but after considering the numbers though, 20 hp is the break even point at level 1 (assuming 9 hp for the con wizard and 8 for the dex wizard). on average, the dex wiz takes only 95% of the damage the con wiz does, so he's only taken 19 at this point, putting them bot at -11. heh. another way to look at it is that for every 100 points of healing the con wiz requires, the dex wiz only requires 95 hp of healing. basically as the number of attacks on each wizard approaches infinity the dex wiz becomes infinitely...
Keep in mind for that to work out, whatever's attacking the wizard has to be able to miss his AC without rolling a nat 1. That's often not the case unless you invest resources into AC that probably would be better spent elsewhere.
I don't at all think DEX is useless for a wizard, but if DEX and CON are in a steel cage match and only one can come out on top, it's going to be CON for me. The initiative bonus from DEX is nice but Fort save, HP, and death threshold it's not.
(And yeah, I play from first level.)
Brian's correct -- go anywhere that optimizers are talking about how to crank out the wizard class and they will always say: INT highest, CON next.Except most optimizers are going to put the second best score in Con, so your calculations are one off.
actually, i completely disagree with this assertion. i'm genuinely curious to know why you think this is the case.
Sigh...
I wish people would READ before they assert. C'mon. You don't have to read or use the guides, but if you don't, then don't assert what is said in them.
The most important thing is you make sure your Intelligence is your top priority, and that Dex and Con, in that order, are number 2 and 3. The rest are dump stats.
As I said, I'm not really that into optimization, so have not read your guides. I go instead off of interactions I've had with a wide range of folks who claim, credibly in my opinion, to be good optimizers. Many of them do refer to your guides, but obviously not all of them follow them. As I'm not an optimizer myself, I'll refrain from now on for speaking for them and let them fight their own battles.
Keep in mind for that to work out, whatever's attacking the wizard has to be able to miss his AC without rolling a nat 1. That's often not the case unless you invest resources into AC that probably would be better spent elsewhere.
I don't at all think DEX is useless for a wizard, but if DEX and CON are in a steel cage match and only one can come out on top, it's going to be CON for me. The initiative bonus from DEX is nice but Fort save, HP, and death threshold it's not.
(And yeah, I play from first level.)
Even if I think that Con as secondary is far from being weird, a player of mine managed to optimize Dex as secondary. Diviner, improved int, dex well maxed to be very good at action, and to reaction (prepared standard action - it happens a lot of spells are 1 st action cast).
Moreover, it saved him in difficult encounters - in a recent dungeon during a big battle he lost mirror image and similar stuff, and high dex saved him from spring attacking advanced wraiths.
Moreover, it saved him in difficult encounters - in a recent dungeon during a big battle he lost mirror image and similar stuff, and high dex saved him from spring attacking advanced wraiths.
Hmmm... but Dread Wraiths drain CON so that situation's kind of a wash. :)
Moreover, it saved him in difficult encounters - in a recent dungeon during a big battle he lost mirror image and similar stuff, and high dex saved him from spring attacking advanced wraiths.Hmmm... but Dread Wraiths drain CON so that situation's kind of a wash. :)
He managed to non being hit. Better, considering that there were more enemies other than the wraiths able to shoot to the wizard if drained(big battle and a lot of PCs too). On top of him being superior on initiative.
|
If Treant is advising anything other than Con is second, he is giving very bad advice. Which is unfortunate, as he is one of the people who usually knows his stuff, from what I have seen.
Dex isn't just defense for a wizard, it is also offense. A wizard needs dex for all his ranged touch and ray attacks.
If Treant is advising anything other than Con is second, he is giving very bad advice. Which is unfortunate, as he is one of the people who usually knows his stuff, from what I have seen.Dex isn't just defense for a wizard, it is also offense. A wizard needs dex for all his ranged touch and ray attacks.
I'm sure CoDzilla would argue that all of those spells are trash and should be avoided anyway.
I'm not all that sure I disagree. Disintegrate is a great utility spell, but I don't love it as a combat spell. Ray of Enfeeblement was probably a little too good in 3.X, but I wouldn't prepare the Pathfinder version of it at all. Etc.
Really, which stat is most important after Int depends on what kind of role you want your wizard to fill. For treantmonks guide it says the primary role of the wizard as described in that guide is to be a battlefield controller. That makes Dex very important for iniative if nothing else, and also very useful for some ranged touch debuffs. Others tastes may vary...
If Treant is advising anything other than Con is second, he is giving very bad advice. Which is unfortunate, as he is one of the people who usually knows his stuff, from what I have seen.
Arguing for str or Cha second is very bad advice. Dex still has some usefulness. Con is still important. I tend to get con and dex tied if I was making an optimized wizard.
To be fair to both CoDzilla and Treantmonk, the former is used to a game with a fair bit of 3.5 material, and I would say that the value of DEX to a wizard is a little higher in pure core Pathfinder, since (unless you're a Diviner) there are generally less ways to gain initiative modifier.'
(But I still think CON is a little better than DEX.)
|
|
If Treant is advising anything other than Con is second, he is giving very bad advice. Which is unfortunate, as he is one of the people who usually knows his stuff, from what I have seen.Arguing for str or Cha second is very bad advice. Dex still has some usefulness. Con is still important. I tend to get con and dex tied if I was making an optimized wizard.
I kind of tend to agree here, I fretted over this with my own wizard build and ended up
Str 10, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 20, Wis 12, cha 7
I had originally gone with a dex of 16, but at the expense of str and wis. I just couldn't live with a sub par will save in the end.
Don't forget the power of fear and imagination. :)
A few words in a strange language, a little bit powder blast into a open flame and then tell the Barman/Guard/Goblinchief/whatever you lay a curse on him and if he's not telling the truth something bad happened.
Even if it's a fantasy world, most "normal" people don't have any clue about magic, so use it. Of course this only works when you're looking like a wizard and not like a normal adventurer.
(Maybe thats why wizards wear this fancy heads and robes^^)
Not the Con vs. Dex secondary wiz stat debate again!
I prefer them in equal doses for a "classically built"* wizard. If forced to pick between the two, I go with Dex (with a few exceptions). But regardless of my preference, dumping either Dex or Con is a relatively poor decision.
(*A classically built wizard doesn't purposely venture into melee -- in fact, he avoids it like the plague. Wizards that have some desire to go into melee will definitely benefit more from Con than Dex for a variety of reasons. Wizards that care about ranged touch attack rolls probably tend to over-focus on Dex, but obviously such a build wouldn't dump Dex.)
As for magic missile, it's a great spell to have at first level -- but not a great spell to prepare. The primary purpose of a level 1 magic missile spell choice is for the Scribe Scroll feat. A stack of CL 1 mm scrolls is quite helpful early on.
|
Color Spray isn't a complete game winner as it's range and template aren't great vs ranged attackers and a decent number of things are sleep resistant or immune.
Well, note that Color Spray isn't a sleep effect. But, yeah, undead/vermin/etc. still largely have your number there.
That's pretty much my angle, too. Honestly, at any level, the way that I tend to play a wizard is such that in an average encounter I'm doing a little less than pulling my weight, but am MVP when it really counts. At level 1 you don't exactly have the freedom or versatility for that, so it's more: "Do your best to completely win the encounters/challenges where you can be useful, so the party saves other limited resources for the encounters where you can't."
Even if the Wizard is only successful in 2 of the assumed 5 encounters with a SoS effect that still 40% of the encounters that the Wizard was critical in winning which seems like he's hitting above average (25%).
This is also my experience with Wizards. They generally hold back in "small" fights saving the good spells for the "Big" fights.
Sorcerers tend to be better in general, but not as versatile when you need that specific spell at that specific time.
This is twice as true at low levels.
This is also my experience with Wizards. They generally hold back in "small" fights saving the good spells for the "Big" fights.
The presumption that the party can actually survive a number of encounters per day, that exceeds the number of wizard spells memorized per day at 1st level, is completely ridiculous. Assuming the encounters are threatening at all, of course. But as druid's pet alone can eat nonthreatening ones, like lone goblins or whatever, who cares about them. And, well, past level one wizards only get more spells.
|
|
The presumption that the party can actually survive a number of encounters per day, that exceeds the number of wizard spells memorized per day at 1st level, is completely ridiculous. Assuming the encounters are threatening at all, of course. But as druid's pet alone can eat nonthreatening ones, like lone goblins or whatever, who cares about them. And, well, past level one wizards only get more spells.
This is also my experience with Wizards. They generally hold back in "small" fights saving the good spells for the "Big" fights.
If you have a 20 Int and a bonded item you have 4 1st level spells. Go with a familiar and you have 3. Go with an 18 and a familiar you have 2.
Even assuming you only use one spell per encounter, that is all of your spells for the day.
And when you only have 1d6 + con hit points and an ac of 12 or less generally, that long goblin can be a problem if they have a bow.
The presumption that the party can actually survive a number of encounters per day, that exceeds the number of wizard spells memorized per day at 1st level, is completely ridiculous. Assuming the encounters are threatening at all, of course. But as druid's pet alone can eat nonthreatening ones, like lone goblins or whatever, who cares about them. And, well, past level one wizards only get more spells.
This is also my experience with Wizards. They generally hold back in "small" fights saving the good spells for the "Big" fights.If you have a 20 Int and a bonded item you have 4 1st level spells. Go with a familiar and you have 3. Go with an 18 and a familiar you have 2.
Even assuming you only use one spell per encounter, that is all of your spells for the day.
And when you only have 1d6 + con hit points and an ac of 12 or less generally, that long goblin can be a problem if they have a bow.
This is not including a specialist slot. Which helps at level 1 with an additional spell so that can mean 5 spells maximum.
Lets see 18 int specialist school conjuration and a bonded object does gives me 4 spells one of whcich could be grease. and the other three color spray or sleep. Even though it only has 18 int it still gets 4 spells a day.
True that. Also, since when wizards have 1d6+Con hps per level in PF? It's 1d6+1+Con.
|
|
The presumption that the party can actually survive a number of encounters per day, that exceeds the number of wizard spells memorized per day at 1st level, is completely ridiculous. Assuming the encounters are threatening at all, of course. But as druid's pet alone can eat nonthreatening ones, like lone goblins or whatever, who cares about them. And, well, past level one wizards only get more spells.
This is also my experience with Wizards. They generally hold back in "small" fights saving the good spells for the "Big" fights.If you have a 20 Int and a bonded item you have 4 1st level spells. Go with a familiar and you have 3. Go with an 18 and a familiar you have 2.
Even assuming you only use one spell per encounter, that is all of your spells for the day.
And when you only have 1d6 + con hit points and an ac of 12 or less generally, that long goblin can be a problem if they have a bow.
This is not including a specialist slot. Which helps at level 1 with an additional spell so that can mean 5 spells maximum.
Lets see 18 int specialist school conjuration and a bonded object does gives me 4 spells one of whcich could be grease. and the other three color spray or sleep. Even though it only has 18 int it still gets 4 spells a day.
And in a four encounter day, which is the norm if you use more than one spell per encounter you are out of spells before the last encounter.
Not saying you can't be useful and effective, but it is ridiculous to say you "can't" run out of spells when at best you have 5.
I wish people would READ before they assert. C'mon. You don't have to read or use the guides, but if you don't, then don't assert what is said in them.
I wasn't name dropping you or your guide in this case or making an assertion about it. (If I was, I would have double-checked to see what you had to say.)
Edited to add: I think it's an excellently written guide for its stated purpose, which basically is: "I don't understand how to play a wizard to its potential, what do I need to know to get going down that path?" But, to me, it doesn't represent the "bleeding edge" of optimization taken to its crazy extreme, and I didn't get the feeling, reading it, that you meant it to.
Can you direct me to anywhere that supports the claim that optimizers believe that Wizards should dump Dex?
From a pure optimization point of view, Dexterity is important for Wizards (not for firing crossbows though - and if you go into the hard-core optimization forums, it's all about initiative), and I've never heard a claim otherwise on any wizard optimization thread I've visited, and I'm pretty sure any "optimizer" that made that claim would be laughed at.
If you get into the forums where the theoretical powergaming min/maxers hang out, you'll find them suggesting that eventually it all comes down to initiative, for which dumping Dex isn't just a bad idea, it's the [i]worst[i] idea.
I used my guide as an example, but really - you aren't going to find any decent optimizer suggesting that Wizards don't need Dex.
As I said, I'm not really that into optimization, so have not read your guides. I go instead off of interactions I've had with a wide range of folks who claim, credibly in my opinion, to be good optimizers. Many of them do refer to your guides, but obviously not all of them follow them. As I'm not an optimizer myself, I'll refrain from now on for speaking for them and let them fight their own battles.
Fair enough, though I promise you, if they are telling you that an optimization of Wizards involves dumping Dex, then their credibility would be in question!
From a pure optimization view, there is no question a Wizard needs Int first and foremost. I think that's pretty basic stuff, and a Wizard can do fine without the other stuff.
If you want an optimized Wizard though, a decent Dex is pretty much considered a universal requirement for any style of build.
Can you direct me to anywhere that supports the claim that optimizers believe that Wizards should dump Dex?
There I think you're misunderstanding me, or maybe I wasn't sufficiently clear -- I don't think anyone says to dump DEX exactly, just that it isn't as important as INT or CON but probably comes in third.
This is the first thing I found via Google-fu; I can keep trying if you like.
Note that I'm not, at this point, trying to argue whether DEX or CON is more important, but about what people who claim to be playing in the kind of super-cranked-out games in which the lower-tier classes have fallen out of viability entirely tend to say.
Can you direct me to anywhere that supports the claim that optimizers believe that Wizards should dump Dex?
From a pure optimization point of view, Dexterity is important for Wizards (not for firing crossbows though - and if you go into the hard-core optimization forums, it's all about initiative), and I've never heard a claim otherwise on any wizard optimization thread I've visited, and I'm pretty sure any "optimizer" that made that claim would be laughed at.
If you get into the forums where the theoretical powergaming min/maxers hang out, you'll find them suggesting that eventually it all comes down to initiative, for which dumping Dex isn't just a bad idea, it's the [i]worst[i] idea.
I used my guide as an example, but really - you aren't going to find any decent optimizer suggesting that Wizards don't need Dex.
It's not that they don't need dex but that it's worth boosting con higher than dex.
Int>Con>Dex>Wis>>>>>>Str>>>Cha
Basically if you can afford to get a +5 in Int, +3 in Con, and +2 in Dex at Chargen it's a worthwhile investment.
Personally I think Dex=Con under default pathfinder conditions because Init boosters are harder to come by than expanded 3.x.
I used my guide as an example, but really - you aren't going to find any decent optimizer suggesting that Wizards don't need Dex.
+1
There I think you're misunderstanding me, or maybe I wasn't sufficiently clear -- I don't think anyone says to dump DEX exactly, just that it isn't as important as INT or CON but probably comes in third.
In 3.5 I did suggest Int>Con>Dex, a position I had to defend quite a bit by the way as conventional wisdom put Dex higher than Con (The various Init boosts Vuron mentions in addition to significantly lower HP for Wizards in 3.5 was my reasoning)
Obviously Pathfinder changed the rules somewhat so the optimized builds altered as well.
If you find an optimizer that claims Con is more important than Dex for Wizards in Pathfinder, send them my direction, I would be interested to hear the reasoning. Honestly, this is the first thread I've heard that claim, and I've never heard it from someone who claims to be an optimizer.
Except that crossbows are cheaper, and you can also spam cantrips for near the same effect. If you are actually concerned about HP damage that is. The stay back and cast type needs a solid Con too, and gains very little from Dex.
Crossbows that benefit from pumping Dex? (:
Saying that you gain "very little" from Dex is a meaningless statement. What you gain from either stat only matters when the situation calls for it.
If the stand-back-and-cast types are properly avoiding melee combat and staying spread out from the group, they typically aren't going to attract a lot of attention from non-intelligent enemies. Lack of attention = no damage or Fortitude saves. Of course a smart enemy will focus on the caster, but a smart caster can use environment, spells (summons/walls), and teammates (meat-shields) to avoid attention. Which means, the-stand-back-and-cast caster is gaining "very little" from the Con.
If you never roll initiative, never get attacked by a melee/ranged attack, never make a ranged attack, never roll a reflex save, or have no use for Dex-based skills (like Fly), Dex indeed does "very little".
Again, I think you can't just dump Con as a wizard. The occasional spike damage can take you out otherwise. But in PF, with favored class bonuses to hp, buffed hit dice, buffed Toughness, and the Improved Great Fortitude feat (a huge feat for casters), I'm just not sold on Con as clearly better than Dex.
As for running out of spells, and taking damage in the former case you can do 1/fight for 4 fights. And Color Spray does the lion's share of the work in most any low level encounter. Not to mention the group will probably stop before 4, not due to lack of arcane spells but because the Cleric can't heal the Fighter anymore and therefore the result of running out of resources is much more immediate and final. In the latter you have 10 HP, and the goblin does 1-6. Sure he can 3 hit you, but he can 3-4 hit anyone else in the party too. Level 1 is a Luck Based Mission. That's not Wizard specific.
I'm not arguing against color spray or sleep. They're clearly more powerful spells at first level in most CR 2 situations. I'm arguing that at early levels, you still need a toolkit of options. Just because those spells are powerful doesn't mean that sometimes you need to deal damage. Since bad guys are usually in melee with your other party members, you've got soft cover issues *and* fighting in melee penalties. Ranged attacks are difficult to pull off unless you have the appropriate feats and can get good positioning. A stand-back-and-cast "classic" wizard is more effective picking away with 1d4+1 mm scrolls than missing constantly with -8 penalties.
Stuff that boosts initiative. Divination school, improved initiative, trait for +2 initiative if Gm allows, if Gm allows maybe scorpion familiar from APG but that is harder at low levels due to no bonded object and one less spell at first level when it hurts most.
@LazarX
The cantrips like daze can also work a lot. also do not forget your school powers.
Preparing only color spray and sleep may leave you with no other good options and the cantrip daze works only on humanoids.
The acid dart can be much better than a crossbow aginast skeltons with DR/5 bludgeoning and if it hits which is likely if you have +2 dex you hit on a 10. and do d6 damage and they do not have that many hit points on average. This is better than using a crossbow here. If you roll a 4 or higher on damage you kill one. With the crossbow you would have to go through damage reduction. I have encountered and used skeltons when Gming.
The summoning powers of conjurations come into play at later levels as well. Grease does not suck that much at level 1.
Stuff that boosts initiative. Divination school, improved initiative, trait for +2 initiative if Gm allows, if Gm allows maybe scorpion familiar from APG but that is harder at low levels due to no bonded object and one less spell at first level when it hurts most.
@LazarX
The cantrips like daze can also work a lot. also do not forget your school powers.
Preparing only color spray and sleep may leave you with no other good options and the cantrip daze works only on humanoids.The acid dart can be much better than a crossbow aginast skeltons with DR/5 bludgeoning and if it hits which is likely if you have +2 dex you hit on a 10. and do d6 damage and they do not have that many hit points on average. This is better than using a crossbow here. If you roll a 4 or higher on damage you kill one. With the crossbow you would have to go through damage reduction. I have encountered and used skeltons when Gming.
The summoning powers of conjurations come into play at later levels as well. Grease does not suck that much at level 1.
Grease never sucks. It is the cheapest way to foil grapple monsters on any level, not to mention disarming people with poor reflex saves. Fighters, yes, but if you hit a wizard's bonded staff... hilarious!
Initiative is bread and butter for a wizard. You want to act first, and move away. Divination, Dex, Improved Initiative, Reactionary etc. Nothing is more delightful for a baddie than a flat-footed wizard.
If this "conventional" wisdom says to put Dex before Con, you need a different convention.
3.x, any version: Int > Con > Dex > anything else. PF makes Dex less appealing, but that's the only change. It certainly does not make it more so, or change the order. Because Con is always everyone's second best friend. At least everyone who doesn't want to die every single fight.
Why is Con always your best friend? Hit points don't matter until you are at less than zero and shouldn't your wizard be able to take out the enemy in a single round making hit points a useless number to keep track of?
I would say that you need a different convention. There are plenty of builds that would place Dex before Con. Just because you like Con first does not mean that it is automatically so. Keep in mind that your experiences are not the only ones that matter to how the game is played. I also don't think Treantmonk's are and his advice is not always going to be 100% accurate (and I think he is well aware of this). His advice always comes with some caveats, the first and foremost (in this case) is that it "is by and large an opinion paper." You should really take the time to read his stuff before condemning it.
If this "conventional" wisdom says to put Dex before Con, you need a different convention.
3.x, any version: Int > Con > Dex > anything else. PF makes Dex less appealing, but that's the only change. It certainly does not make it more so, or change the order. Because Con is always everyone's second best friend. At least everyone who doesn't want to die every single fight.
Pathfinder made Dex LESS appealing?
Ohh...tell me why!
Qualifier: Con should still be a secondary stat for Wizards, I'm not condoning dumping it for any class, Wizards included. However, the idea that it should be the second most important stat for every class (Wizards included) is also way off.
The only Classes I could see making Con the second most important stat are some specialized Barbarian builds, maybe a WF rogue build, and that's really about it.
I should warn you that CoD bases his facts on a fairly heavily houseruled game, and includes a variety of material outside of Pathfinder core. For example, he has stated in no uncertain terms that "SR is irrelevant", but uses spells like assay resistance.
Good Luck! You kids play nice now!
|
|
At the beginning levels don't discount the cantrips. Things like Daze, and Ray of Frost, can be very helpful at low levels, and you don't run out of them.If you have a 20 Int and a bonded item you have 4 1st level spells. Go with a familiar and you have 3. Go with an 18 and a familiar you have 2.
I'm not saying they are underpowered. Pathfinder gave them an appropriate bump so they are now fine at low levels.
They are neither underpowered nor overpowered. They are Goldilocks approved.
The response was to the post which said the argument that they could run out of spells was "ridiculous".
They can run out of spells in a 4 encounter day, and therefore will likely be rationing. Which is exactly the right balance.
Pathfinder made Dex LESS appealing?Ohh...tell me why!
You did ask me to find you one of those. My work is done here!
(Although CoDzilla isn't the only person I've seen make similar claims in the last few months here, and there are reputedly sizeable communities elsewhere on the internets who feel the same.)
I found the opening line made me chuckle. Sure, lvl 1 is the weakest level for a wizard, but the same could be said for most pure casters.
The problem isn't so much that you can't make a lvl 1 wizard that works, its more than the game-winning uber ideaology of a wizard a lot of people seem to posit here requires several levels to achieve, and would be something that required the right planning early on. Planning that reaslitically may not happen if the constraints of the campaign mean he would hamstring himself before he reached 'ultimate power' level.
Playing a recent campaign at lvl 1 using Pathfinder rules in Eberron setting (no traits or other APG allowed, just a few DM house-ruled background traits to tie in Eberron) we had a part consisting of a Paladin, Ranger, Wizard and a Sorceror. The Sorceror shot himself in the foot slightly by taking Fear as his lvl 1, the wizard used scrolls almost exclusively.
For some unfathomable reason, it seemed to be the longest running level 1 I've ever seen in a campaign. By comparison, lvl 2 and 3 practically flew by, and they each took a month or so to do. The age-old wizard problem of FFZZAPP!!! "Right, I'll be in my trailer" has been alleviated massively by the orb spells, but it still hangs heavy over the head of the wizard player for doing much else. He actually tanked a couple of times, purely because he had the highest AC by 1 until the Paladin found some scale mail. Lvl 2 didn't bring much more joy for him, it just meant he had the cash to buy some wands and no longer had to use his quarter staff as often. By lvl 3, he'd scrapped his own 'ideal' progression in favour of simply going with what the campaign itself actually needed. In the end, it meant he could do more between rests, and the amount of downtime he actually needed was actuely driven home when he had to miss out on a (what turned out to be incredibly long-winded) slave-train chase purely because he hadn't had time to scribe his new spells into his spellbook yet.
It was then that I learned that having faith in your dice and being a gnome means Paladins CAN stealthily take out half the guard's on a goblin and bugbear slave caravan before the alarm is raised so long as the gods are smiling that day...
Wizard missed out, it was unfortunate, aye, and totally a circumstance of the game we were playing. So, in retrospect, lvl 1 isn't necessarily the weakest level for a wizard... its the level that causes you to stop power-gaming and start being a bit more utilitarian that is.
And since I'm basically never using 'save to negate' spells anymore at the high end, especially when I'm 'serious', why do I care about my save DC again?
The question is, what do you use in their place? Almost all of the high level 3.5 screw-you-with-no-save spells have a save in Pathfinder.
(And really, if having hard to make saves is a boon for most of the stretch of levels -- and it is -- that's enough to me to justify investing heavily in the caster stat.)
In my games, I see alot more of "I failed or made my save by one" , than I see them fail or make by a mile.
Greg