Wizards.
Generalist wizards.
I love them. I really do.
I played several in 3.5.
And now I'm looking at converting my most recent one to PF.
And I can't help but be a bit, well... meh.
Don't get me wrong, we all knew that the generalist wizard, like the cleric, can dish out a whole heap of hurt after 7th level so the other classes needed a boost. And the Beta generalist was just unbalanced compared to specialists.
So the PF book is out and Rogue players are running round the room like kids on sugar and Paladin players have stopped doing that and are now giggling like maniacs. And the Cleric players have checked out the new domain spells and figured out that heck, they don't automatically need to be clanking around in full plate to have a good time. And if anyone playing a Fighter hasn't found the new Critical feats then Christmas will be coming early for them.
The PF book has, in short, brought goodies for everyone.
Except the generalist wizard.
Again, this isn't a moan - I will be playing a PF wizard but I thought I'd make some observations. After reading the Beta and seeing a surprisingly unbalanced set of new stuff being given to the generalist I suspected that the final game would have to pull back.
And the longer we waited for the Ezren preview the more concerned I became that he would be backpeddled to 3.5. So while I know the wizard remains powerful bear with me if I look at the PF generalist wizard vs her 3.5 cousin:
Most of her 3.5 cousin's spells are from the Spell Compendium and PHB2 because frankly there's a lot of must-have stuff in there. Her 3.5 cousin prepares the Cloud of Knives spell, for example, which casts a bit of a shadow on the Hand of the Apprentice ability. I kinda hoped there'd be maybe one new wizard spell per level in the PF book (note that Clerics got the excellent Breath of Life spell so there is a precedent for new spells being added). And yes, there's backwards compatibility, but saying that you can always date other people behind your partner's back is kind of missing the point of being in a happy relationship.
Her 3.5 cousin has the Alacritous Cogitation feat from Complete Mage. It gives you the extra spell versatility of the Bonded Object option without being a hostage to fortune if you lose your bonded implement / you get disarmed / it gets stolen.
Her 3.5 cousin has the Sudden Maximise feat. This is better than the Metamagic Mastery ability as it applies to any spell she can cast without the maximum spell level codicil that's now been added from the Beta version.
It's a bit disconcerting when you realise that the two big new abilities of the PF generalist look a lot like nerfed feats from 3.5, especially when the most interesting ability that has come up for the wizard - Arcane Duellist from the Campaign Setting book – was sitting there all along. Why couldn't it have made it into the core book? It's a heck of a lot better than either the bonded object or metamagic mastery options.
So to reiterate, I understand why the generalist wizard has been left outside staring in through the window at the other kids opening their presents under the tree. Those kids haven't had as much love in 3.5.
But, you know... it just looks so warm in there.
Happy Christmas everybody.
...you can keep your Spell Compendium spells. PF obviously couldn't add them in because they were closed content.
Always having hated generalist wizards I can't comment much on the other stuff.
I always felt that being a wizard specialist didn't offer nearly enough, as you flat out gave up two whole schools and all you got was a lousy t-shirt and one extra slot per level. For the wizard, who is supposed to be versatile with his spail choice, that was a huge blow.
I don't think I ever played a 3e specialist wizard. Why should I? If I want to call my wizard "evoker" I call him evoker, just like I'll call my rogue "assassin" or "imperial infiltrator".
I think PF did it right: Universalists give nothing up, so they don't get anything (much) - though hand of the apprentice is still nice, and Metamagic Mastery can save your ass.
Specialists, on the other hand, aren't quite as crippled in their school choices (they still have to pay through the nose to use banned school spells, but at least it's possible now), and they actually get something out of that sacrifice.
Wait, what the hell?
I looked up Breath of Life and it makes NO sense:
This spell cures 5d8 points of damage + 1 point per caster level (maximum +25).
Unlike other spells that heal damage, breath of life can bring recently slain creatures back to life. If cast upon a creature that has died within 1 round, apply the healing from this spell to the creature. If the healed creature's hit point total is at a negative amount less than its Constitution score, it comes back to life and stabilizes at its new hit point total. If the creature's hit point total is at a negative amount equal to or greater than its Constitution score, the creature remains dead.
This would have made sense in 3.5, where everybody died at -10hp.
But in Pathfinder, you only die at -CON. So this spell ISN'T doing anything that other Cure spells can't do, and in fact it can't bring back creatures who "have died within 1 round", since by definition their HPs would be equal or less than their CON score. MINOR error!?!?
But to your main theme,
PLEASE DO use other sources for spells, that's the point of "3.5 compatability".
About the Feats, get real:
Do you really think EVERY Feat published for 3.5 was really, truly, equally balanced?
I would say if it seems like they are really the same concept, but slightly differently implemented, using the 3.5 Feat (because it happens to be more poweful) would be cheesy. You wouldn't voluntarily NOT use a Pathfinder Feat/ability that was more powerful, and instead use a weaker similar-concept 3.5 Feat, right? I think it's safe to say if you (as a player) are intelligent enough to play a Wizard effectively, you should be able to recognize same-concept-but-differently-named Feats/Abilities and figure out if there is an appropriate "Pathfinder" solution to it, or if the ability truly is unique and fine as-is (recognizing effects whose rules should be adapted to Pathfinder, e.g. CMB, should be obvious as well).
I see no problem with Universalists being weak...
I in fact would prefer if the Bonded Item had been toned down a bit, such as only recalling spells which you had prepared that day, rather than from your entire spellbook (woe be to those who oppose Communist Wizard cabals with communal spell-book libraries)
Wait, what the hell?
I looked up Breath of Life and it makes NO sense:
This spell cures 5d8 points of damage + 1 point per caster level (maximum +25).
Unlike other spells that heal damage, breath of life can bring recently slain creatures back to life. If cast upon a creature that has died within 1 round, apply the healing from this spell to the creature. If the healed creature's hit point total is at a negative amount less than its Constitution score, it comes back to life and stabilizes at its new hit point total. If the creature's hit point total is at a negative amount equal to or greater than its Constitution score, the creature remains dead.This would have made sense in 3.5, where everybody died at -10hp.
But in Pathfinder, you only die at -CON. So this spell ISN'T doing anything that other Cure spells can't do, and in fact it can't bring back creatures who "have died within 1 round", since by definition their HPs would be equal or less than their CON score. MINOR error!?!?
No error that I can see. Character actually died last round (down to -(Con+1) or lower)? Casting this will bring him back to life if he ends up into the live zone (anything above -Con). Cast any other cure spell and he's still dead as a doornail.
OK, I can see that reading now. It's badly worded though.
It should say "if this results in the charactets HPs >= -CON score" they stabilize and live... (etc)
The current wording just wasn't clear that it was talking about the creature's HPs *AFTER* applying the healing.
Of course, I'm running across legions of these examples of wording which could be clearer (without being longer)
I am disappointed with the universalist wizard. The class lacks a capstone, has no abilities which scale with level except the severely weakened 'cannot boost a spell above the level you would normally be able to cast' Metamagic Mastery, and now seems to me to be very much the poor relation to specialist wizards (no longer so severely penalised in their opposition schools and with level-scaling abilities and capstones) and sorcerers (funky bloodline powers). In fact sorcerers are now the 'true' masters of magic, it seems to me, with at least three of the bloodlines boosting the DCs of some of their spells in a manner that stacks with Spell Focus and Use Magic Device playing to their natural strongest ability stat if they need magic to do something outside their repertoire of spells known.
I'm not sure where that's an issue. Sorcerer is stronger in his roundhouse, wizard is more capable of adapting to the given situation at hand... Much better than the situation in 3.5 where the wizard was better at both.
I like the new generalist... unfortunately I can't say I care for the changes they did to the specialist. Basically specialists get everything they had under 3.5, better access to 'prohibited' schools, and specialist powers comparable to the generalists powers. This is one place where I will likely house rule, in particular if someone wants to take something like Master Specialist.
The metamagic power is great... wizards no longer need to memorize still/ silent version of key spells. That IMO is awesome. I was one of the folks who suggested that wizards being able to cast 13th level spells at 17th level was bogus and I still think that's the case.
The metamagic power is great... wizards no longer need to memorize still/ silent version of key spells. That IMO is awesome.
This.
The metamagic power is great. I'd like it if it had a few more 'levels' per day, but it works as is. What was really a blow to me wizard is the loss of School Bonus Spells. I thought those were a great addition in Beta and allowed you to create wizards with 'signature' spells. Oh well. I still have my bonded item and that's something. :-)
My point is that I feel that the universalist wizard (as I understand it to currently stand in the PFRPG) misses out on nothing significant by branching out into a prestige class after level ten or twelve (having picked up two or three options on metamagic...
To be honest I'm not entirely sold on the ability of capstones to motivate people to stay in class. Most games I've played in end well before 20th level or some folks go way beyond it.
That said... Are wizards going to stick around for +1 metamagic every other level and +1 feat at 15th and 20th?
I'm not sure, maybe it doesn't meet their stated goal of keeping the wizards out of PrCs... on the other hand at this point going into a PrC just puts the generalist on par with his specialist cousins anyhow... *shrug*
|
I am waiting to hear commentary from the creators, but as a DM, I would allow a Universalist to prepare an additional spell at each level, but only if it is from the Universal school. Also, a Universalist may apply metamagic feats to any spells from the Universal school, as though they had any requisite metamagic feats. Spells from the Universal School may be prepared from memory for all Wizards who have them in their spellbooks.
But like I said, I don't know what all went into playtesting and researching of the Universalist.
When I originally posted I hadn't even considered the merits of switching to a PrC because a core class wasn't worth it.
Now I'm a bit shocked to find that it would make sense for the PF generalist not to bother sticking it out. That's pretty dire - the whole point of PF was to make every level worth taking.
I've never liked the limitations on wizard bonus feats (at least put Spell Penetration / Greater SP in there) and metamagic mastery isn't floating my boat so... Good grief that's a disappointment.
I think the ball has been seriously dropped here.
I tend to agree with you.When I originally posted I hadn't even considered the merits of switching to a PrC because a core class wasn't worth it.
Now I'm a bit shocked to find that it would make sense for the PF generalist not to bother sticking it out. That's pretty dire - the whole point of PF was to make every level worth taking.
I've never liked the limitations on wizard bonus feats (at least put Spell Penetration / Greater SP in there) and metamagic mastery isn't floating my boat so... Good grief that's a disappointment.
I think the ball has been seriously dropped here.
Me too.
Look, put let me put it to you this way. Hand of the Apprentice is garbage IMO, I'd rather Acid Splash or Ray of Frost. The metamagic at 8th level is nice, but not really worth sticking around to get since you'll likely need to really be 10th level to use it for anything worthwhile.On the other hand, all specialists get a bonus slot at every level, though their prohibited schools take double slots. They can prepare a single prohibited spell at each spell level and still have as many spells prepared as a generalist. On top of that there still seems to be no language prohibiting them from wands, scrolls, staves etc of their prohibited schools so big whoop anyway.
Basically NO REASON not to specialize. And if you don't, there's NO REASON not to PrC out! Yes, Paizo dropped the ball.
The metamagic power is great... wizards no longer need to memorize still/ silent version of key spells. That IMO is awesome. I was one of the folks who suggested that wizards being able to cast 13th level spells at 17th level was bogus and I still think that's the case.
I don't suppose that it would be kosher of me to buck the trend.
The fact is, that because the Beta Universalist was SO grossly overpowered, that bringing the class back into better balance was going to be painful.
But, I still think that the Metamagic power is awesome as written, and certainly worth staying in the Universalist Wizard Class for.
As to the "Hand of the Apprentice," since it does not have a weight limit, it logically applies to any weapon the mage can actually use. Forgive me then for buying Martial Weapon Proficiency with Greatsword ... or taking a level of Fighter. ;D
|
|
Okay, I would like to point out something.
Basically, I really do see the Universalist as being better than a specialist because of his much more open spell selection. Every Wizard level, a Wizard can add 2 spells to their spellbook. For a specialist, one of those must be a spell from their school.
A DM could very well houserule that a spell from an opposed school (since it takes up double spell slots), would also take up both of the new spell blanks given per level, double the number of spellbook pages, twice the time to prepare. (I think there was a rule like this in 2nd edition)
So, I really do not see a specialist ever voluntarily putting an opposition school spell into their spellbook if the DM rules this. (effectively pushing two schools out of a spellbook unless the specialist happens to find one during his travels).
Either way, the penalty for preparing a spell of an opposed school is a harsh one. A spellcaster who prepares even one spell of an opposed school at each level could potentially half the number of spells they can have prepared.
The Universalist does not suffer this penalty at all, and at each level when he gains two new spells, they can be any two spells in the book (not as a matter of mechanics, but as a matter of choice). A Universalist can plan out their spell selection well in advance to maximize their effectiveness in combat. Want to combine a grease spell and an explosive rune, go ahead. Think you might be able to think of an interesting way to use fly with cone shaped area spells, sounds like something right up a Universalist's alley.
The specialists are still, just specialist, while a Wizard is the arcane master of spell duels. Toe to toe, with multiple schools in play, a Wizard will outcast a specialist on just about any day.
Just my two cents based on how I've seen specialists and Universalists played. A Universalist requires a lot of hard, creative, analytical even thinking, with an eye for strategy and a mind for intrigue. A specialist, less so, their strategies are more or less contingent. Occasionally a specialist will have a surprise or two up their sleeve, but for the most part, they're pretty predictable. A Universalist, on the other hand.... what's he casting now? Surprises around every corner.
With the reduced magic item creation penalties (i.e. no XP cost), a wizard could effectively make any magic item in the book. Specialists might be able to, but the -4 penalty to item creation checks makes it far more likely that they will fail, or possibly even create cursed items by mistake when attempting to make magic items with opposed schools. (Cursed items have their uses, but still.)
So.. perhaps not as bad as it seems.
Also, a "hidden" bonus/penalty for Specialists.
Spellcraft
"If you are a specialist wizard, you get a +2 bonus on Spellcraft checks made to identify, learn, and prepare (from borrowed spellbook) spells from your chosen school. Similarly, you take a -5 penalty on similar checks made concerning spells from your opposition schools."
This makes it even less likely that a specialist will have spells from opposed schools in their spellbook, especially at lower levels. At higher levels, possibly, but the number of useful cross-school combinations will be reduced, at least in relation to the Universalist.
I know how you guys feel. Not to bash PF (and that's really not my intention in any thread), but I really think they went to far screwing with spellcasters.
You know, spellcasters are all I've ever *honestly* played since I starting playing 3.0 five years ago (we switched to 3.5 one year into our campaign), and I love them. Bard was my first, followed by Wizard, Cleric, and Sorcerer. That said, I'm glad to see them finally toned down. Paizo may have limited them in power when it comes to a lot of their spells, but they compensated with flavor and class features.
In 3.0 & 3.5, spellcasters were ALWAYS better than magic-less classes. Even with casters less powerful in Pathfinder, they're still the best.
I know how you guys feel. Not to bash PF (and that's really not my intention in any thread), but I really think they went to far screwing with spellcasters.You know, spellcasters are all I've ever *honestly* played since I starting playing 3.0 five years ago (we switched to 3.5 one year into our campaign), and I love them. Bard was my first, followed by Wizard, Cleric, and Sorcerer. That said, I'm glad to see them finally toned down. Paizo may have limited them in power when it comes to a lot of their spells, but they compensated with flavor and class features.
In 3.0 & 3.5, spellcasters were ALWAYS better than magic-less classes. Even with casters less powerful in Pathfinder, they're still the best.
That is the thing tough. They didn't "screw" with the Wizard. They just buffed the non-caster classes to be a bit closer in power (A good idea IMHO).
That is the thing tough. They didn't "screw" with the Wizard. They just buffed the non-caster classes to be a bit closer in power (A good idea IMHO).I know how you guys feel. Not to bash PF (and that's really not my intention in any thread), but I really think they went to far screwing with spellcasters.You know, spellcasters are all I've ever *honestly* played since I starting playing 3.0 five years ago (we switched to 3.5 one year into our campaign), and I love them. Bard was my first, followed by Wizard, Cleric, and Sorcerer. That said, I'm glad to see them finally toned down. Paizo may have limited them in power when it comes to a lot of their spells, but they compensated with flavor and class features.
In 3.0 & 3.5, spellcasters were ALWAYS better than magic-less classes. Even with casters less powerful in Pathfinder, they're still the best.
Exactly. But what they gave the generalist looks like two 3.5 feats. Frankly I'd rather have had the feats. Or have had a slightly expanded Wizard Bonus Feats section - put Combat Casting in there (it's almost a must-have now), Spell Pen, Gr Spell Pen etc – so the people out there with no love for metamagic and who've twigged that the only Item Creation Feat you're ever going to want to have is Craft Wondrous aren't going to look at those wizard bonus feats as a waste of time.
Yes wizard needs to take a step back but let's give her a little bone to chew.
Exactly. But what they gave the generalist looks like two 3.5 feats. Frankly I'd rather have had the feats. Or have had a slightly expanded Wizard Bonus Feats section - put Combat Casting in there (it's almost a must-have now), Spell Pen, Gr Spell Pen etc – so the people out there with no love for metamagic and who've twigged that the only Item Creation Feat you're ever going to want to have is Craft Wondrous aren't going to look at those wizard bonus feats as a waste of time.
[threadjack]I have to disagree there.
Despite what many have said, I've gotten quite a bit of mileage out of Brew Potion, and I can see lots of uses for Craft Arms &
Armor, Craft Wand, and Forge Ring.
Also, I have been one of those people who had no great love of Metamagic, but with the new wizard ability, I might just start using some of those feats.
[/threadjack]
Exactly. But what they gave the generalist looks like two 3.5 feats. Frankly I'd rather have had the feats. Or have had a slightly expanded Wizard Bonus Feats section - put Combat Casting in there (it's almost a must-have now), Spell Pen, Gr Spell Pen etc – so the people out there with no love for metamagic and who've twigged that the only Item Creation Feat you're ever going to want to have is Craft Wondrous aren't going to look at those wizard bonus feats as a waste of time.[threadjack]I have to disagree there.
Despite what many have said, I've gotten quite a bit of mileage out of Brew Potion, and I can see lots of uses for Craft Arms &
Armor, Craft Wand, and Forge Ring.Also, I have been one of those people who had no great love of Metamagic, but with the new wizard ability, I might just start using some of those feats.
[/threadjack]
Yes, most item creation feats are good at low levels when you don't have the cash to buy items at full price but once you hit around 9th level they're redundant feats compared with say Improved Initiative and Combat Casting.
Incidentally, someone pointed out on the boards that Forge Ring is particularly weak as you can only ever wear two (unless you convince your GM to allow you the Eberron feat that allows you to wear four).
Item Creation is best handled by having an Artificer in the party (though I suspect that's one of Paizo's new foursome of classes).
As I posted above, the Sudden X feats are a better option if you want to make the most of metamagic.
I think the ball has been seriously dropped here.
I disagree. Universalists are still useful. They do lose out on an extra slot, but they can use any spell they want without paying double. They don't get a specialist power (they never got that) and no capstone, but that's not so tragic if you ask me.
Their other "school" powers are nice enough.
The way it is now, it actually makes sense to play a specialist. In my opinion, that wasn't the case before.
And I agree that universalists are encouraged to change into PrCs, and I don't think that's too bad. If you want something that works for 20 levels, play a specialist. If you want to mix and match, play universalist.
Nothing wrong with multiclassing.
Drop the useless schools (take your pick of enchantment, necromancy and divination)
I have a wand of enervation I want to use to illustrate the error of your statement. }>
I disagree. Universalists are still useful. They do lose out on an extra slot, but they can use any spell they want without paying double. They don't get a specialist power (they never got that) and no capstone, but that's not so tragic if you ask me.
I think the ball has been seriously dropped here.
Actually, during Beta, a Universalist did get a specialist's power ... that was the problem.
I disagree. Universalists are still useful. They do lose out on an extra slot, but they can use any spell they want without paying double.
A specialist can prepare one opposition spell per level and still cast no fewer spells than a universalist. How many spells does a wizard realistically want from his two opposition schools? I don't expect it will be more than one per level.
The way it is now, it actually makes sense to play a specialist. In my opinion, that wasn't the case before.
That is certainly true. Between the sorcerer for number of spells per day and universalist for spell selection, playing a specialist in 3.5 was one of the most pointless choices available in the core game.
Their other "school" powers are nice enough.
Hand of the Apprentice in particular compares easily (and IMO poorly) to the conjuration and evocation powers. Conjuration gets touch, evocation gets autohit, and they both probably deal more damage. HotA would be nice if it let you perform combat maneuvers.
It might be nice if you're going for something like eldritch knight, though.
I have a wand of enervation I want to use to illustrate the error of your statement. }>
You could use that wand with no penalty even if necromancy was your opposition school, no?
|
I am disappointed with the universalist wizard. The class lacks a capstone, has no abilities which scale with level except the severely weakened 'cannot boost a spell above the level you would normally be able to cast' Metamagic Mastery, and now seems to me to be very much the poor relation to specialist wizards (no longer so severely penalised in their opposition schools and with level-scaling abilities and capstones) and sorcerers (funky bloodline powers). In fact sorcerers are now the 'true' masters of magic, it seems to me, with at least three of the bloodlines boosting the DCs of some of their spells in a manner that stacks with Spell Focus and Use Magic Device playing to their natural strongest ability stat if they need magic to do something outside their repertoire of spells known.
It might have something to do with the fact that 1) You are just about the most powerful class in the book, and 2) You aren't giving up stuff like the specialists are. The wizard is one of the few classes that can end an encounter with a single spell from the beginning of play. So don't gripe too much, because the universalist wizard is already "uber" from the start.
I've not played specialists (I like the versatility of the generalist) but my original point was to put the PF generalist wizard up against the PF paladin, rogue, fighter etc and ask 'is this in any way as cool a class to play?'
And for me the answer is 'no, not really'.
I hope GMs will be allowing wizards access to other 3.5 / PF spell resources because as written in the core book the wizard looks a bit dull.
This has been a complaint of mine that Spell Penetration and Spell Focus were never part of the bonus wizard selecion feats. Most wizards would want to have these to have more effective spells in combat. Im not a big fan of item creation, and Im sure there alot of players who are in campaigns that dont allow mucch downtime (I was in such a campaign)
I don't see anything wrong with leaving useful feats off the bonus list. I see bonus feats as not just increasing the PC's power a little as a level benefit, but also channeling that power in flavorful ways. Spell Penetration and Spell Focus are good and useful, but not the flavor the 3.x designers were shooting for when setting up the Wizard bonus feats.
Actually, during Beta, a Universalist did get a specialist's power ... that was the problem.
No. They got special abilities, but the special power (the one you lost when you used illegal spells) was for specialists only.
Cute, but I, too, have a wand of enervation that I can use just fine, despite necromancy being my prohibited school. Thanks Pathfinder!
Nah, you don't. Guess where I got mine.
True, this was a bad example (don't know about cute, though. No smurfs at all), so let's say I have a bunch of Empowered Enervations I want to introduce to you.
|
|
I've not played specialists (I like the versatility of the generalist) but my original point was to put the PF generalist wizard up against the PF paladin, rogue, fighter etc and ask 'is this in any way as cool a class to play?'
And for me the answer is 'no, not really'.
I hope GMs will be allowing wizards access to other 3.5 / PF spell resources because as written in the core book the wizard looks a bit dull.
Well to be fair you aren't really comparing a whole class to a whole class. You're comparing one choice of a class to a whole class. Your basically saying,
Put a mounted paladin up against a wizard, sorcerer, or cleric and ask is this in any way cool to play.
Well when you only have one choice between classes that have multiple choices the answer is always gonna be no.
Now compare just wizard with a choice of 8 schools and universalist, with all of those classes and your answer is yes it is interesting and a cool class to play.
The fact that now you aren't as attracted to one choice out of nine and then saying compare them to the rest of the classes in the game with all choices was never a fair comparison to start with.
That is the thing tough. They didn't "screw" with the Wizard. They just buffed the non-caster classes to be a bit closer in power (A good idea IMHO).
The only real screw was the universalist versus specialist balance which already favored to specialists and now does even more so.
Universalists are right sized, specialists have issues.
|
|
That is the thing tough. They didn't "screw" with the Wizard. They just buffed the non-caster classes to be a bit closer in power (A good idea IMHO).The only real screw was the universalist versus specialist balance which already favored to specialists and now does even more so.
Universalists are right sized, specialists have issues.
Really, I'm the only person I've ever known to play a specialist in 3.5 every other wizard I've ever seen was a universalist. I know I know, anecdotal, but I always heard from people that universalist was better. How was it favoring specialists before the PFRPG
The only real screw was the universalist versus specialist balance which already favored to specialists and now does even more so.
Universalists are right sized, specialists have issues.
It's funny -- I've known lots of people in 3.5 who swore by generalists, and I've known lots of people in 3.5 who swore by specialists. They all thought their choice was obviously the best. :-)
EDIT: ninja'd by lastknightleft!
I've not played specialists (I like the versatility of the generalist) but my original point was to put the PF generalist wizard up against the PF paladin, rogue, fighter etc and ask 'is this in any way as cool a class to play?'
And for me the answer is 'no, not really'.
I hope GMs will be allowing wizards access to other 3.5 / PF spell resources because as written in the core book the wizard looks a bit dull.
??? What ??? The wizard is cool and fun for the same reason it's always been cool and fun. So it hasn't been given a bunch of new Paizofied clever class abilities every level, wizard has always gotten new clever class abilities, they are called spells. Spells are much more flexible and versatile than rogue tricks and rage powers, the tricks are powers were given to them so they could do interesting things... like the wizard does every game.
As a bonus now the wizard has an attack so they can be effective in low level combat which is where they have historically been weak. They also get unlimited cantrips which also helps boost their low level effectiveness. This applies to almost all wizards now.
It's funny -- I've known lots of people in 3.5 who swore by generalists, and I've known lots of people in 3.5 who swore by specialists. They all thought their choice was obviously the best. :-)
I always played specialists, in particular if my DM let me use Spell Compendium which pretty much made evocation obsolete by giving conjuration and transmutation a bunch of direct damage spells.
Do you still favor the universalist now that you can use wands and selectively take non-prohibited spells? I think the power has definitely shifted towards specialists.