Did wizards get nerfed?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

551 to 600 of 1,952 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>

Andarr wrote:

I just houseruled that spells automatically heighten to the maximum level without having to use higher level slots (effectively giving casters automatic scaling back).

It's been working out pretty well, and no complaints from either my players playing casters OR melees.

Of course I'm sure a lot of the people in this thread will tell me that this is "unbalanced", which is a barrel of laughs considering all the nerfbats wizards took to the skull in the transition to 2nd edition.

That's a good solution, but it doesn't address the weakness of spellcasters at the lowest levels. I think I'm going to go with spellcasters getting 9 + spellcaster level spells. You have to take at least 3 spells in each spell level up to the maximum you know, with the remainder in the highest spell slot. So it would work out to 10 1st level spells at 1st level (11 at 2nd level) and at 3rd level they could take 3 1st level spells and 9 2nd level spells for a total of 13. At 17th & 18th level, you snap back to what the book offers (3/spell level up to 8th and 2/3 9th level spells). You'd get a first 10th level spell for free at 19th and a second at 20th, but you have to "unlock" the second slot with Archwizard's Might or the equivalent.


totoro wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Doompatrol wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

A mean, a big thing about Cantrips is that they are literally free. You get them as spells known without additional expense, and they continue to upgrade them without spending money, unlike the archer who is going to spent at least 40,000 GP on their bow (likely much more) over the course of their career.

It would suck to play an archer if the cantrip blaster can be just as good as you at this with minimal investment.

How does the damage from blasting spells stack up to archers?
It depends. A True Strike boosted Disintegrate does quite a lot of expected damage.
I suspect caster damage gets pretty nutty once you get to the point your 1st level slots can just be True Strike.
At 6th level you buy a Staff of Divination and get three free True Strikes per day, goes up to four when you hit 7th level.
If you have an 11th level caster, which is what is required for disintegration, it is more cost-effective to research a new spell called "attack like an 11th level fighter with a +2 striking greatsword for one round." Rolling twice due to true strike improves the attack roll by an average of 3.325 and true strike + disintegrate takes all 3 actions. The fighter only has +2 above the wizard, but gets to attack three times instead of once.

3d12+5, 8-42 damage, average 25 even assuming all three attacks hit is an average of 75, 2 damage less than the average of a successful disintegrate, so no, not really. I guess weapon spec would bump it up to about 80, but that's not so much more.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Corwin Icewolf wrote:
totoro wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Doompatrol wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

A mean, a big thing about Cantrips is that they are literally free. You get them as spells known without additional expense, and they continue to upgrade them without spending money, unlike the archer who is going to spent at least 40,000 GP on their bow (likely much more) over the course of their career.

It would suck to play an archer if the cantrip blaster can be just as good as you at this with minimal investment.

How does the damage from blasting spells stack up to archers?
It depends. A True Strike boosted Disintegrate does quite a lot of expected damage.
I suspect caster damage gets pretty nutty once you get to the point your 1st level slots can just be True Strike.
At 6th level you buy a Staff of Divination and get three free True Strikes per day, goes up to four when you hit 7th level.
If you have an 11th level caster, which is what is required for disintegration, it is more cost-effective to research a new spell called "attack like an 11th level fighter with a +2 striking greatsword for one round." Rolling twice due to true strike improves the attack roll by an average of 3.325 and true strike + disintegrate takes all 3 actions. The fighter only has +2 above the wizard, but gets to attack three times instead of once.
3d12+5, 8-42 damage, average 25 even assuming all three attacks hit is an average of 75, 2 damage less than the average of a successful disintegrate, so no, not really. I guess weapon spec would bump it up to about 80, but that's not so much more.

I've been wrong before, so let me show my math. If a disintegrate hits, it does 12d10 (66 average) damage on a failed save and 33 average on a successful save. If you take the middle, that's about 50 with 3 actions. Fighter needs 2 hits to match that.

Is your calculation doing something with feats or critical hits?


totoro wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Doompatrol wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

A mean, a big thing about Cantrips is that they are literally free. You get them as spells known without additional expense, and they continue to upgrade them without spending money, unlike the archer who is going to spent at least 40,000 GP on their bow (likely much more) over the course of their career.

It would suck to play an archer if the cantrip blaster can be just as good as you at this with minimal investment.

How does the damage from blasting spells stack up to archers?
It depends. A True Strike boosted Disintegrate does quite a lot of expected damage.
I suspect caster damage gets pretty nutty once you get to the point your 1st level slots can just be True Strike.
At 6th level you buy a Staff of Divination and get three free True Strikes per day, goes up to four when you hit 7th level.
If you have an 11th level caster, which is what is required for disintegration, it is more cost-effective to research a new spell called "attack like an 11th level fighter with a +2 striking greatsword for one round." Rolling twice due to true strike improves the attack roll by an average of 3.325 and true strike + disintegrate takes all 3 actions. The fighter only has +2 above the wizard, but gets to attack three times instead of once.

Do you even crit, bro?


Xenocrat wrote:
totoro wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Doompatrol wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

A mean, a big thing about Cantrips is that they are literally free. You get them as spells known without additional expense, and they continue to upgrade them without spending money, unlike the archer who is going to spent at least 40,000 GP on their bow (likely much more) over the course of their career.

It would suck to play an archer if the cantrip blaster can be just as good as you at this with minimal investment.

How does the damage from blasting spells stack up to archers?
It depends. A True Strike boosted Disintegrate does quite a lot of expected damage.
I suspect caster damage gets pretty nutty once you get to the point your 1st level slots can just be True Strike.
At 6th level you buy a Staff of Divination and get three free True Strikes per day, goes up to four when you hit 7th level.
If you have an 11th level caster, which is what is required for disintegration, it is more cost-effective to research a new spell called "attack like an 11th level fighter with a +2 striking greatsword for one round." Rolling twice due to true strike improves the attack roll by an average of 3.325 and true strike + disintegrate takes all 3 actions. The fighter only has +2 above the wizard, but gets to attack three times instead of once.
Do you even crit, bro?

Yes. [Awkward silence.] Do you?


Another vote to Wizards not being about big single damage, but more utility/control.

Though I am still for the evoker taking out lots of things at once.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Colonel Kurtz wrote:
Another vote to Wizards not being about big single damage, but more utility/control.

Well, Wizards should be more about utility/control, yes. Problem is that the utility/control spells have either been weakened or plain out not exist.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
NemoNoName wrote:
Colonel Kurtz wrote:
Another vote to Wizards not being about big single damage, but more utility/control.
Well, Wizards should be more about utility/control, yes. Problem is that the utility/control spells have either been weakened or plain out not exist.

Well, yeah, that's something else entirely.

Liberty's Edge

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, let's examine the DPR on Disintegrate, then the DPR on Chain Lightning (per foe) and compare them to a Fighter. Both with an 11th level Wizard and an 11th level Fighter, shall we?

The Wizard should have DC 30 Saves and a +20 to hit with spells (+15 Proficiency +5 Int).

The Fighter should have +24 (+17 Proficiency +5 Str +2 Item) to hit for 3d12+5+2d6 damage with a greatsword.

Both will be attacking vs. AC 31, and the Wizard will, unfavorably for them, be dealing with a +20 Save (average low Saves are lower than that, so if you pick targets you can do better than this).

So, the DPR of Disintegrate is 28.97. That's not great, though at two actions, you do have a third one (though at a -5 penalty, the DPR is only 9.8). Total DPR of 38.77.

The DPR of a Chain Lightning, meanwhile, is 28.6 per target. So, assuming you hit three targets (which is easy) that's 85.8. And you have an additional action, which could be an attack (with their very shiny staff...they can have a +2 staff making this attack +21 for 3d8+4+3d6 with Bespell Weapon) for a DPR of 16.8 (since they have no MAP). That's a total DPR of 74 if you hit two enemies with Chain Lightning, 102.6 if you hit three.

On turns they use a cantrip (we'll say Electric Arc) plus a normal attack, their DPR is 16.5 per target on Electric Arc, then 14.7 from a staff attack (as above, -1d6). That's a mere 31.2 with a single target, but rises to 47.7 if there are two, and they can do it all day.

The Fighter, meanwhile, on three attacks, with Certain Strike, does a DPR of 56.975.

So...I think the lesson here is that Wizards look fine, at least if there are a total of two or more foes in the fight (if there's only one, they should likely be debuffing rather than doing damage). All these are vs. on-level foes so their minion sweeping is actually much better than this.

Disintegrate, specifically, looks seriously sub par vs. foes with even decent Fortitude Saves but that's one spell.


Thanks for the analysis DMW.

I think this is probably one of the most advantageous places to compare Wizard to Fighter (in terms of favoring the Wizard) but I think it's fine. We're also comparing the highest damage spells a Wizard has at all to the Fighter's normal round though, so this is the Wizard spending "the big one".

From what I can tell on the spells list, there are a lot of gems, just not the same gems as before so people might be getting thrown.

Chain Lightning was pretty middle of the road last edition, and Disintegrate was solid, now the roles seem reversed.

Illusions are now one of the stronger schools if you ask me, and given it was one of my favorites before, I am happy with that.

I'd be curious to see how Debuff/BFC spells stack up against some Class Feats though, Stunning Fist is outright better than a lot of spells that you would have around that level and it's a rider for free whenever you flurry and hit twice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:

Well, let's examine the DPR on Disintegrate, then the DPR on Chain Lightning (per foe) and compare them to a Fighter. Both with an 11th level Wizard and an 11th level Fighter, shall we?

The Wizard should have DC 30 Saves and a +20 to hit with spells (+15 Proficiency +5 Int).

The Fighter should have +24 (+17 Proficiency +5 Str +2 Item) to hit for 3d12+5+2d6 damage with a greatsword.

Both will be attacking vs. AC 31, and the Wizard will, unfavorably for them, be dealing with a +20 Save (average low Saves are lower than that, so if you pick targets you can do better than this).

So, the DPR of Disintegrate is 28.97. That's not great, though at two actions, you do have a third one (though at a -5 penalty, the DPR is only 9.8). Total DPR of 38.77.

The DPR of a Chain Lightning, meanwhile, is 28.6 per target. So, assuming you hit three targets (which is easy) that's 85.8. And you have an additional action, which could be an attack (with their very shiny staff...they can have a +2 staff making this attack +21 for 3d8+4+3d6 with Bespell Weapon) for a DPR of 16.8 (since they have no MAP). That's a total DPR of 74 if you hit two enemies with Chain Lightning, 102.6 if you hit three.

On turns they use a cantrip (we'll say Electric Arc) plus a normal attack, their DPR is 16.5 per target on Electric Arc, then 14.7 from a staff attack (as above, -1d6). That's a mere 31.2 with a single target, but rises to 47.7 if there are two, and they can do it all day.

The Fighter, meanwhile, on three attacks, with Certain Strike, does a DPR of 56.975.

So...I think the lesson here is that Wizards look fine, at least if there are a total of two or more foes in the fight (if there's only one, they should likely be debuffing rather than doing damage). All these are vs. on-level foes so their minion sweeping is actually much better than this.

Disintegrate, specifically, looks seriously sub par vs. foes with even decent Fortitude Saves but that's one spell.

Wizards start to be not worthless at 5th level with fireball. They continue to be not worthless with chain lighting. I only mentioned disintegrate because that was the newest reason wizards don't suck (new and improved! with true strike!).

That said, I don't think you accounted for the fighter's weapon specialization (+3 damage with weapon of choice). Also, I'd probably go with Improved Knockdown until the target is prone; then Advantageous Assault. I got lost in your math, but prone targets are flat-footed. Advantageous Assault will be inflicting an additional 5 damage, regardless of whether the attack hits or misses. So 3d12+8+2d6 with Improved Knockdown, then 3d12+13+2d6 after target is prone, so easier to hit.

I'm just going to eyeball this. 52 damage from chain lighting on a success and it keeps bouncing around until there aren't any more targets within 30' or one of them critically succeeds. Fighter does 27 and target is prone, then 32 twice. Fighter seems to be able to dig in for about 1/2 the hp of an 11th level foe, leaving him prone, and wizard can theoretically knock out 1/4 the hp of a huge number of 11th level foes. Wizard only gets a handful of those, but the whole point of dailies is (or should be) the wizard can go supernova and match or be better than the fighter. Accordingly, this is a good result (for evokers anyway).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:

Well, let's examine the DPR on Disintegrate, then the DPR on Chain Lightning (per foe) and compare them to a Fighter. Both with an 11th level Wizard and an 11th level Fighter, shall we?

...

Interesting. So given the fighter (currently) is the best single target dps in the game - does this make arcane the best 'sweepers'? I'm interested in how this will translate to high level encounter design - and if 'lots of minions' will overwhelm a party without an arcane caster.

We've had decades (at this point) of encounters and stories centered around ... (for lack of a better term) keystone boss fights. The general expectation is that all paths lead to the 'throne room' fight and the system even kind of encourages this by making higher level opponents much tougher - giving that 'big bad' a way to stand on their own.

While this all looks thought out - I'll be watching the adventure design with a critical eye - as we know from past design being the best at something (Tracking re: Rangers) doesn't mean that there is or will be a use for it in game - the adventures have to be designed to take these things into account.

After getting all these thoughts out in words - it occurs to me that the experience of the past (and how adventures and encounters are designed) are really the core of concerns from people now - because no one cares about who killed the mooks - and I'm not sure feeling like second fiddle during the big boss fight is fun either - it's really what was wrong with the fighter last edition wasn't it?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Midnightoker wrote:

Thanks for the analysis DMW.

I think this is probably one of the most advantageous places to compare Wizard to Fighter (in terms of favoring the Wizard) but I think it's fine. We're also comparing the highest damage spells a Wizard has at all to the Fighter's normal round though, so this is the Wizard spending "the big one"

I didn't get that reading at all. First of all, fighting 3 on level enemies at the same time is a Severe encounter, which "are the hardest encounters most groups of characters can consistently defeat." So if you aren't busting out the big guns, you're probably gonna die. As mentioned by DMW, the wizard's DPR skyrockets when he unleashes that Chain Lightning on a group of enemies below his level. 6 level 9 enemies would be an equivalent difficulty encounter, for example, and those AoE spells are going to do much better than the fighter there.

The other thing is True Strike wasn't used on Disintegrate, and I think I'd always try to pair those two together myself. (I haven't been following the thread that closely, so maybe I missed an explanation for why it isn't in the running here.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:

I didn't get that reading at all. First of all, fighting 3 on level enemies at the same time is a Severe encounter, which "are the hardest encounters most groups of characters can consistently defeat." So if you aren't busting out the big guns, you're probably gonna die. As mentioned by DMW, the wizard's DPR skyrockets when he unleashes that Chain Lightning on a group of enemies below his level. 6 level 9 enemies would be an equivalent difficulty encounter, for example, and those AoE spells are going to do much better than the fighter there.

While I can see how that might seem to be the case, we are comparing the following:

- Two of the most iconic damage spells of PF1, ones that were heightened/maximized/etc because of how much value they held with damage

- We are looking at them the exact level they are gained by the Wizard, which in this edition is when the Spell is the strongest since they no longer scale

- We are looking at them just two levels before the Fighter has Legendary Weapon Proficiency

- We provided a scenario where we are comparing base strikes and a single Class Feat Single Target damage vs. a presumed group of mooks below wizard/fighter level, which is always going to favor AoE at face value.

Now the reality is the Wizard probably won't want to spend their highest level slot unless they can hit a "big guy" in the process, because blowing your highest level slot on 3 mooks is not going to be a worthwhile investment all the time.

Quote:
The other thing is True Strike wasn't used on Disintegrate, and I think I'd always try to pair those two together myself. (I haven't been following the thread that closely, so maybe I missed an explanation for why it isn't in the running here.)

There I'd agree. That'd be more accurate to it's true usage at least and would be far better comparison to the Fighter in the given scenario.


Ckorik wrote:
I'm interested in how this will translate to high level encounter design - and if 'lots of minions' will overwhelm a party without an arcane caster.

Don't forget the primal casters.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Fighter can Cleave and do some stuff to multiple targets too, not many, but at least 2. He's going to see very good gains from being put into that situation of fighting multiple books, and will be doing it for free. I wouldn't want to cast my max level chain lightning unless it's a "tough" encounter.

Seems like maybe the Single target damage spells gotta be revised, at least.
One would think that a wizard saving "the big one" to use on the boss would be a smart idea, but from what we are seeing, it's not really competitive at all even if it's only a once or twice a day resource.

I'm of the philosophy that casting the highest level spell in the entire party should be the most powerful turn anyone can do, regardless of if it's AOE, Single Target, Buff or anything else. You have very few of these and knowing when to drop it should be a big part of playing a spellcaster.

So yeah, am not super satisfied that your "Big one" is equal to or worse than the other party member's "basic routine" in a lot of scenarios.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I honestly just forgot to do it with True Strike, it winds up around 42.9825 (assuming I'm figuring the miss chances right).

Still not super impressive on its own, IMO. Now, if you can impose some penalties on Saves or their Save is lower than +20 at 11th, it gets a whole lot better.

totoro wrote:
Wizards start to be not worthless at 5th level with fireball. They continue to be not worthless with chain lighting.

Well, I mean, at 1st level, vs. +5 Saves, Electric Arc does DPR of 5.0375 per target (so just north of 10). A staff attack at this level would likely be +5 for 1d8+2 for a DPR of 3.25. So their total one round DPR can be as high as 13.4 or so.

Make that Electric Arc into Burning Hands has a DPR of 5.425 per target, and can still get the 3.25 from one attack. That's around 20 damage if they hit three targets with the cone.

While meanwhile, vs. AC 17, a 1st level Fighter attacking at +9 for 1d12+4 has a DPR of 15.225.

So...that math actually looks pretty similar, all things considered. In practice, it's a tad worse, since the cone is harder to hit multiple foes with, but it's not all that much harder.

totoro wrote:
I only mentioned disintegrate because that was the newest reason wizards don't suck (new and improved! with true strike!).

Sure. I just wanted to do a bit of analysis.

totoro wrote:
That said, I don't think you accounted for the fighter's weapon specialization (+3 damage with weapon of choice).

You're right. Totally my bad. That'd up the Fighter's damage to 65.675 or thereabouts. Which doesn't really change the analysis.

totoro wrote:
Also, I'd probably go with Improved Knockdown until the target is prone; then Advantageous Assault. I got lost in your math, but prone targets are flat-footed. Advantageous Assault will be inflicting an additional 5 damage, regardless of whether the attack hits or misses. So 3d12+8+2d6 with Improved Knockdown, then 3d12+13+2d6 after target is prone, so easier to hit.

Sure, and that actually adds a d12 of damage as well but you only get two attacks (since Knockdown is a 2 Action activity). The DPR on that is right at 60. It goes up if they try and get up and you get an AoO you wouldn't have otherwise (another 34.5 for 94.5 total), but that assumes the enemy just tries to get up no matter what, and wouldn't have provoked from the non-tripping guy.

So it's situational which is better.

totoro wrote:
I'm just going to eyeball this. 52 damage from chain lighting on a success and it keeps bouncing around until there aren't any more targets within 30' or one of them critically succeeds. Fighter does 27 and target is prone, then 32 twice. Fighter seems to be able to dig in for about 1/2 the hp of an 11th level foe, leaving him prone, and wizard can theoretically knock out 1/4 the hp of a huge number of 11th level foes. Wizard only gets a handful of those, but the whole point of dailies is (or should be) the wizard can go supernova and match or be better than the fighter. Accordingly, this is a good result (for evokers anyway).

Yeah, area effects are solid. So are debuffs, IMO, though the math on those is harder to demonstrate (and more situational). Single target damaging spells seem pretty weak at the moment, but that's not necessarily a bad thing per se, if that's intended to be mainly a martial thing.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
totoro wrote:
GentleGiant wrote:
totoro wrote:
I'm sure you're right about spellcasters being better. My players just didn't make the right choices and I am not smart enough to see what choices would have done the trick, at least for Fall of Plaguestone. No doubt, those spells are awesome when we finally figure out how to play this game. Unfortunately, we are going to move onto Hellknight Hill with new characters now that we have gotten some experience and we are just going to houserule spellcasters to give them A LOT more power. Open spell slots (choose spell on the fly) feels about right. I'll be around to say how that goes.
Now, being true to form you should, of course, not implement any house rules and just have everyone create a fighter. Then come back and let us know how your 4 fighters roll through the entire AP without a problem due to them being so superior to casters at hitting things.
Good call! I don't know if you did a comparison through theorycrafting or this is just a case of a broken clock is right twice a day, but 2 fighters, a barbarian, and a druid rolled through Plaguestone with trivial ease. I made a couple mistakes, like not advancing the party a level when I was supposed to, but because they were martials, it wasn't a big deal. I believe the game designers expected a balanced party, which would have been much harder. In any case, you are correct! Well done!

No, no, no, no, you don't get to cheat. You have consistently said over the last 12 pages that a group of 4 fighters would be much better than a mixed group and that casting a spell would always be the inferior choice to just hitting things with a weapon, so put your money where your mouth is.

Ask your players to play through the AP with only fighters, no multi-classing with classes that gets spells or spell-like powers, as that would be an inferior choice. You clearly said that both the druid and the cleric would have been better off if they had played fighters instead.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:
Illusions are now one of the stronger schools if you ask me, and given it was one of my favorites before, I am happy with that.

Could you elaborate a bit on this? Illusion is a school I never really considered in PF1 so I'm curious what you feel has changed to make such a marked improvement.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:
Illusions are now one of the stronger schools if you ask me, and given it was one of my favorites before, I am happy with that.
Could you elaborate a bit on this? Illusion is a school I never really considered in PF1 so I'm curious what you feel has changed to make such a marked improvement.

Well for starters, and most importantly, almost all of the illusion spells got straight buffed (with the exception of Mirror Image, and for good reason).

I also believe the system has much better support given the fact that the Tiers of success give illusions a lot more room than they had in PF1 and Enchantments by extension were nerfed.

Phantasmal Killer is actually a really good spell now. Illusory Creature is almost better than an actual Summon, and you can make it look like anything of Large or lower size, which means you have more value there.

With the addition of "Mental" damage, there is now an avenue where they can actually deal damage realistically, which means side effects from illusions can include damage (like Illusory Creature and Phantasmal Killer).

Then there's the new way conditions work now, which allows for a lot of conditions to be delivered via these affect, and since the interact action now actually exists, there is a clear definition for when something is interacted with.

Lastly, but certainly not least, with the addition of the Skill Feat system there is a lot more room to actually make an illusion valuable as a Caster, since in PF1 you were likely limited on your Skill front more than in PF2.

Fear in general has also just been improved for use overall, and since offensive Illusions are often closely tied to Fear, that's an indirect buff.

Is it going to be the strongest school in the game? Probably not.

Does it now have big players in it besides Invisibility and Mirror Image? You betcha!

(All of course, IMO)

EDIT: See Xenocrat below, he points out two other big changes that help illusions considerably


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:
Illusions are now one of the stronger schools if you ask me, and given it was one of my favorites before, I am happy with that.
Could you elaborate a bit on this? Illusion is a school I never really considered in PF1 so I'm curious what you feel has changed to make such a marked improvement.

Detect magic can't as easily find illusions out of combat, and getting a disbelief roll is harder in combat - you generally have to burn a seek action. Plus True Seeing is no longer the total nullifier it used to be and is rarer than before.


totoro wrote:
Corwin Icewolf wrote:
totoro wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Doompatrol wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

A mean, a big thing about Cantrips is that they are literally free. You get them as spells known without additional expense, and they continue to upgrade them without spending money, unlike the archer who is going to spent at least 40,000 GP on their bow (likely much more) over the course of their career.

It would suck to play an archer if the cantrip blaster can be just as good as you at this with minimal investment.

How does the damage from blasting spells stack up to archers?
It depends. A True Strike boosted Disintegrate does quite a lot of expected damage.
I suspect caster damage gets pretty nutty once you get to the point your 1st level slots can just be True Strike.
At 6th level you buy a Staff of Divination and get three free True Strikes per day, goes up to four when you hit 7th level.
If you have an 11th level caster, which is what is required for disintegration, it is more cost-effective to research a new spell called "attack like an 11th level fighter with a +2 striking greatsword for one round." Rolling twice due to true strike improves the attack roll by an average of 3.325 and true strike + disintegrate takes all 3 actions. The fighter only has +2 above the wizard, but gets to attack three times instead of once.
3d12+5, 8-42 damage, average 25 even assuming all three attacks hit is an average of 75, 2 damage less than the average of a successful disintegrate, so no, not really. I guess weapon spec would bump it up to about 80, but that's not so much more.

I've been wrong before, so let me show my math. If a disintegrate hits, it does 12d10 (66 average) damage on a failed save and 33 average on a successful save. If you take the middle, that's about 50 with 3 actions. Fighter needs 2 hits to match that.

Is your calculation doing something with feats or critical...

No, I was confusing disintegrate with a different spell I had done the math on once before, i think.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:
Fighter can Cleave and do some stuff to multiple targets too, not many, but at least 2. He's going to see very good gains from being put into that situation of fighting multiple books, and will be doing it for free. I wouldn't want to cast my max level chain lightning unless it's a "tough" encounter.

Cleave is absolutely terrible, since it requires the enemies to be standing next to each other- a thing which almost never happens. Martials don't really get respectable AoE options until 14th (Whirlwind Strike with reach, most fun on a giant instinct barb) or 18 (Impossible Volley with a bow.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:
Illusions are now one of the stronger schools if you ask me, and given it was one of my favorites before, I am happy with that.
Could you elaborate a bit on this? Illusion is a school I never really considered in PF1 so I'm curious what you feel has changed to make such a marked improvement.
Detect magic can't as easily find illusions out of combat, and getting a disbelief roll is harder in combat - you generally have to burn a seek action. Plus True Seeing is no longer the total nullifier it used to be and is rarer than before.

Trying to disbelieve eating one of your actions is the big change that I was missing, I think. Guess I'll add "Illusionist Wizard" to the pile of concepts I'm already excited about with PF2.


Arachnofiend wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:
Illusions are now one of the stronger schools if you ask me, and given it was one of my favorites before, I am happy with that.
Could you elaborate a bit on this? Illusion is a school I never really considered in PF1 so I'm curious what you feel has changed to make such a marked improvement.
Detect magic can't as easily find illusions out of combat, and getting a disbelief roll is harder in combat - you generally have to burn a seek action. Plus True Seeing is no longer the total nullifier it used to be and is rarer than before.
Trying to disbelieve eating one of your actions is the big change that I was missing, I think. Guess I'll add "Illusionist Wizard" to the pile of concepts I'm already excited about with PF2.

Here's the rules text.

Disbelieving Illusions, pg 298 CRB wrote:

Sometimes illusions allow an affected creature a chance to disbelieve the spell, which lets the creature effectively ignore the spell if it succeeds at doing so. This usually happens when a creature Seeks or otherwise spends actions to engage with the illusion, comparing the result of its Perception check (or another check or saving throw, at the GM’s discretion) to the caster’s spell DC. Mental illusions typically provide rules in the spell’s description for disbelieving the effect (often allowing the affected creature to attempt a Will save).

If the illusion is visual, and a creature interacts with the illusion in a way that would prove it is not what it seems, the creature might know that an illusion is present, but it still can’t ignore the illusion without successfully disbelieving it. For instance, if a character
is pushed through the illusion of a door, they will know that the door is an illusion, but they still can’t see through it. Disbelieving an illusion makes it and those things it blocks seem hazy and indistinct, so even in the case where a visual illusion is disbelieved, it may, at the
GM’s discretion, block vision enough to make those on the other side concealed.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Spellcasters in general are much more powerful than in the playtest simply because the math has shifted enough to make their Save DCs much harder for monsters to beat than in the playtest, so saying they've been 'nerfed further' is pretty inaccurate.

EDIT: Huh. The post I responded to with this has been deleted. That's odd.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't understand why people seem to see things being nerfed as inherently bad. Wizards and spellcasters being too powerful where a very common complaint in every edition I have experience with (3.5, pf1, 5e) with the exception of starfinder (which nerfed spellcasters much more severely than pf2, and honestly has them in a very good place for that setting).

Reigning in overpowered options is how you make the game more balanced - you could just buff each underperforming class, but that leads to power creep until every class trivialises encounters.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I wish they hadn't made wizards so boring while nerfing magic this much. Bard and cleric magic was nerfed as well, but they seem far more fun to play.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Huh, and here everyone said wizards were bad at necromancy this edition...

Deriven Firelion wrote:
I wish they hadn't made wizards so boring while nerfing magic this much. Bard and cleric magic was nerfed as well, but they seem far more fun to play.

Couldn't disagree more. 2e wizards are a lot more fun than 1e wizards, especially at low levels.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Tender Tendrils wrote:
I don't understand why people seem to see things being nerfed as inherently bad. Wizards and spellcasters being too powerful where a very common complaint in every edition I have experience with (3.5, pf1, 5e) with the exception of starfinder (which nerfed spellcasters much more severely than pf2, and honestly has them in a very good place for that setting)

I would argue that pf2 has the more severe nerfs to spellcasting actually.

Examples: A 5th level flight spell in starfinder will still allow you all day flight, whereas a pf2 7th level flight spell will only last an hour.

Starfinder haste can still target multiple allies without expending higher level slots, and pf2 takes a seventh level slot to target more than one person.

Starfinder allows for more stacking and more layering of buffs in general.

I could give more examples, but I imagine you get the idea.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:

Huh, and here everyone said wizards were bad at necromancy this edition...

Deriven Firelion wrote:
I wish they hadn't made wizards so boring while nerfing magic this much. Bard and cleric magic was nerfed as well, but they seem far more fun to play.
Couldn't disagree more. 2e wizards are a lot more fun than 1e wizards, especially at low levels.

Why?? Couldn't disagree more.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tender Tendrils wrote:

I don't understand why people seem to see things being nerfed as inherently bad. Wizards and spellcasters being too powerful where a very common complaint in every edition I have experience with (3.5, pf1, 5e) with the exception of starfinder (which nerfed spellcasters much more severely than pf2, and honestly has them in a very good place for that setting).

Reigning in overpowered options is how you make the game more balanced - you could just buff each underperforming class, but that leads to power creep until every class trivialises encounters.

Nerfing spellcasters was needed. I don't think many would disagree on this point.

However, they really OVERnerfed Wizards specifically. Wizards only have their spells (not even Bloodline powers like Sorcerers). Yet their spelllist is equal to others (I'm sorry, but Primal can do pretty much everything Arcane can and then some), and their special abilities are distinctly weak. Metamagic currently doesn't really exist (again, nerfed into oblivion), and their school powers are okayish if unimpressive (depends on which one, some have more use than others).

And finally, they are by far the most hurt by the very strict and conservative feats for gaining more proficiencies - for example, there's a few feats that they cannot even use because they don't start with Simple Weapon Proficiency.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
NemoNoName wrote:


However, they really OVERnerfed Wizards specifically. Wizards only have their spells (not even Bloodline powers like Sorcerers). Yet their spelllist is equal to others (I'm sorry, but Primal can do pretty much everything Arcane can and then some), and their special abilities are distinctly weak. Metamagic currently doesn't really exist (again, nerfed into oblivion), and their school powers are okayish if unimpressive (depends on which one, some have more use than others).

This is wrong on two counts. One, Wizards get School/Universalist powers and Arcane Thesis like Sorcerers get Bloodline powers. Which is to say, they both have to invest feats in it. Two, no, Primal does NOT do everything Arcane does. Arcane gets lots better will save spells, lots better illusions and enchantments.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Default Wizard didnt have many things going for it (which is why I found the archetypes fun).

PF2 remade Arcane Discoveries into something more fun, but then: Schools were effectively made worse (need to buy back), then spells were very much gutted (very few got buffs if any), and the spell list itself lost or shares much of its utility to other lists.

Illusions getting improvements is nice, not having to debate whether a creature got to disbelief is great.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Temperans wrote:
...and the [arcane] spell list itself lost or shares much of its utility to other lists.

I'm not seeing that as a negative.


puksone wrote:
Squiggit wrote:

Huh, and here everyone said wizards were bad at necromancy this edition...

Deriven Firelion wrote:
I wish they hadn't made wizards so boring while nerfing magic this much. Bard and cleric magic was nerfed as well, but they seem far more fun to play.
Couldn't disagree more. 2e wizards are a lot more fun than 1e wizards, especially at low levels.
Why?? Couldn't disagree more.

PF1 cantrips do 1d3. PF2 Electric Arc can kill two goblins with one spell.

GreatAxe-throwing half-orc universalist wizard ...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Cantrips are some of the few options that got buffed. If they weren't casters would be dead in the water.
Doesn't mean other parts aren't weaker.

Yes a smaller spell list is debatable as to whether it's good or bad, but the entire point of Wizards for more than a decade is largest spell list and best access to spells of all schools. Even if they cant always cast them well (the opposing school rule).


Where I think Wizards suffer in comparison to other classes is that their class feats simply aren't as exciting as class feats that other casters get. Primarily the Wizard's feats are about getting more, or more versatility out of spell slots... which is all well and good, but it's not exactly as evocative as wild shaping or that mime spell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
puksone wrote:


Why?? Couldn't disagree more.

Cantrips and focus spells give 2e wizards staying power that low level 1e wizards never had.

Tighter system math and spell balance encourages tactics and teamwork instead of just lazily steamrolling encounters with 'I win' buttons

1e wizards are stale, overbearing and prone to quickly running out of tricks if adventuring day standards aren't adhered to (especially at lower levels). It's an all around boring package.


Squiggit wrote:

Cantrips and focus spells give 2e wizards staying power that low level 1e wizards never had.

Tighter system math and spell balance encourages tactics and teamwork instead of just lazily steamrolling encounters with 'I win' buttons

1e wizards are stale, overbearing and prone to quickly running out of tricks if adventuring day standards aren't adhered to (especially at lower levels). It's an all around boring package.

Sure, but in exchange they got anything special about them removed. There is simply nothing relevant Wizard does that another class couldn't do. And that other class would be doing even more things, or doing the same things better.


NemoNoName wrote:
Squiggit wrote:

Cantrips and focus spells give 2e wizards staying power that low level 1e wizards never had.

Tighter system math and spell balance encourages tactics and teamwork instead of just lazily steamrolling encounters with 'I win' buttons

1e wizards are stale, overbearing and prone to quickly running out of tricks if adventuring day standards aren't adhered to (especially at lower levels). It's an all around boring package.

Sure, but in exchange they got anything special about them removed. There is simply nothing relevant Wizard does that another class couldn't do. And that other class would be doing even more things, or doing the same things better.

I think that's true for every class. There's nothing that another class can do that you can't except that class can do even more things. But i wouldn't say everyone can do what wizards do better. Wizards are the best prepared caster even with the nerf from the playtest, and the arcane list feels like the most versatile one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
NemoNoName wrote:
Squiggit wrote:

Cantrips and focus spells give 2e wizards staying power that low level 1e wizards never had.

Tighter system math and spell balance encourages tactics and teamwork instead of just lazily steamrolling encounters with 'I win' buttons

1e wizards are stale, overbearing and prone to quickly running out of tricks if adventuring day standards aren't adhered to (especially at lower levels). It's an all around boring package.

Sure, but in exchange they got anything special about them removed. There is simply nothing relevant Wizard does that another class couldn't do. And that other class would be doing even more things, or doing the same things better.

i don't know, i feel like wizards can only pull off illusions and the like, just as an example


oholoko wrote:
I think that's true for every class. There's nothing that another class can do that you can't except that class can do even more things. But i wouldn't say everyone can do what wizards do better. Wizards are the best prepared caster even with the nerf from the playtest, and the arcane list feels like the most versatile one.

Why are they the best prepared caster? What makes them best? They literally have second smallest pool of spells to choose from. Sure, Arcane list may have (slightly!) more spells on it, but Wizards only get to use whats in their spellbooks. They prepare same as everyone else (yes, I know they have that one thesis, but you know what, not everyone wants to play that thesis).

All they have is slightly more spells per day than most casters. And aside from that, they have NOTHING. Few more familiar powers maybe? Extra (useless) metamagic feats?

Their spell list has been reduced to be on par with others, which sounds good game balance until your realise Wizards don't have anything else besides their spell list. Even their Focus powers are very bland compared to many options other classes get.

Sure, they can have some illusion and blasting spells at the same time! Yay, that's the Wizard niche!
There's plenty of spells they don't have, same as every other class, and yet the other classes have other things they do. Wizards either need more range of spells (and not more small situational stuff either!), or they need to get something else. Focus powers would've been awesome if they worked more like Conjuration one, where they enhanced the spells of your school, so you could say, sure, others may have the spells Wizard have, but Wizard can make them better... And yet the answer was no.


NemoNoName wrote:


Sure, but in exchange they got anything special about them removed. There is simply nothing relevant Wizard does that another class couldn't do. And that other class would be doing even more things, or doing the same things better.

If you're going to argue that Wizards are a little bit bland and don't have much going for them outside their spell list, I'll agree with you. Paizo did not go far enough making spell schools compelling and overall I think Wizards are a bit on the weak side and a little annoying to play. Proficiency rules are also too restrictive in letting you build out weird alternatives to the standard wizard. The ultimate package smacks of Paizo being very scared of spellcasters, ultimately to their detriment.

But in the context of comparing them to 1e Wizards it's a bit of an odd sticking point, because having bland class features and being heavily redundant with other classes was much more significantly an issue in 1e where the wizard, sorcerer and arcanist are even more interchangeable and a wizard's class features are even more nonexistent.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
If you're going to argue that Wizards are a little bit bland and don't have much going for them outside their spell list, I'll agree with you. Paizo did not go far enough making spell schools compelling and overall I think Wizards are a bit on the weak side and a little annoying to play. Proficiency rules are also too restrictive in letting you build out weird alternatives to the standard wizard. The ultimate package smacks of Paizo being very scared of spellcasters, ultimately to their detriment.

We agree on this point completely.

Squiggit wrote:
But in the context of comparing them to 1e Wizards it's a bit of an odd sticking point, because having bland class features and being heavily redundant with other classes was much more significantly an issue in 1e where the wizard, sorcerer and arcanist are even more interchangeable and a wizard's class features are even more nonexistent.

Well, I wasn't comparing Wizards to those two, but rather to other spellcasting classes (Druid, Witch, Oracle, Summoner).

Sorcerer used to be Wizard for people who wanted to blast and not think - I'm so glad they managed to differentiate them more in this edition. And Arcanists... Wizard for people who don't want to plan? Lazy. Glad it's not here.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
NemoNoName wrote:
oholoko wrote:
I think that's true for every class. There's nothing that another class can do that you can't except that class can do even more things. But i wouldn't say everyone can do what wizards do better. Wizards are the best prepared caster even with the nerf from the playtest, and the arcane list feels like the most versatile one.

Why are they the best prepared caster? What makes them best? They literally have second smallest pool of spells to choose from. Sure, Arcane list may have (slightly!) more spells on it, but Wizards only get to use whats in their spellbooks. They prepare same as everyone else (yes, I know they have that one thesis, but you know what, not everyone wants to play that thesis).

All they have is slightly more spells per day than most casters. And aside from that, they have NOTHING. Few more familiar powers maybe? Extra (useless) metamagic feats?

Their spell list has been reduced to be on par with others, which sounds good game balance until your realise Wizards don't have anything else besides their spell list. Even their Focus powers are very bland compared to many options other classes get.

Sure, they can have some illusion and blasting spells at the same time! Yay, that's the Wizard niche!
There's plenty of spells they don't have, same as every other class, and yet the other classes have other things they do. Wizards either need more range of spells (and not more small situational stuff either!), or they need to get something else. Focus powers would've been awesome if they worked more like Conjuration one, where they enhanced the spells of your school, so you could say, sure, others may have the spells Wizard have, but Wizard can make them better... And yet the answer was no.

What do you want? Sounds like you want 1st level PC wizards to have the same powers as Tar-Baphon.


Ed Reppert wrote:
What do you want? Sounds like you want 1st level PC wizards to have the same powers as Tar-Baphon.

... Seriously? That's your takeaway? Okay-dokay.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ed Reppert wrote:
What do you want? Sounds like you want 1st level PC wizards to have the same powers as Tar-Baphon.

It seems more like he just wants more flexibility and options. There are notable gaps in what Wizards can do in 2e compared to 1e, not just in terms of power (which was obviously necessary) but in terms of themes and capabilities.

This is more speaking for myself but:

Some of this stuff will improve as we get more spells, but some of it feels intentional and takes away from thematic options that have existed in the past (like how interacting with extraplanar creatures is now kind of outside their sphere of influence despite arcane demonologists being fantasy staples).

Personally, I also feel like while there are a lot of improvements, some of them feel like half measures. PF2 narrowed the gaps when it came to attack bonuses between classes, which should make fighting wizards and wizards leveraging transformation spells much more effective, but the support still isn't quite there.

Sword-wielding wizards in particular struggle to stay competitive with their own spellcasting when it comes to damage dealing and have to invest an enormous amount of feats to conceptually enable themselves for returns that don't really match up to the investment.
There's more than just that, that's just one example that I've been complaining about for a while so I figure I might as well keep it up.

There are lots of little things that aren't game breaking but still feel bad too, like how even though familiars have no stats and have nebulous abilities you pick each day, you can no longer have an imp familiar in PF2. Just because.

And while the ship has sailed, I feel like Schools are an underutilized mechanic. PF1 schools were worse, so I appreciate the improvements PF2 made, but one fundamental problem that we've had since before PF1 was even a thing is that Wizards always felt like generalists. There aren't enough spells and aren't enough strong thematic options to build really tightly themed wizards. More fleshed out schools could have been a way to address this and make Evokers feel more like Evokers and less like generic wizards that had a few minor perks when it came to Evoking.

As an aside, the comparison to Tar-Baphon is kind of an amusing choice because sort of yes, honestly. Tar-Baphon is one of the most visible necromancers in Golarion and he's a wizard, and right now necromancer wizards feel a little flat.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
NemoNoName wrote:
Why are they the best prepared caster? What makes them best? They literally have second smallest pool of spells to choose from. Sure, Arcane list may have (slightly!) more spells on it, but Wizards only get to use whats in their spellbooks. They prepare same as everyone else (yes, I know they have that one thesis, but you know what, not everyone wants to play that thesis).

Theses: Metamagic feat, trade lower-level spells for higher, swap spells, or get a familiar who can, I think, deliver spells for you. So, there's TWO theses that let them change things up a bit, and they're the only mage who can start with metamgic (outside Human, but then they're the only one who can start with TWO). True, they're limited by the spellbook, but they can add spells to it. A decent chunk of the lists are chaff, though, so they're missing out on a lot less than you're implying.

From the list of passable spells, they have the single GREATEST selection. How many good Reflex spells does a Bard get? How many good Will spells does a Druid get? Not many. The Wizard? Gets most of the good ones, from BOTH. The Wizard also gets a large number of other utility effects.

NemoNoName wrote:
All they have is slightly more spells per day than most casters. And aside from that, they have NOTHING. Few more familiar powers maybe? Extra (useless) metamagic feats?

A 33% increase at odd levels and 50% on their top level at even levels is hardly "slightly". ANd metamagic is not useless. Reach Spell lets you be more safely behind your defenders and use, your Cantrips, such as Produce Flame, at a better range in wider environments. Widen Spell, I admit, would mostly see use for NPCs participating in war.

NemoNoName wrote:
Their spell list has been reduced to be on par with others, which sounds good game balance until your realise Wizards don't have anything else besides their spell list. Even their Focus powers are very bland compared to many options other classes get.

Their spell list is not on par. They are the most powerful utility/attackers. Yes, Druids beat them in shapeshifting because of Wild Shape, better HP and saves, and some more buffs for their shapeshifted forms. But that is not a Wizard. A Wizard specializes in being the absolute most versatile.

NemoNoName wrote:

Sure, they can have some illusion and blasting spells at the same time! Yay, that's the Wizard niche!

There's plenty of spells they don't have, same as every other class, and yet the other classes have other things they do. Wizards either need more range of spells (and not more small situational stuff either!), or they need to get something else. Focus powers would've been awesome if they worked more like Conjuration one, where they enhanced the spells of your school, so you could say, sure, others may have the spells Wizard have, but Wizard can make them better... And yet the answer was no.

No, the Wizard Niche is preparation. Adapting to anything. Illusion and blasting? No, it's a spell or two for EACH OF THE THREE SAVES, as opposed to ANY OTHER SPELL LIST which cannot reasonably do that. And then, they have the travel utility of a druid with their transmutations and the social and stealth utility of a bard with their enchantments and illusions...

You are grossly underselling utility and adaptability in this game. I've seen you complain specifically about the Transmuter before. I've built an Adventurous Transmuter who's DELIBERATELY taking a few sub-optimal options (Wayfinder Resonance Tinkerer, learning more spells for spellbook than they really will use, and more importantly magical crafting). I'm not seeing ANY of your complaints in the level 1, 4, 9, and 13 builds. I've not started the level 18 build, yet, but you know what?

Here's the build thus far. I'll add it to the Wizard Niche thread and my emporium when I've built the level 18 version.
The level 13 build has, with ring of wizardry, 35 spells total. It has a small number of attacks, a large number of combat buffs for the party (like the classic Transmuter), some out of combat utility, etc. It has EVERYTHING magical. No real melee presence, but that's Martial territory. And for a single spell slot, they can ignore wearing armor, saving the gold for a new spell (or for a different potent item... like a Wand).

Find me a Druid that has all this buffing potential. Find me a Bard that has nearly as much attacking power (especially fortitude).

So what if a Druid prepares more things that test Reflex, or Fortitude, or a Bard knows more things that test Will? Against a Cleric, that Bard's will save spells are next to useless. But the Wizard laughs and uses a wand to cast Cone of Cold. Or has some advance warning and prepares a couple fireballs instead. And that Druid will find themself unable to do much to the Rogue, who has better base combat abilities and can shrug off most things the Druid can cast at them. The Wizard just uses True Strike + Disintegrate or uses their good spell attack rolls to spam Produce Flame or something.

Other builds are less versatile because, well, fewer spell levels. But even they can do things. Level 1 can still do a can't-miss bust for heavy damage, can target reflex, can basically double a martial's damage output for two fights (hi, Drain Bonded Item), and can target AC with their crossbow. Level four, targets Will, Ref, and AC. Also buffs the party with Magic Weapon and Enlarge. Level 9 gets can't-miss, Reflex, AC, Will, and Fort, as attacks and/or debuffs. Also effects to buff the party.

Aside from very low levels, I doubt the wizard will run out of spells per day. At 4 round combats + 4 combats per day, ... I'm not doing the math for this. You have enough spells to target most things, and combats aren't supposed to last long enough to really drain you. Arcane Bond + extra buffs prepared + spammable cantrips = you can sustain your power if you conserve a little of it each fight.

THAT, Nemo, is the Wizard power. You don't get shut down. You do the shutting down. Other classes, they can get shut down or weakened before the fight begins. A Wizard, though? Be smart, and you can mitigate that on the rest of the party without ever getting personally countered.

551 to 600 of 1,952 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Did wizards get nerfed? All Messageboards