and Armor at 5th level since his "cane" is treated as a club?
I also assume this means weapons can still be Arcane Objects ...
The Arcane Bond allows you to enchant the item as if you had the feat required, you don't actually need to take the feat you only have to be high enough level to be able to take the feat.
I can't figure out why the easiest solutions to rebalance a spell aren't considered more often. Why not just make Ray of Enfeablement a 2nd level spell instead of 1st? Maybe drop the STR damage down to 1d4?
If you make the save, do you round down or up? Typically you always round down unless stated otherwise which would make this spell pretty worthless. This would mean that there's a %50 chance that your target only takes -1 STR on a successful save.
Roll a 1: -1 STR
Roll a 2: -1 STR
Roll a 3: -1 STR
Roll a 4: -2 STR
Roll a 5: -2 STR
Roll a 6: -3 STR
If nothing else, at least state (or house) RoE to round up on a successful save.
Come on, it's only a save for half, you'll still be lowering the monsters chances to hit and damage output.
Now I can pick Necromancy as a prohibited school without the pain of losing The Ray!
It is still a ray, so you have a chance to miss and then the target gets to make a save for 1/2 using what it probably their best bonus against the DC of a level 1 spell. Moreover, because of the way ability bonuses work you already had to apply 2 points of penalty to get one point of affect on the game's mechanics, so this isn't so much a save for 1/2 as it is a save for 1/4. If you get to save then the spell shouldn't be a ray and it should deal strength damage rather than apply a strength penalty so that multiple applications of the spell would stack.
|
|
The introduction of daily limits to wizard school powers and cleric domain powers is the worst change from Beta to final game, in my opinion. I'll keep them as they were (and Hand of the Apprentice has gone from being interesting but problematic to lame, in particular). I don't have as much of a problem with the limits on metamagic mastery, but the HotA I'm significantly unhappy about. I liked the old one and the limits on daily usage I really don't like (removing Int bonus from damage I was OK with and used in the Beta).
I think that in my game I'll be sticking to more Beta-style powers. Shame, though.
|
Ray of enfeeblement was rather overpowered. And the reason they didn't change its spell level is backward compatibility. It was the same with the change of 3.0 to 3.5. Changing the level of a spell invalidates a lot of statblocks, especially in the case of a rather popular spell such as ray of enfeeblement. And the spell isn't useless in its new form. (1d6+5)/2 still robs enemies of 4 points of strength in average even if they succeed on their saving throw. Not bad for a first level spell.
|
|
The Arcane Bond allows you to enchant the item as if you had the feat required, you don't actually need to take the feat you only have to be high enough level to be able to take the feat.He can also enchant his cane as if he had the feats required, so long as he is of the minimum level to get the feat (such as 11th level for a staff using Craft Staff, or 7th level using Forge Ring).Is it safe to assume that in Ezren's case its Craft Magic Arms and Armor at 5th level since his "cane" is treated as a club?
I also assume this means weapons can still be Arcane Objects ...
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I know the feat isn't required, but the text seems to imply that Ezren's arcane object would require either Craft Staff or Forge Ring, when it only requires Craft Magic Arms and Armor and thus is able to be modified at 5th level. Which it isn't, which seems strange.
|
I'd just like to say that I love the Ray of Enfeeblement change. Sure, at low levels now it's not great. Cry me a river. It was never all that great at low levels. But at level 10 and up, it could be battle-breakingly awesome. And it's still pretty damn nifty for a 1st level spell, with probably the best scaling on a level 1 spell I've every seen. At level 10 and above, all the wizards I saw packed a couple of castings of shield, and then divided all their remaining slots between magic missile and ray of enfeeblement. I also can't think of another spell where a rod of maximise could be so damaging. After all, who didn't love a guaranteed -11 Str at 10th level? Thank you, Paizo, for fixing my least favourite spell.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
So I'm wondering how you adjudicate a web spell on the other side of a door. Will forcing open the door require making a CMB check vs. the web to "ungrapple" the door? Even if that's not in the spell description, it sounds like a simple way to handle a situation like that, now that web uses the grapple rules.
And bravo for making concentration checks still relevant, even with the combat casting feat - no auto-successes.
About defensive combat training - does the feat give any benefit to a fighter or other full BAB character who wants to be harder to trip, grapple, etc?
|
|
We also changed the way that wizards with an arcane school interact with their prohibited schools. They can now learn and cast these spells just like any other wizard; however, when they prepare them, spells from a wizard's prohibited school take up two slots instead of one. For example, a 6th-level wizard with three 3rd-level spell spots could use two of them to prepare a dispel magic spell, even if abjuration was one of his prohibited schools.
Wow. Some thought went into that and while it will take some gettng used to, I *think* I like it.
LIKE
|
|
After thinking about this a little bit, I am starting to actually think the Hand of the Apprentice "nerfing" makes more sense than not. Like the Barbarian's rage ability and the Bard's performance, a Wizard having a permanent melee combat ability is truly out of character.
With a limitation similar to those imposed on the other classes, the Universalist wizard is more balanced, and playing a Wizard requires thought and careful selection of when and how to use class abilities (as it should, since this fits with the overall theme).
So again, the Wizard withdraws from melee, becoming a support/caster and someone who can strategically participate in combat and advise his companions. But if melee should approach him unexpectedly, the Hand of the Apprentice ability can hold off a monster or two while the fighter/barbarian/rogue can get to him.
So, not as uberpowerful as it was in the Beta rules, but definitely fitting the flair and flavor of the game.
How is Ezren supposed to cast Stoneskin if he doesn't have the mats for it (granite and diamond dust worth 250 gp)?
Silly wizard.
Ray of enfeeblement was rather overpowered. And the reason they didn't change its spell level is backward compatibility. It was the same with the change of 3.0 to 3.5. Changing the level of a spell invalidates a lot of statblocks, especially in the case of a rather popular spell such as ray of enfeeblement. And the spell isn't useless in its new form. (1d6+5)/2 still robs enemies of 4 points of strength in average even if they succeed on their saving throw. Not bad for a first level spell.
Agree. I used it all the time. Even when my wizard was level 16. Quicked and bang. And no protection from it since death ward doesn't work.
Point blank shot + precis shot. No problem hitting. And add Empower Spell or Maximize Spell on that. It was too goodHope they nerfed Black Tentacles. Our party almost got TPK by it....well 3 out of five died.
Edit: Nerf of the Apprentice is good. Our wizard usually,or at least often, did more damage than our figher at lower levels.
Arcane Strike now gives an enhancement bonus so now it's useless to bards.
Preview looks good.
|
|
After thinking about this a little bit, I am starting to actually think the Hand of the Apprentice "nerfing" makes more sense than not. Like the Barbarian's rage ability and the Bard's performance, a Wizard having a permanent melee combat ability is truly out of character.
With a limitation similar to those imposed on the other classes, the Universalist wizard is more balanced, and playing a Wizard requires thought and careful selection of when and how to use class abilities (as it should, since this fits with the overall theme).
So again, the Wizard withdraws from melee, becoming a support/caster and someone who can strategically participate in combat and advise his companions. But if melee should approach him unexpectedly, the Hand of the Apprentice ability can hold off a monster or two while the fighter/barbarian/rogue can get to him.
So, not as uberpowerful as it was in the Beta rules, but definitely fitting the flair and flavor of the game.
My problem with it is the limits on uses/day precisely because it's that sort of thing that leads to prescribed adventuring days. With Channel Energy in the mix, parties could go for longer; making the low-level wizards into passengers once the spells and powers run out is unfun. I also didn't think that HotA was out of character; it was a specialised version of a cantrip.
Furthermore, using it as a weapon ray is just dull, to me (unlike the old superduper Mage Hand, which was interesting and now overpowered other than in the Int bonus to damage).
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
(I wonder why they're called "prohibited schools", then.) Will a Wizard be able to take Spell Focus for his prohibited schools? Doesn't that seem odd?
I'm not sure how prohibited schools will work with spontaneous metamagic.
I wonder why Apprentice's Hand uses the caster's Strength for bonus damage. (And I ponder if a Barbarian/Wizard can cast Apprentice's Hand while enraged.)
And here's hoping that we get a revised drawing of Ezren with his headband!
Arcane Strike now gives an enhancement bonus so now it's useless to bards.
From preview:
Ezren's Arcane Strike feat allows him to spend a swift action to add a +3 enhancement bonus to his cane for 1 round, which he can combine with the hand of the apprentice ability to give it a bit of power.I don't see how arcane strike giving an enhancement bonus instead of an untyped damage bonus makes it useless to bards. Can you explain?
Director of Game Design
|
Couple of notes here this morning folks...
1. Ray of Enfeeblement needed, desperately, to be taken down a notch. This was one of the few spells that actually became significantly more useful as you went up in levels and it was good to start with. I am a frequent player of wizards, so I did not make this change lightly, but looking at the system as a whole, having a 1st level spell that cripples 80% of monsters and nearly all of the classes without a save is a bit much. Considering that you cannot even boost your stats until 2nd level, having a 1st level spell reduce them by a larger margin seems like a no-brainer to me as an overpowered spell.
2. Ezren's cane is listed as +3 because I assumed he used Arcane Strike whenever he attacks with it. It is not, otherwise, enchanted. If he were to add abilities to it, it would count as a weapon, and he is already high enough to do so (but he is too cranky about the change to RoE to bother).
3. Fly can now be used untrained.
4. As for the unlimited powers, I think you will find that the current number of uses is generally sufficient without being a bit over the top. We realized that with unlimited cantrips, the need for these to be unlimited as well became a bit redundant, and made 0 levels spells a poor choice. You could probably make them unlimited without too much impact, but we had some issues with what this meant for the world at large.
That is all for now. 15 days until release.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
That is all for now. 15 days until release.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
BOOYA!!!!
Thanks Jason, again and again, Thank you!
I am pleased with the results.
The prohibited school compromise is a good one, and I am glad that universalists can't have their cake and eat it too.
I still think more could have been done to encourage specialization, an above poster had it right... this system more or less preserves the status quo. People will only ever play Universalists.
I suppose I can't call foul on that, since it's how things were before. At least they didn't get any worse!
My problem with it is the limits on uses/day precisely because it's that sort of thing that leads to prescribed adventuring days. With Channel Energy in the mix, parties could go for longer; making the low-level wizards into passengers once the spells and powers run out is unfun. I also didn't think that HotA was out of character; it was a specialised version of a cantrip.
I'm still not sure that it puts much of a limit on the adventuring day, really. If the 1st-level wizard has a 16 Intelligence, then he can still use Hand of the Apprentice 6 times a day. If he's got a 20 Intelligence, that goes up to 8 times a day. Hand of the Apprentice is the equivalent of a 1st-level spell, basically. So now 1st-level wizards have the equivalent total of 8 to 11 1st-level spells per day, which isn't all that bad.
And there is still no limit to the number of cantrips a wizard can cast a day. Ray of frost might not be an ideal attack spell, but it's far from useless to the low-level adventurer.
|
Director of Game Design
|
I guess the old rule if it requires a to hit roll it gets no save is out for PFRPG.
That has never been a rule sir. You might want to take a look at chill touch, disintegrate, harm, inflict light wounds, plane shift, and ray of exhaustion. I am sure that I am leaving out a few, but this rule does not exist. I would say that most spells that require a to hit roll do not give a save, but it is by no means a rule.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I don't see how arcane strike giving an enhancement bonus instead of an untyped damage bonus makes it useless to bards. Can you explain?
OT .
Also with a 3/4 BAB he/she need a boost to the attack as well. But even if there was a boost to the attack it would be the same. The bonus doesn't stack
4. As for the unlimited powers, I think you will find that the current number of uses is generally sufficient without being a bit over the top. We realized that with unlimited cantrips, the need for these to be unlimited as well became a bit redundant, and made 0 levels spells a poor choice. You could probably make them unlimited without too much impact, but we had some issues with what this meant for the world at large.
Sorry my poor english. But this mean 0 levels spells are not at will? Please say yes.
That is all for now. 15 days until release.
Yesssssss.
I don't see how arcane strike giving an enhancement bonus instead of an untyped damage bonus makes it useless to bards. Can you explain?OT .
** spoiler omitted **
Thanks Zark for the explanation. I still see a low level bard getting some use out of it. Once magic weapons become common for the party I can see the bard hardly using it.
Doug
People will only ever play Universalists.
Actually, what was said was:
So I'd say it's returned to the 3.5 balance - which in my campaigns meant no one ever took universalist.
Unless I misread you Toyrobot, it seems that, as it was before, people have diverging opinions on which is the best (recalling also the Diviner answering the "Divination was underwhelming" comments!).
DW
I don't see how arcane strike giving an enhancement bonus instead of an untyped damage bonus makes it useless to bards. Can you explain?OT .
** spoiler omitted **
My bad good sir.
You are as always correct.
Comment was not ment as a bad thing it makes sense and does balance the spell.I can't wait to see the book, so far every thing I have heard I like.
You have done fantastic work.
I guess I should say thank you but did you do anything bad? :-)
Enhancement does not stack with magic weapons. Hence it useless.
I agree to the reason why (the bonus could be marginal or nonexistant).
But let's not forget how much access the bard has to the best magic weapons (you can pick the feat or not, according to your campaign).
Also, it allows the bonus to be put on another weapon. So the bard convinced the fighter to let him use the +3 weapon, now he wants to use another weapon for another purpose (our bard loves to trip, disarm, etc., or it was a bludgeoning and now you want slashing, or silver, etc.). The bard can swap this bonus from weapon to weapon, with the bonuses now applying to his CMB.
Still could be a good choice of feat IMO.
DW
I guess the old rule if it requires a to hit roll it gets no save is out for PFRPG.
There was no such rule. A guideline, but no hard and fast rule. There were already cases where you got both an attack roll and a save, usually for powerful stuff.
So it fits perfectly.
Wait. You can Arcane Bind your EYEBROWS!?Bravo mr. bulmahn...
You can if you're the Merlin. You don't gainsay the Merlin. Not without standing in a river with a living wall of fairies or something like that. And even then it's dangrous.
Combat Casting has always been a required caster feat. It is in every statblock of every wizard ever published.
I told you a billion times: Don't exaggerate like that.
I don't like the nerfing of the Hand of the Apprentice ability. It had some nice flair to it
It was ridiculously overpowered, that's the flair it had.
Low-level spellcasters with hand of the apprentice/accolyte very often were better offensive fighters than fighters.
As Jason said: It probably isn't a big deal if you make those powers at will again. Letting weakling wizards hit like steam hammers, on the other hand, is a problem.
Note, my primary PC is a barb and I get nailed with this all the time, I don't like the spell, but its the only way to stop me.
If you need an overpowered spell to stop that barbarian, there is a lot more wrong in your game than that spell.
On a sadder note, I don't like that arcane strike is an enhancement bonus now (if it is indeed a pure enhancement bonus that doesn't stack with the weapon's). It was a great bard feat. Well, I'll have to check it out, anyway.
This was the most disappointing iconic preview I'm afraid.
It was a lot of take and hardly any give. without commenting on how much I like or dislike each change, here's something of an accounting:
1. Ray of Enfeeblement was powerful indeed, but it does violate the long held rule of thumb - Ranged touch or Saving throw, very rarely both. Is it at least not subject to Spell Resistance? Having to pass all three of those gates is overly burdensome I think, both in terms of probability that it will hit and sheer number of dice needed to adjudicate it's success.
Add into this category the nerfing of several other beloved spells, wall of Force, Web etc.
2. Universalists got a huge hit with the nerf bat.
- Hand of the Apprentice suddenly being subject to all of the ranged attack modifiers, PLUS having the damage nerfed down by using Strength, PLUS having the times per day limited.
- Metamagic Mastery - Three fewer uses per day, and adding the spell level cap so you can't use metamagic on higher level spells.
- No more bonus spells.
- Decreasing the penalty for specialists by allowing them to memorize opposition school spells (not really prohibited anymore is it?)
Conclusion : Universalists went from one of the 2 or 3 best types of wizard to a sub-optimal nod to backwards compatibility.
What new, awesome things did we learn?
1. Necromancers don't have to be evil. They can control undead.
2. Fly gives a bonus now.
3. Specialists can memorize opposition school spells without hosing their specialist abilities.
All of this doesn't really leave me excited about the wizard and how awesome it will be to play one. It may have all been necessary for game balance, but is there anything really cool about the Pathfinder Wizard that arcane fans can get excited about?