In PFS you use the scroll and never have the option to houserule that two extra spells. 25+10 35 at level one. Thats not bad. 1250 for a 5 level scroll... okay thats a little harder.
Evoc is considered weak because you can't take the spells and BAM, be a huge damage dealer.
however, with careful investment, you can turn evoc into the hammer that makes everything a nail, so IF YOU INVEST...it can be a monstrously powerful school.
It's just that no conjuror is going to memorize an evoc spell and do something spectactular with it, whereas any wizard with Monster Summoning is an effective conjuror.
Evocation gets powerful when you invest. Other specializations are strong because their spells are, and they get more of them. That's it.
==Aelryinth
They only issue I could see with your example envoker is that some DM's may not let the Sorcerer arcana stack on the wizard spells (as in casted from wiz spell slots). But that might be a per DM thing as well. Ones I play with (self included) would probably have and issue with it.
Actually bards and alchemist can also get sneak attack. Far more fun and interesting to be an alchemist than a rogue for arcane trickster. I've thought it was fun anyway.
Ultimate Magus was just... wierd. Using your innate spellpower to power your prepared casting was an awesome concept though.
I think there are not so many PrC as it should have in Pathfinder.
Out of the 8 rule books (CRB, APG, ARG, UM, UC, UE, GMG, NPC codex), there are only 18 Prestige classes. This is low, very low.
Some of you will argue : "but there are so many archetypes that PrC are not so important now !", and you will be partially right.
But what about classes that do have very few of them ?
The wizard have 4 archetypes (no, that is not a joke) :
- Arcane bomber : lose Arcane bond, lose cantrips (most of them), 4 forbidden school (instead of 2), gain bombs and can improve bombs by sacrifiying spells. Result : Very very bad, but one of the better archetype.
- Siege mage : if anyone have ever used this archetype for a PC, tell me. It is worse than Arcane bomber in every single aspects (and even worse).
- Spellslinger : more or less like the Arcane bomber, with a way to get better DC for his cones/rays/lines/...(not so bad for a blaster of some sort, and some debuffs).
- Scrollmaster : Scroll blade is a joke, scroll shield is worse than a mithral light shield and Improved scroll casting is OK, but should be a feat or a discovery. At least, you don't have to take 4 forbidden schools (this is the only wizard archetype to do so).
That is the problem : As for now, a wizard is either a Diviner (for init) or a Conjurer/Teleportation (yay), or at least 80% of the time. No archetypes used (because there is none which are at least decent).
Adding the fact that there is no Wizard PrC except the Loremaster, ...
Paizo is also pretty big on pre-made adventures, yeah? (Heck, it's basically the driving force of their business since you can only sell so many Core books...)
Most (Kingmaker aside) of those adventures are on a pretty tight schedule. In other words, you don't get tons of downtime when you level to go dilly-dallying around some major city that might be far away from where you are in order to make up for the loss of those two spells per level.
You're not actually defending the idea that a PrC should give you all the abilities of a core class + nifty cool powers that core classes could never get, are you?
This is basically the "core" of the argument against the idea of a Wizard/Witch/Magus learning their new free spells per level. And the problem is it's entirely nonsense.
Spells aren't the ONLY thing that these classes get (once again, this is Pathfinder, not 3.X), and it's absolutely not the class feature that is being traded when advancing into a PrC:Wizards are trading their Specialization advancement and bonus feat progressions.
Witches are trading the number of Hexes they get as well as how powerful those Hexes are (PrC levels don't count as Witch levels for Hex saves...)
Magi are trading potentially the most out of the three, with things like Bonus Arcana, bonus Feats, increased Armor Training, Fighter Training, etc.
But when you take a PrC as a prepared caster, you don't stop being a prepared caster. You still prepare spells at the beginning of your day from your Spellbook/Familiar/Whatever and you're still "researching spells in your downtime" the way you always are. The idea that you suddenly stop doing such is silly.
(And let's not ignore the other truth: If a Wizard isn't allowed more spells than a Sorcerer, then the class becomes VASTLY inferior. We're not just talking "kinda" worse - we're talking completely and in every possible way worse.)
Also note that sorcerers who do go into PrC's for the most part DO wind up forfeiting their bonus bloodline spells.
Wizards give up bonus feats and any progression with their chosen school. Also access to some of the wizard discoveries. Some of which are nice to have. Wizards have class features too.
Hate to go offtopic, but it kills the witch class to ever get into a PrC. You cease to gain spells, you lose hex progression, and you don't have any class features that scale with you or are flat bonuses. Your just a wizard with a very limited spell selection. At least your forced to have a furry friend to be with you through it all. If he dies you lose everything though...
The wizard have 4 archetypes
They have a few more in the splatbooks. Scroll Scholar, Primalist, Spell Binder(elf), and Shadowcaster. Not keen on how useful they are myself.
More archetypes would be a nice thing yes. If only to add flavor. Usually archetypes don't go very far from the normal class however, and that can lead to a lack of variety. Not that spells aren't versatile, just that there isn't much in the way of class features and flavor or alternate options within that.
The wizard have 4 archetypes (no, that is not a joke) :
- Arcane bomber : lose Arcane bond, lose cantrips (most of them), 4 forbidden school (instead of 2), gain bombs and can improve bombs by sacrifiying spells. Result : Very very bad, but one of the better archetype.
- Siege mage : if anyone have ever used this archetype for a PC, tell me. It is worse than Arcane bomber in every single aspects (and even worse).
- Spellslinger : more or less like the Arcane bomber, with a way to get better DC for his cones/rays/lines/...(not so bad for a blaster of some sort, and some debuffs).
- Scrollmaster : Scroll blade is a joke, scroll shield is worse than a mithral light shield and Improved scroll casting is OK, but should be a feat or a discovery. At least, you don't have to take 4 forbidden schools (this is the only wizard archetype to do so).That is the problem : As for now, a wizard is either a Diviner (for init) or a Conjurer/Teleportation (yay), or at least 80% of the time. No archetypes used (because there is none which are at least decent).
Adding the fact that there is no Wizard PrC except the Loremaster, ...
Well, hang on...
-Arcane Bomber: Yes, I agree, this archetype is just bad. It wouldn't be bad except for that extra two opposition schools, but that just kills it.-Siege Mage: Also agree that this one is just bad. Trading Scribe Scroll for Siege Engineer is bad enough not to take the archetype and it only gets worse from there. Not to mention, how often is your wizard going to be laying siege anyway? Dumb archetype is dumb.
-Spellslinger: If you're in a game where guns are a thing, this is actually a really neat archetype (and potentially powerful too, thanks to the Arcane Gun ability). And because you're basically focused on blasting if you go this route, the additional two opposition schools feels less painful than it ordinarily would.
-Scrollmaster: You need to really rethink this archetype. Yes, Scroll Blade and Scroll Shield are dumb, but the real potential comes with Improved Scroll Casting. Since Scrolls are a prepared caster's best friend, being able to use your stats instead of the scroll's stats is GREAT. And the costs of the archetype are minimal.
And you also forgot about:
-Primalist: If your GM plays with Primal Magic, this can be a great archetpye. Not only can you get extra castings per day, but you basically become immune to the effects of Primal Magic. And the cost isn't steep either.
-Scroll Scholar: A great archetype. You give up your worst Diviner/Universalist ability in order to gain a significant bonus on up to 5 different Knowledge skills. You give up a single bonus feat to gain Comprehend Languages and Identify as spell like abilities, eventually making them both constant instead of times-per-day. You give up one 4th-level slot permanently in order to gain a swift-action +5 bonus on any attack roll (meh), caster-level check (interesting...), or saving throw (nice!). It's almost dumb NOT to take this archetype if you're planning on going Divination or Universalist.
-Shadowcaster: If you plan on being a "Shadow Mage," you really want to consider this archetype. It's cheap and very good.
(Edit - Forgot the racials:
-Spellbinder for Elves: A really great option for Elven Mages.
-Cruoromancer: Dhampir Necromancers will love this option.
-Wind Listener: Sylph Wizards should seriously consider this, especially if they like Divination magic.)
As for Prestige Classes available to Wizards... There's more than just what's in the Core Rulebook:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/prestige-classes/other-paizo
More archetypes would be a nice thing yes. If only to add flavor. Usually archetypes don't go very far from the normal class however, and that can lead to a lack of variety. Not that spells aren't versatile, just that there isn't much in the way of class features and flavor or alternate options within that.
That is the point : wizard archetypes are much worse than using any core material, even relatively poor builds. And the specialization it proposes actually makes the class worse (4 forbidden schools, loss of arcane bond, ... in exchange of minor bonuses).
Scroll Scholar, Primalist, Spell Binder(elf), and Shadowcaster
The scroll scholar, primalist and shadowcaster aren't in the core/ultimate books of Pathfinder. They come from campaign setting books (inner sea and Pathfinder society field guide).
The spell binder is okay (I could say he is actually the best archetype in core/ultimate), mainly because he offers something good (spellbinding of several spells) replacing something good (arcane bond). There is not 4 forbidden schools, no s++%ty replacements for arcane bond, no loss of cantrips, ... It is for elves only though.
, but the real potential comes with Improved Scroll Casting. Since Scrolls are a prepared caster's best friend, being able to use your stats instead of the scroll's stats is GREAT. And the costs of the archetype are minimal.
That is the point : taking an entire archetype with dumb options only to have an ability which is replacing one of the wizard bonus feat. Why not making this ability a discovery and putting that archetype in the bin ?
this is actually a really neat archetype (and potentially powerful too, thanks to the Arcane Gun ability). And because you're basically focused on blasting if you go this route, the additional two opposition schools feels less painful than it ordinarily would.
I agree that for blasters/masters of rays, it was actually good. For a wizard ? Come on ! 4 forbidden schools is enough to make this archetype very bad.
You can function with 4 prohibited schools... Your life will just suck for it though. Its hard to find 4 schools your willing to lose. I feel bad anytime I drop enchantment becuase I feel like I lost the chance to do something fun in roleplay. Conjuration and Transmuation are must haves in life. Divination has one of the most important cantrips.
That is the point : wizard archetypes are much worse than using any core material, even relatively poor builds. And the specialization it proposes actually makes the class worse (4 forbidden schools, loss of arcane bond, ... in exchange of minor bonuses).
Well, I wouldn't say the wizards archetypes should be better than the wizard, but I feel like the archetypes don't really add much in the way of options or fun. The only one I've seen people interested in is scrollmaster because its power to make origami swords is kinda cool, if extremely expensive. It runs into that same issue where they feel like they're NPC archetypes half of the time, rather than choices for the player.
That is the point : taking an entire archetype with dumb options only to have an ability which is replacing one of the wizard bonus feat. Why not making this ability a discovery and putting that archetype in the bin ?
Probably because there is no feat tax, which would make it too good not to take. (Compare to Staff-like Wand, which requires you to buy a bad feat [Craft Staff] in order to get a great Discovery Feat.)
I agree that for blasters/masters of rays, it was actually good. For a wizard ? Come on ! 4 forbidden schools is enough to make this archetype very bad.
If your character concept involves channeling offensive magic through a gun, it's very easy to pick opposition schools (I can easily see Enchantment, Illusion, and Divination being the first to go - that only leaves one "hard" choice). And remember, you can still cast spells of that school (unlike 3.X) if you really need to; It's just more taxing on your spell slots per day.
Well, I wouldn't say the wizards archetypes should be better than the wizard, but I feel like the archetypes don't really add much in the way of options or fun.
Not better, but not much worse either. I'm pretty sure it is possible to create archetypes that make a wizard neither better nor worse.
If your character concept involves channeling offensive magic through a gun, it's very easy to pick opposition schools (I can easily see Enchantment, Illusion, and Divination being the first to go - that only leaves one "hard" choice(...)And remember, you can still cast spells of that school (unlike 3.X) if you really need to; It's just more taxing on your spell slots per day.
Without illusion, your wizard will have nothing for protection. And by nothing, I mean no invisibility, no mirror image, no displacement, no blur. So it means you are a auto-hit wizard, which is bad.
You also give up cantrips : so no more Detect magic (or in place of 1st level spell. Two 1st level slots if you gave up Divination).
So yes, you could create scro... oh, wait, you give up Scribe scrolls, so you have to take it as a feat.
Alternatively, you could use 2 slots, but the archetype use heavily the sacrifice of slots to get bonuses with a bullet, and the fewer the spells, ...
And all of that is only possible if your world use guns. And only with a wizard that do exclusively Rays/blasts, because of the numerous spells you won't be able to cast so often.
Despite all of it, it is one of the better archetype in the Core/ultimate.
If you're using Treantmonk's school of thought, you'd be absolutely correct
I don't want a God wizard. I want a wizard who do not suck when I take an archetype. And nothing in Core or Ultimate rulebooks fits.
Probably because there is no feat tax, which would make it too good not to take.
The feat tax would be created in a similar way than Staff-like wands. Or in a feat tree, or anything that is not exchanging 3 class abilities against one.
The Spellslinger doesn't "suck" which in most cases translates out into "I can't play this the way I want to."
It makes the wizard a glass cannon (lots of damage, even if i'm not sure it is better than an evoc spec wizard), makes him more than likely to lose defensive spells (with 4 forbidden schools, memorizing even 1 or 2 spells is very painful), ...
The archetype does not give anything that can counterbalance 4 forbidden schools AND arcane bond AND cantrips.
Adding 1 (or even 2) weapons with +1 to +5 is even worse, as it makes the wizard think over what weapons to buy : a gun ? some wands ? even more scrolls ? And if he does not buy a great gun, then he will need to sacrifice his spells to do that, losing even more "wizard" thing.
I'm not even sure that he does that much damage, or that he will even survive past level 5, because it has no AC, unlikely to have defensive spells and no PV. It needs as much feats/spells/magic items... as any other Evoc spec to do as much damage, but he can't use scepters AND guns.
Even worse : the spellslinger can't specialize (actually, guns are his specialization), and must give up any slots/powers and anything with those schools, in addition to having 4 forbidden schools.
So yes, in my opinion, the spellslinger sucks comparing to the Evoc specialist. And 2 of the other archetypes available to all races sucks even more.
I do agree the spellslinger suffers from crippling overspecialization. It also runs the chance of blowing itself up due to misfire, which is never a good thing. I could see it being really useful if you just wanted to do the same 4 types of attacks over and over and carry some limited utility, but I'm not a fan of that myself.
Late Point: The true test of SAD performance is if you keep reducing point buy down, how well does the class fulfill its role?
Melee classes all need high physicals. Other casters usually need support stats.
Wizards need Int, then Con/Dex, but as long as they get Int, they can make up for the latter to some extent.
==Aelryinth