Playing as a Wizard help coming from AD&D


Classes


Hey guys, I've been out of Role playing for awhile, but some friends wanted to try Pathfinder 2e? (the playtest) so I've been digesting the rule book. Needless to says, there have been some changes since AD&D 2nd edition.

First off, please understand I do like a lot of the changes. The fact I can play a Gnome Conjurer will be great!

That said, I'm having a hard time understanding the Wizard's role now. I'm use to him being the utility character that utilizes the situation to his advantage. While the Sorcerer is focused on a small selection of spells. The usual Sorcerer I've played with likes the numerous spell bombs (AKA fireball), while I preferred a wide selection of available spells.

What confuses me is the number of spell slots (really, we went back to spell slots!?). Why is the level hard capped at three (four in case of a specialized)? The older spell charts would usually cap at 5 once you got high enough level. Then your INT may add some more, and specialized would add another. This portrayed the wide selection of available spells the Wizard can have ready. Now, I'm hard stuck at three, why?

To be objective, the Sorcerer has a similar restriction, but the fact it carries over the number of times a spell can be case is equally confusing. I thought the mechanic was Sorcerers can cast a spell more times than a Wizard. While, a Wizard has more spells to choose from. What is even more bizarre is the bard has the same number of spell slots available o.O

What really drives this home for me is the *WIZARD* feat arcane focus--the one were the Wizard can cast a spell without expending a spell slot. Sure you have to cast it previously, but that doesn't limit it much. To me, it is essentially a Wizard trying to add the advantage of the Sorcerer. Is it A Wizard or Sorcerer? Some hybrid?

Anyways, I can only go on about something for so long so here is the
TL;DR:
Why is the Wizard so restricted with the number of spell slots (as opposed to 2nd edition?)

Again, please don't take this the wrong way, I like what I see. The feats really do clean up a lot of AD&D was trying to do towards the end. But, when it comes down to it, I'd trade these feats for more *available* spells. As a solution, maybe add some extra spell slot feats? Yes, I did search the forums and I read through most of: https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2vao8&page=1?Sorcerers-vs-Wizards but that didn't quite address what I'm saying.

I post because I'm assuming I missed something is the playtest rule book, please help me out.

*gets off soap box*


You are missing nearly 20 years of history with 3rd edition and pathfinder that has lead to this point. It's kind of hard to be concise without that background.

A short answer to your specific question(maybe - there other opinions) is that they feel the need to curb some of the power of spellcasters in general and especially in regards to narrative impact as compared to non-spellcasting classes (look up caster/martial disparity if you are feeling particularly masochistic). While they could have made magic more unreliable or dangerous or any one of a number of things (most I can imagine would be very unsatisfactory in one way or another) they opted to reduce the overall number of spells available together with a reduction in the effects of spells (in very broad sweeps).


For spells per day, in Pathfinder 1E full casters really just had too many of their strongest spells available per day in the opinion of many, once you got to mid levels their limit of useful spells per day was never really an actual factor and they could just cast willy-nilly. PF2 aimed to prompt more consideration in using your strongest spells. Though in exchange they made attack Cantrips actually good to help make sure casters never are without anything to do.

Did it go too far? Maybe. But Paizo are looking hard at feedback on magic use and magic will definitely be stronger in the final rulebook, if not through more spells per day then by stronger spells or something else.

As for extra spells from INT specifically, I know others' mileage may vary but while I had never had trouble with that rule multiple people I tried to teach could never get it, no matter how clearly I explained. I expect it is gone for simplicity's sake s that is a big goal of PF2.

As to having the same number of spells per day for Wizard and Sorc as you do to Bard, there are 2 facets to that:

First, Bards are full casters now. They are the icon of the Occult magical tradition the same way Wizard, Cleric, and Druid are for Arcane, Divine, and Primal respectively. (Sorcerers can actually cast from any of the 4 lists depending on bloodline, Draconic is Arcane, Angelic is Divine, Fey is Primal, Abberant is Occult, etc.)

Second, each class has some extra spell option beyond the spells per day chart. Bards have their Performances, which are special Cantrips. Sorcerers get an extra spell per day of each spell level beyond the chart, so they cap at 4 per spell level per day. Wizards who specialize in a school get an extra slot of each level, but it has to be a spell of their school. Universalist Wizards get the ability to use their Arcane Bond to re-cast a spell of each level per day instead of just one spell per day (Combined with the Wizard feat Focus Conservation this can be a LOT of extra spells per day at mid levels onward), so essentially an extra spell per day of each level.

As an aside, I'm not sure what you mean about the Sorcerer "Carries over the number of times a spell can be cast" bit. Could you clarify?

And feel free to let me know if you have other Wizard questions! Magic has changed a lot just between PF1 and PF2, let alone from ADnD I expect (I never played anything before PF1 but I hear it's way different).

One of my VERY favorite changes is that instead of most status effect spells doing a major stats effect on a failed save and nothing on a success, most spells have a minor effect or half damage on a successful save, no effect on a critical success, full damage or strong debuff on failure, and double damage or severe status effect on a critical failure. It FAR reduces the chance of a caster wasting their turn on a spell while also reducing by far the chance of an encounter getting anticlimaxed by one bad save, or conversely players being screwed by the same.


Yes, 20 years is a long time. I think I understand what y'all are saying. Wizards were essentially OP on high levels and we want to tone it down for the RP experience. I'm saying the method used appears to cut down on the diversity of the classes.

Please keep in mind while reading that I'm trying to transition from AD&D to PF2 system and I want to be in the right mindset.

Edge93: What I'm saying with "Carries over the number of times" is that the sorcerer, to me, go nerfed on both the number of spells to select from and the number he can cast. (Although the book likes to use 'she' ...?) This is very odd to me because I'm thought that while the sorcerer should be limited on spells known, his number of spells cast per day *should* be higher than everyone else. That was the point. The wizard, while having fewer spells per day, should have a wide variety. The diversity seems to have shrink a lot here.

Edge93 wrote:


Second, each class has some extra spell option beyond the spells per day chart. Bards have their Performances, which are special Cantrips. Sorcerers get an extra spell per day of each spell level beyond the chart, so they cap at 4 per spell level per day. Wizards who specialize in a school get an extra slot of each level, but it has to be a spell of their school. Universalist Wizards get the ability to use their Arcane Bond to re-cast a spell of each level per day instead of just one spell per day (Combined with the Wizard feat Focus Conservation this can be a LOT of extra spells per day at mid...

More spells to cast per day is nice, what do I play for a variety of spells to cast? For example, with spell points the Mage would get number of spell points to use and can allocate them for different spells. Cost was based on level (4 for 1st, 10 for second, etc) this allowed the Mage to have more variety per day since they may have more 1st level spells in trade for fewer high level and vice versa. The sorcerer, of course, was restricted to a certain set of spells to cast but could them more often per day. Keep in mind I rarely memorized a spell more than once.

dragonhunterq: I started reading the C/MD, but I don't think I fully understand. Are they saying Magic users are better than martials? Or the other way around? Has no one been to Ravenloft? Depending on the situation, skills work better than spells and vice versa. This is why thieves were the most OP class in AD&D IMHO. Not only do they get access to magic (once they can read scrolls, which they can get plenty of since, well you know, they are a thief) they have the most skills. Sure a fighter was strong in combat, until the thief read Tenser's transformation. That and thieves had the easiest level progression--literally half of a wizard's.

I do like a lot of what I see (that status effect change is good!) While there are a few things I definitely preferred the AD&D way of it, this nerf/lack-of-diversity-of-spell-classes is only the one that I believe would detract from the RP experience.


Caster-Martial Disparity:
In 3.5 and Pathfinder 1, for players who knew the system well, a caster had a lot more potential than a martial.

The martial could damage enemies, but that was all, while a caster could do just about anything. A caster who knew what they were doing in combat could practically win a battle with a single well-chosen spell ("I'll target their weakest saving throw, and thanks to my metamagic abilities they'll have an 85% chance of being unable to act for three rounds.")

A caster could substitute for the lack of a martial with summoning or mind control or self-buffs or polymorphing into something big and mean.
A pure martial, meanwhile, often couldn't do much without caster support. "Well, the enemy is invisible and has mind control and fireballs and flight. Hopefully the casters will give me the power of flight and dispel the invisibility so I can help, or maybe they'll just solve the situation themselves."

There were spells that could solve pretty much any problem you could imagine. It was almost always easier to scout with magic ("Should we turn into birds or turn invisible or scry on them?") than to send in the Rogue or Ranger. Magic always offered a stronger alternative to mundane skills.

AD&D had casters starting out weak and getting stronger (slowly, due to varied level progression). Pathfinder had them good from the start, with more hit points and more level 1 spells per day. As they levelled up (at the same speed as everyone else) and the number of spells per day increased (and well-chosen lower level spells remained pretty effective), challenging the party by making the casters run out of spells became increasingly difficult, especially since wands were pretty cheap and didn't use daily resources.

PF2 has made an attempt at handling this problem by cutting back on the power of various spells, etc. Depending on who you ask, this may or may not take away the fun of being a caster.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In Pathfinder 1st edition the Rogue is considered one of the worst classes, so much that an "unchained" version has been released later to fix some of its issues.

Why doesn't it work? Well, first of all its combat capability is limited due to an unoptimal hit chance and to the fact that its sneak attack is often tricky to trigger, it puts the Rogue in a risky battlefield position (and it's not a tanky class), and many enemies are just immune to precision damage anyway.

But, you say, the Rogue is a king of skills: that's where it shines!
Not much, actually: it does have the highest number of skill points, but it's closely followed by others like Bard and Ranger, and a Wizard will probably come very close too because of its high Int, which gives extra skill ranks.
The ability to use magic scrolls in PF1 is not restricted to spellcasters and Rogues: it's based on a skill called Use Magic Device, that everyone has potentially access to. Since its key ability is Cha, a Rogue has to invest in that stat, and unless it takes an extra effort to boost its Use Magic Device skill further, it won't be able to use scrolls reliably until the higher levels.

And then, we get to the biggest problem: spells just do better than any skills.
Why use stealth when you have Invisbility and Silence? Why climb a wall when you can levitate or fly? Why pick a lock when you can command it open with a simple Knock?
By level 3, a Wizard will be a better rogue than a Rogue.


Megistone wrote:

And then, we get to the biggest problem: spells just do better than any skills.

Why use stealth when you have Invisbility and Silence? Why climb a wall when you can levitate or fly? Why pick a lock when you can command it open with a simple Knock?
By level 3, a Wizard will be a better rogue than a Rogue.

While everything else you said there is true, this one really isn't. The comparison between stealth and invisibility for instance is a nuanced one; with invisibility you must carefully consider when to use it because you're limited by slots and duration, and the act of casting it can draw unwanted attention to yourself. Stealth is much better at general subtlety since you're not limited by slots and the act of hiding itself is inconspicuous. I find the two work hand-in-hand, and you want to use the right tool for the job. Sometimes invisibility is the right tool, sometimes it's stealth, and sometimes you want to use both.

Invisibility is also more prone to hard failure since it can be easily countered magically; this is the fate that awaits characters who over-use invisibility, especially at higher levels. Relying on invisibility against a foe who is properly prepared for it is going to end very badly. Stealth, on the other hand, is much more difficult to protect against. And if the stealth-user invests feats or class features then stealth can become amazing, beating unusual senses and not requiring cover or concealment.

The big problem rogues have is that being a skill monkey really isn't a party niche in and of itself. Everyone can be good with at least some skills, and between the other 3 members of the party that could well be 15-20 skills already covered. A party simply doesn't need a skill monkey in Pathfinder, and it's not worth being a dead weight in combat when other classes are almost as good. You don't even need to bring spellcasters into the equation for the rogue to have issues.


It sounds like in the effort to give more options for players, class diversity was sacrificed. I think a good example is the skills. If I understand you correctly, anyone can get any skills. That removes one of the main Thief/Rogue's advantage. Looking through the book, it looks like the decision was to make the Rogue more of a fighter and thereby losing a definitive role in the group. An easy fix for this is to have some skills cost more for a certain class to obtain. Example: Stealth/Hide in Shadows cost 2-4 times more for a Wizard than a Rogue.

From 2nd Edition, I don't believe this C/MD was as big of an issue. Sure Wizards became the most powerful, but spell-casters had some disadvantages:
1) Zone of Anti-Magic AKA, not casting magic in an area.
2) You give away your position with detect magic (one of the most useful spells.)
3) A good 'ol dispel magic, which even some fighter classes would have innately. No item required, all your buffs are gone.
4) MAGIC RESISTANCE <--- does this still exist?
5) Ravenloft just messing with you.
6) Fighters could ALWAYS carry more gear--which meant more magical equipment. Fighters could use more items than wizards, which gave them more access to abilities.
7) O ya, HP was always low, and you start off very weak.

Any good fighter always sought after Magic Resistance and Dispel Magic. Nothing as much fun as watching a de-cloaked wizard fall from the sky.


PauloftheWest wrote:
It sounds like in the effort to give more options for players, class diversity was sacrificed. I think a good example is the skills. If I understand you correctly, anyone can get any skills. That removes one of the main Thief/Rogue's advantage.

There's some truth in that.

In Pathfinder Society games, you can attend a meeting, bringing your own character, and play with some random strangers. That means there's very little chance of making a well-balanced team. If every group needs a Cleric to heal, a Rogue to find traps, and a hard-to-kill martial front-liner, then a random group is going to die fast.

But if characters have more diverse abilities - Bards can be effective healers, Wizards can use magic to make themselves hard to kill, Rangers can pick locks, etc - then players can play whatever they want and probably do OK.

This freedom to make your own character rather than conform to the needs of the group is one of the advantages of Pathfinder over AD&D.


Matthew Downie wrote:
PauloftheWest wrote:
It sounds like in the effort to give more options for players, class diversity was sacrificed. I think a good example is the skills. If I understand you correctly, anyone can get any skills. That removes one of the main Thief/Rogue's advantage.

There's some truth in that.

In Pathfinder Society games, you can attend a meeting, bringing your own character, and play with some random strangers. That means there's very little chance of making a well-balanced team. If every group needs a Cleric to heal, a Rogue to find traps, and a hard-to-kill martial front-liner, then a random group is going to die fast.

But if characters have more diverse abilities - Bards can be effective healers, Wizards can use magic to make themselves hard to kill, Rangers can pick locks, etc - then players can play whatever they want and probably do OK.

This freedom to make your own character rather than conform to the needs of the group is one of the advantages of Pathfinder over AD&D.

Indeed. Basic group needs are spread out to be accessible by most classes, but plenty of difference between classes yet exist. Diversity wasn't so much sacrificed as mandatory abilities weren't made exclusive to single classes.

And correct me if I'm wrong but didn't AD&D only have like 4-6 classes? Or am I off there? The classes would naturally seem more diverse then, as you spent most of your classes just making frames for the basic needed concepts (Fighter, Thief, Mage, Healer), while more classes lets you put together different versions and combinations of these base concepts.


PauloftheWest wrote:
An easy fix for this is to have some skills cost more for a certain class to obtain. Example: Stealth/Hide in Shadows cost 2-4 times more for a Wizard than a Rogue.

This was the way it worked in 3rd edition and Pathfinder removed it. The primary problem was that it was a hard stop to specific concepts. For instance if you wanted to play an enchanter wizard with a venomous tongue, you were thwarted by wizards being penalized on diplomacy and bluff (even though for your specific concept it fits perfectly). And while the penalty may have been appropriate for wizards, it was too punitive for fighters and the like. It also creates a minor nightmare for multiclassing, since you need to track your skill point allocation by class.

However, it's worth remembering that it was fundamentally the loss of combat power that hurt the rogue in the 3.5->Pathfinder conversion. By and large Paizo was buffing classes and nerfing feats in the conversion, but when it came to the rogue they gave it nothing to help it in combat to compensate for the loss in feat power. The class was already a relatively weak combatant in 3.5, and the changes in Pathfinder pushed it under the viability threshold.

The position that Pathfinder 2nd edition is taking, which I agree with, is that skills are a common baseline. Everyone gets them regardless of class, ensuring a certain minimum number of skill competencies. The rogue still gets more, but he shouldn't need exclusivity to be fun and interesting.

PauloftheWest wrote:
1) Zone of Anti-Magic AKA, not casting magic in an area.

This is pretty terrifying to Wizards in Pathfinder as well, but it can screw over non-casters as well. If your build is reliant on a specific magical enchantment on your weapon to function effectively you are screwed in an antimagic field.

PauloftheWest wrote:
2) You give away your position with detect magic (one of the most useful spells.)

Divination vs Abjuration is a game of cat and mouse. Detect Magic is one of the easiest to thwart. It's also worth noting that Detect Magic is easily drowned out by background noise, so it's only really useful if you're in an environment where magic is fairly rare.

PauloftheWest wrote:
3) A good 'ol dispel magic, which even some fighter classes would have innately. No item required, all your buffs are gone.

Problem is this can screw fighters even harder. If your greatsword-wielding champion needs magical flight to chase after the dragon, getting hit by dispel is actually a bigger problem than it is for the wizard.

PauloftheWest wrote:
4) MAGIC RESISTANCE <--- does this still exist?

In Pathfinder 1st edition, yes. It's called spell resistance. Any wizard worth their salt will have options prepared to get around this, though.

PauloftheWest wrote:
6) Fighters could ALWAYS carry more gear--which meant more magical equipment. Fighters could use more items than wizards, which gave them more access to abilities.

I find this one interesting. In Pathfinder 1st edition it was somewhat the reverse of this. Fighters needed magical weapons, magical armor, plus a protective cloak, amulet, and ring. So a lot of their equipment was tied up in obligatory "equipment tax" items. Wizards, on the other hand, just needed headbands of intellect and a protective cloak and could skimp on everything else. Combined with the fact that wizards could custom-craft exactly what they want at a discount, and fighters if anything felt like they were behind the wizard in magic items.

In PF2 every class is basically in the same boat. Everyone needs magic armor, and if wizards aren't using magic weapons they should be using magic staves (and honestly I'm on the side that a wizard without a weapon is a bad idea. Most spells cost 2 actions and you get 3 actions per turn, you want a good weapon so you can smack an adjacent monster with your last action)

PauloftheWest wrote:
7) O ya, HP was always low, and you start off very weak.

Still very much an issue. It's actually a bit worse in PF2 than it was in PF1 despite the fairly significant hit point bloat, since there are fewer options for wizards to increase their AC and low-AC characters can get crit more often.


I actually haven't minded casters without weapons much, but that's partly because I really like Shield for the times when you cast and didn't need your third action elsewhere.

Though realizing how weapons can legit be better for casters than cantrips solely because of this action deal has made me come to agree that cantrips could stand to be 1 action, or at least have a 1 action option.


Edge93 wrote:
And correct me if I'm wrong but didn't AD&D only have like 4-6 classes? Or am I off there? The classes would naturally seem more diverse then, as you spent most of your classes just making frames for the basic needed concepts (Fighter, Thief, Mage, Healer), while more classes lets you put together different versions and combinations of these base concepts.

Half-truth. I'd say in AD&D there are four main categories of classes: Fighter, Thief, Priest, and Mage. As for number of actual classes, that is hard to put a finger on. Baldur's Gate (the computer game not books) had probably 9 at the start, and towards the end 13 (http://baldursgate.wikia.com/wiki/Classes.) But that isn't the whole story, because what made the classes great were the kits--which customized your base class with powers and weaknesses. A great example was the Inquisitor, a Paladin that could cast dispel magic and true sight certain number of times a day as if a wizard/priest of his level. In exchange the Inquisitor gave up lay on hands and turn undead. That website provided 33 kits, but there are way more. One of my favorites for AD&D was the spell fletcher (sp?), which was a fighter/mage (you had to multi-class) that was allowed to fight with a sword in one hand and cast magic with the other. Naturally, you had to give up some things like the ability to use a shield or any two-handed weapon.

There were other customizations as well.

Dowie: I do agree with you to some extent. One thing I do like about PF2 over AD&D is that the customization is smoother and broad. On the other hand, as personal opinion, I do think some classes should have serious unique abilities. In your example of a lack of healer (cleric?), would make the party Role Play differently knowing a quick heal, or godly help, is not available. In other words, that would present a more unique situation to work through. So, maybe a better way to put what I'm saying is that class uniqueness was diminished for more player options.

I'm not saying these changes are bad. I wish to understand them so if I choose to play PF2, I won't be frustrated coming from my AD&D roots. As I was reading in the forums, it seems paizo wanted to make it more about the GM storytelling, which explains a lot.

Dasrak: Thanks that cleared some things up. The fighter vs wizard in equipment was more of what could be equipped and that crafting was A LOT harder. I forgot the name, but there were weapons that could soak up elements (like fire from lava) and then spit them out when used. If it was a short sword or above, it was nearly useless for a wizard. Fighter never had a problem in that department. Same with shields, helmets, armor, and others. Also, AD&D had a randomness with what abilities were placed on treasure. So not being able to equip everything lowered your odds of using the horde.


A note on these "Kits" you mention, they sound a lot like PF1 Archetypes, which traded out certain class abilities for new ones.

PF2 does not have something yet but does have something similar. At 2nd level and beyond you can give up class feats to get "Archetype feats" that can be chosen from a wide variety of options, such as giving you abilities keyed to mounted combat (Cavalier) or ship-board combat (Pirate), or multiclassing, spending feats to get features and lower-level feats from a class other than your own.

This is how you would get something like the spell sletcher you mentioned, a Fighter with Wizard multiclass feats or vice versa wold have good skill in both weapons and magic, but more focused on one than the other.

You can't just cherry-pick abilities from anywhere though. Each archetype or multiclass has a "Dedication" feat that must be taken before any others in the set (It gives some benefits, it isn't just a dead feat), and you have to take a total of 3 feats from a set (Including the Dedication feat) before you can take feats from other archetypes or multiclasses (You can still take class feats from your own class at later levels instead of more archetype/multiclass feats though).


Kits were somewhat similar to PF1s Archetypes from a thematic standpoint if not a mechanical one.

D&D3e was intended to streamline a lot of AD&D's subsystems under a unified d20-based rule and that was carried over into PF though PF2 seems to be going in the opposite direction...

PS. Number of classes available in AD&D is complicated as some classes and races were specific to different campaign worlds - another thing 3e tried to get rid of.
Darksun, for example, had the Gladiator, Templar, and Defiler
Al Qadim offered up the Barber, the Sha'ir, and Holy Avenger
and so on and so forth.


PauloftheWest wrote:
I'm not saying these changes are bad. I wish to understand them so if I choose to play PF2, I won't be frustrated coming from my AD&D roots. As I was reading in the forums, it seems paizo wanted to make it more about the GM storytelling, which explains a lot.

One of the big problems with 3.5/PF was that you had two equally important ways to advance your character: levels and items. Classes that relied on weapon damage to be useful ('martials') would spend half their gold on a weapon or two, a third on armor, and the rest on getting access to flight. Primary spellcasters (guys with 9th level spells), on the other hand, needed absolutely nothing to do their job to 99% effectiveness. This meant that not only did spellcasters get to have all the cool toys, but they could also blow all their money on consumables for nearly zero penalty.

The typical trick for a wizard would be to buff their spellcasting stat to the absolute maximum, spend all they could on a +x Headband of Vast Intelligence, and spend the rest on wands and scrolls. If you really cheesed the system you could get an intelligence of 26 as early as level 4 (and 15 spell slots at level 5). You then fill all your spell slots with your daily drivers (fireball, invisibility, flight, hold monster), and you could take all those pesky utility spells as scrolls and wands and literally never have to prepare them.

So Wizards who were DESIGNED to have maybe 4 1st, 2 2nd, and 1 3rd level spells, with two or three of those being Water Breathing or the like, ended up with 5 1st, 4 2nd, 3 3rd level spells filled with power, and then had gold to spare on 5 wands and 20 scrolls. This is where a huge chunk of full caster's power came from, and why people complain about guys who swing sticks.

Pathfinder 2e is combating this in its own way. They've beefed up low-level casting, giving casters infinite use damage spells so that they're always able to do things without wasting slots on Magic Missile. They've also made it so you're getting something out of your spells 90% of the time, as most spells still have a powerful effect even if the target makes his save. On top of that, casters still don't really need to spend their gold on anything, leaving them with lots of money for consumables.

They have, however, lost half their spell slots. Also important to note that a lot of low level spells retain their use at higher levels, AND spells now set their DC based on the caster's level, not the spell level. Level 1 spells now have the same DC as level 9 spells.

As for the difference between Sorcerers and Wizards, well, they're changing that up. Sorcerers traded spell breadth for spell slots, but wizards could just make infinite scrolls, so what's the point? As an aside, they got rid of experience penalties with 3rd editions, so your rogues and wizards leveled up at the same rate. They never compensated for that, and they also beefed up their hit die to a d6 while also beefing up most defensive spells to make wizards reliably unkillable.


It’s great to hear that you and your friends are getting back into gaming after such a long hiatus! Welcome back!

A caveat that i’m surprised no one has mentioned is that the Pathfinder 2e playtest rulebook has had many large changes during its playtest period last year, and the actual Pathfinder 2e rules to be released later this year will look significantly different, thanks to feedback, so do take that into account when evaluating it for future use. Pathfinder 1st Edition is a good point of comparison though for a lot of the points being made. Caster and martial balance in particular are likely to be quite a bit different when PF2 finally releases, and much closer in line, which is a welcome change to me.


john salb wrote:
They've also made it so you're getting something out of your spells 90% of the time, as most spells still have a powerful effect even if the target makes his save.

I wish this statement was as true as the raw text makes it sound. "Powerful" is a bit misleading.

A lot of spells seem to fall into this zone where the old fail effect is now the crit-fail. The old save effect is now the crit success. And the most likely results range from "spitting into the wind" to "I could have done that with a skill check instead."

You're not wrong that you still get some benefit even on a successful save, but it's so small as to be borderline inconsequential. Combined with having fewer total spell slots and you almost wish that they hadn't done this. Remember: half of your targets will save against your spell! The on-save effect is about 1/3 as powerful as the on-fail effect (off-hand value, but I'd wager that the exact value is pretty close: the average of 1/3 and 3/3 is 2/3: regardless of save our fail, you're either gaining or losing 1/3, and that sounds like the kind of math someone would have said "that sounds fair" to).

Of course, on the other side of the spectrum, getting hit with nasty spells means that even if you save, you're not getting off scott-free.


Also In practice even the lesser effects can make a huge difference.

Hitting an enemy with Frightened or Sluggish 1 before the rest of the party goes in on them (Usually adding in some method of Flat-Footed on top of it) has had surprisingly great mileage. There were SO many times over the Playtest where I told my players "Because of Frightened 1, that hits!" "Because of Frightened 1, you made he save!" "Because of Frightened 1, they missed!" Etc. Like you think it's just a -1, it couldn't be that much, but when you do a whole lot of things that involve that -1 while it's around you end up with some nice results.

Another nice one is hitting a caster using a Concentration spell with Slowed 1. They have to either not cast any 2 action spells on their next turn or they have to give up their concentration spell. I've seen this come in clutch once or twice.

And then there's the occasional spell like Synthesia that's just BRUTAL on even a successful save. Sluggish 3 and Dazzled (Plus something else I forget, maybe hampered?) even for just 1 round is absolute MURDER on both offense and especially defense!

I mean, don't get me wrong, it still doesn't feel great to have your enemy save against your spells. And I suppose we could do with a slightly higher success rate for targeting weak saves on a number of monsters, and probably for on-level player characters too (IDK how often GMs put players vs. player-style-built NPCs but in my games it happens all the time). But I will still take this ANY day over PF1's they saved, you wasted your turn, good day sir..


Edge93 wrote:

Also In practice even the lesser effects can make a huge difference.

Hitting an enemy with Frightened or Sluggish 1 before the rest of the party goes in on them (Usually adding in some method of Flat-Footed on top of it) has had surprisingly great mileage.

Not saying it doesn't happen, but if you go right before they go, you don't get that effect on some cases. Frightened, for example, ticks down on the subject's turn, not yours.


Draco18s wrote:
Edge93 wrote:

Also In practice even the lesser effects can make a huge difference.

Hitting an enemy with Frightened or Sluggish 1 before the rest of the party goes in on them (Usually adding in some method of Flat-Footed on top of it) has had surprisingly great mileage.

Not saying it doesn't happen, but if you go right before they go, you don't get that effect on some cases. Frightened, for example, ticks down on the subject's turn, not yours.

Quite true. Though I'd counter that if you go right before an enemy that you want to debuff with Frightened (and this goes for any degree of the condition) for the purpose of weakening their defenses then that's a very good reason to delay your turn so you go right after them instead of right before, so you don't have that issue. You don't lose a whole lot of time in the battle per session and in exchange get a good extender on the condition.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
john salb wrote:
So Wizards who were DESIGNED to have maybe 4 1st, 2 2nd, and 1 3rd level spells, with two or three of those being Water Breathing or the like, ended up with 5 1st, 4 2nd, 3 3rd level spells filled with power, and then had gold to spare on 5 wands and 20 scrolls. This is where a huge chunk of full caster's power came from, and why people complain about guys who swing sticks.

I would disagree with this assessment.

Strictly in terms of combat abilities, I feel Fighters and Wizards are actually fairly well-balanced. More to the point, their areas of strength complement each other, with the Wizard benefiting from the Fighter's reliable DPR and the Fighter benefiting from the control exercised by the Wizard. If I were building a "perfect" party, it would certainly include both a Fighter and a Wizard (also a Cleric; last slot is up for debate, though). They're a naturally good pairing. You can make the arguement that the Wizard can imitate the fighter in a pinch with summoning while a Fighter can't really imitate a Wizard, but in any realistic sense the best results come from a cooperative team effort.

(As an aside, I am talking about Pathfinder Fighters and not their substandard 3.5 incarnation)

The problem starts creeping up when you leave the battlefield. Once his sword is sheathed, the Fighter is little more than a glorified commoner. That's not to say that your character is useless; there's plenty of ways to use creativity, roleplaying, and good old problem solving to contribute. But the Fighter class does not provide any problem-solving tools for the player and they may as well not even have a class for these purposes. This is where the caster/martial disparity becomes acute, not because casters get the most problem-solving tools (even though they do) or because they have the best problem-solving tools (even though they do) but because the Fighters didn't get any problem-solving tools in the first place. You could remove casters from the party entirely so there's nothing to overshadow the martials, and they'd still have this problem.

If PF2 does one thing to help fighters and martials in general, it's the inclusion of skill feats, something to provide a common baseline of problem-solving tools that everyone gets. That, more than any amount of caster nerfs, is going to be the biggest boost the Fighter gets.


The main issue is that martials get 10-20 feats, while casters get 50-200+ spells which are, for most intents and purposes, better than feats while also being able to switch them out on the fly, and are able to turn them into magic items. Not to mention feat chains and feat taxes eating up the few feats you get.

If fighters could scribe level 1 feats for 13gp, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.

As for second edition, you have to remember that casters are no longer relegated to shooting crossbows for three levels. Cantrips deal good damage and naturally get better over time, meaning that you're not completely useless if your spells don't get saved.


john salb wrote:
The main issue is that martials get 10-20 feats

It goes beyond that; feats just didn't offer the same problem-solving abilities as spells. Towards the end of Pathfinder's run we did get a few gems, like a general-purpose fly feat, but there's still a lot of unexplored concept space for martials. The fact is that, going back to 3.5, the system was designed and balanced on the presumption that martials spend the vast majority of their feats augmenting their combat abilities. Sometimes that was due to blatant feat taxes like Weapon Finesse that you just needed to function, other times it was due to excessive feat chains like the Precise Shot chain, and sometimes a feat was just too good for your build to pass up like Power Attack. But the end result was that martials had relatively few elective feats, and of those they had a limited selection of options to truly expand their horizons.

john salb wrote:
If fighters could scribe level 1 feats for 13gp, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.

Paizo did experiment with spontaneously gaining temporary feats with Martial Flexibility on the Brawler (and a few other archetypes). It's a great class feature, but it wasn't a game-changer.

john salb wrote:
As for second edition, you have to remember that casters are no longer relegated to shooting crossbows for three levels. Cantrips deal good damage and naturally get better over time, meaning that you're not completely useless if your spells don't get saved.

To be honest, I always found that consumables got you over this hump. Maybe at character creation where you only had pocket change to work with, but once you're over that hump you had enough to work with. If anything, I don't feel wizard-types should need to even bother with damage. That's not their role, and the very DPR-focused nature of PF2 combat kinda bothers me.


Dasrak wrote:

That's not their role, and the very DPR-focused nature of PF2 combat kinda bothers me.

Would you mind elaborating on what you mean by PF2 combat being very DPR-focused? I know it sounds self-explanatory but there are many ways such a focus could manifest, and I'm curious how your experience matches or differs from mine, as "DPR-Focused" certainly isn't how I would describe my impression of PF2 combat from my experience.

Heck, I would much more readily call PF1 combat DPR-Focused from my experiences, but I'm not sure if you're saying you find PF2 combat DPR-focused but not PF1 or if you're saying both are this way.


Edge93 wrote:
Dasrak wrote:

That's not their role, and the very DPR-focused nature of PF2 combat kinda bothers me.

Would you mind elaborating on what you mean by PF2 combat being very DPR-focused? I know it sounds self-explanatory but there are many ways such a focus could manifest, and I'm curious how your experience matches or differs from mine, as "DPR-Focused" certainly isn't how I would describe my impression of PF2 combat from my experience.

Heck, I would much more readily call PF1 combat DPR-Focused from my experiences, but I'm not sure if you're saying you find PF2 combat DPR-focused but not PF1 or if you're saying both are this way.

Maybe because the combats are consistently longer (round wise?) I can see someone thinking PF1 isn't about DPR when you can hyper focus on 1-2 round win strategies, there just aren't enough rounds to consider upping average output to be a thing.


In PF1 there were a multitude of ways to incapacitate enemies that did not involve dealing hit point damage. Many spellcaster builds didn't even bother with having any meaningful damage-dealing capacity, instead focusing exclusively on incapacitating threats. This further could extend to the party composition as a whole; if the party has lots of means to incapacitate or otherwise eliminate foes, they wouldn't need as much DPR.

Now, you absolutely could be DPR-focused in PF1. There's a great spreadsheet out there that is basically the gold standard for the objective measure of DPR output by level, and many classes are exceptionally good at it. If you're building a Fighter or a Barbarian, being a DPR monster was your shtick in combat. Both approaches were equally valid, both in terms of individual character builds and in terms of overall party composition. There was a whole spectrum of viable options in how you balanced incapacitation and control versus DPR. While I do feel "save-or-suck" was a problem in terms of the feel of the game and should have been addressed in that respect, I don't feel it's a game balance issue. Defeating your enemies through a means other than beating them senseless is something I feel should be supported.

The difference in PF2 is that incapacitating through means other than HP depletion is inherently unreliable. Moreover, since none of the at-will options for actions fill this role this means it also inherently consumes more resources if you focus on it exclusively. I'd probably feel a lot better about this if there were even one or two cantrips that were decent debuffs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, I do miss Evil Eye for those purposes. Right now, the best debuff cantrip is Demoralize.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Player Rules / Classes / Playing as a Wizard help coming from AD&D All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Classes