| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bard focus spells are useful. Wizard are super lame.
Calling them lame doesn't a point make. Why don't you tell us, in detail, why they dont measure up?
Then people might begin to take you seriously.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And no, sorry, don't buy that thing about essences. If anything, shifting should be physical and mental because it requires mental adaptation to properly control the new form. After all, it's no use having wings if you don't know how to flap them properly.
You are mixing up cause and effect. The essences don't determine what you need to cast a spell, but what the spell does.
Transmutation affects objects and living beings, i.e. the essences Matter and Life, by altering their shape and/or properties.
This has nothing to do with the Mental essence.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are mixing up cause and effect. The essences don't determine what you need to cast a spell, but what the spell does.
Transmutation affects objects and living beings, i.e. the essences Matter and Life, by altering their shape and/or properties.
This has nothing to do with the Mental essence.
Altering shape of a living thing without altering its mind to be able to control the new shape helps not at all. Want to test it? If you've never worn high heels, try walking in them.
Polymorph spells are not manipulating the life force itself, they are reshaping physical matter that happens to be animated by life force. Otherwise you could claim Evocation spells are manipulating life force because they are blowing it away.
And no, instinct won't help. Instinct is also a mental thing. While animals are born with some instincts, most need to learn most of the things they do. Especially the more coordinated moves. There's plenty of videos of newborn animals being hilarious trying to learn to walk.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Super lame might be a misstatement but... I would agree that focus spells are all over the place in terms of interest and usability.
It's not really a wizard specific thing though.
There are focus spells like elemental toss or lay on hands that provide meaningful fallback tools that help pad out someone's kit in a really good way early game (and of course LoH enables large amounts of out of combat healing, yay).
And then there's stuff like the celestial sorcerer's angelic halo or the conjuration wizard's augment summoning that not only don't do anything on their own, but don't even feel like they add a lot to what you follow them up with.
I also want to second what the last poster on the previous page mentioned in that the Wizard's feats aren't very interesting. Contrast all the work that went into giving Fighter's multiple types of actions and unique attacks and... Wizard feats are astoundingly bland.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Altering shape of a living thing without altering its mind to be able to control the new shape helps not at all. Want to test it? If you've never worn high heels, try walking in them.
So transforming a creature that is immune to mental effects into a bird would leave it unable to fly?
Transmutations have never been mental effects (or "mind-affecting" as they were called). Yes, Polymorph spells are probably in some suble way teaching you how to use your new form/ability. That doesn't link them to the Mental essence. They might as well just rewire your brain to deal with the new shape.
Polymorph spells are not manipulating the life force itself, they are reshaping physical matter that happens to be animated by life force. Otherwise you could claim Evocation spells are manipulating life force because they are blowing it away.
Evocation doesn't blow away life force. It evokes harmful energies that destroy matter.
It's Necromancy deals with the Life essence and life force directly.
So transforming a creature that is immune to mental effects into a bird would leave it unable to fly?
In my view, yes, actually. But that is less relevant to this discussion; my only point is that mental effects of polymorphing are greater than life-force effects.
Transmutations have never been mental effects (or "mind-affecting" as they were called).
Errrr... Have you read the full effects of Baleful Polymorph in PF1?
Yes, Polymorph spells are probably in some suble way teaching you how to use your new form/ability.
Affecting your mental state > mental effects.
That doesn't link them to the Mental essence. They might as well just rewire your brain to deal with the new shape.
This touches on greater philosophical discussion about separation between mind and body. However, whatever is the answer, still: polymorph has greater mental effects than life-force effects.
Evocation doesn't blow away life force. It evokes harmful energies that destroy matter.
It's Necromancy deals with the Life essence and life force directly.
Exactly my (second) point: Transmutation does not deal with Life essence. Evocation and Transmutation affect physical properties of matter, not spiritual. If one (Evocation) is not related to Life, neither is the other (Transmutation).
Hence, there is no reason why Druids should be better at it than Wizards.
Baleful Polymorph isn't mind-affecting. It literally - physically - tries to turn your brain into that of a squirrel. Mind affecting would be casting Suggestion to make someone act like a squirrel.
Honestly, come to think of it, I'll go with: Transmutation, including polymorph spells, are purely Matter essence. That's why Arcane and Occult share most of them. Also, I don't think anyone but the designers can give a definite answer to that.
There's nothing left to discuss for me. It's fine that you don't like the direction in which Paizo took the Wizard (transmuter or otherwise). I'll go out on a limb here and say that many players still like the Wizard very much, for a variety of reasons. And yes many of his feats aren't great, but that's also true for the caster-oriented feats of the druid.
Baleful Polymorph isn't mind-affecting. It literally - physically - tries to turn your brain into that of a squirrel. Mind affecting would be casting Suggestion to make someone act like a squirrel.
That's a very interesting philosophical discussion actually.. Not for this forum.
Honestly, come to think of it, I'll go with: Transmutation, including polymorph spells, are purely Matter essence. That's why Arcane and Occult share most of them. Also, I don't think anyone but the designers can give a definite answer to that.
You mean Arcane and Primal. And I'm not super wedded to declaring it Mental. My only point is, IF Transmutation is not Matter only, THEN it should be considered Mental and not Life.
And yes many of his feats aren't great, but that's also true for the caster-oriented feats of the druid.
But Druids has access to the non-caster feats. And spellcasting is not the be-all and end-all of Druid. Unlike some other class, I can't think of which one though...
Yes, I meant Arcane and Primal. Sorry for the typo. Was checking something on the Occult list while posting.
And yes, Druid has access to non-caster feats. But when it comes to casting, the Wizard is still better. Not at Transmutation, but casting spells.
This is despite both having mostly uninteresting caster feats.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The last several exchanges remind me of something a wise sage once said about another game:
"ninety percent of this game is half mental. The other half is physical." - Yogi Berra.
I can't help but think that if we still had Yogi and the designers had relied on his sage advice, these issues would have been fixed.
The last several exchanges remind me of something a wise sage once said about another game:
"ninety percent of this game is half mental. The other half is physical." - Yogi Berra.
I can't help but think that if we still had Yogi and the designers had relied on his sage advice, these issues would have been fixed.
What about the 10%?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I had always heard the quote as "baseball is 90% Mental, the other Half is Physical" implying that he plays 40% more baseball than other people.
What about the 10%?
It's a mystery hidden since the beginning of the world.
If and when one of us reaches Legendary in Occultism, we can roll a knowledge check to try and recall it.
I had always heard the quote as "baseball is 90% Mental, the other Half is Physical" implying that he plays 40% more baseball than other people.
tbf there are various versions of the quote some of which make more sense than others and one of which is probably actually his own words.
As he himself said, he didn't say half the things he said.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bard focus spells are useful. Wizard are super lame.Calling them lame doesn't a point make. Why don't you tell us, in detail, why they dont measure up?
Then people might begin to take you seriously.
I've already outlined why I think they're lame.
1. Focus spells and abilities are inferior to other classes.
2. Options are inferior in both breadth and ability to other class options.
3. Wizards no longer serve an outstanding purposes and are overshadowed by bards and druids who can provide the same spell versatility as wizards with more interesting and useful class options.
for example, An animal companion is superior to a familiar.
Bard compositions are more useful than wizard focus spells and abilities.
4. Bards and rogues are far more useful skill-wise.
5. The cleric has a clear healing niche with good spell and combat versatility.
6. Wizard damage output is inferior to other classes and their effect spells are very limited due to certain traits like incapacitate or death.
I can't think of one compelling reason to play a wizard in their current form within the PF2 structure other than a desire to play the archetype accepting your inferior abilities.
Even one of their old roles as magic item crafter no longer exists because anyone can craft and magic items are no longer as potent as before. Wands are one use a day and staves barely better.
The wizard is very lacking in interesting and equally effective options that other classes don't have access to as well such as metamagic. Most other classes have some unique niche more interesting and more effective than the wizard.
I used to enjoy building wizards with metamagic and schools. Now there is nothing to build. You used to be able to make items with metamagic, now doesn't work. Wizard lost a lot of their flavor with the weakening of magic and metamgic, much like 5E wizards. 5E wizards I tried and quit as well. Just not a whole lot of fun when other classes can do what you do nearly as well and have more flavorful abilities.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can't think of one compelling reason to play a wizard in their current form within the PF2 structure other than a desire to play the archetype accepting your inferior abilities...
Well then I guess it is a good thing that you feel like the Druid and bard are classes more to your liking. I hope you have fun with that.
I very much enjoy the school focus powers of my two favorite schools, illusion and divination, and think there are a lot of good arcane spell options.
I do think you are massively underselling wands and staves in PF2 and the wizards high INT will then them be the undisputed crafting master. Unless your GM gives you almost unlimited down time, the wizards ability to crit succeed on crafting checks will mean your entire party having the magic items they want when they set out adventuring.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for crafting, in 3x wizards were not technically the only ones who could take the crafting feats and do crafting either. It's just for a variety of reasons, they were more likely to.
Unicore points out a reason why it will possibly (we'll see) be still a wizard's niche in PF2. But it wasn't "by rule" a wizard's niche in PF1 either.
The area that did change is that now non-casters can do it, too. Whether one likes that or not is one of those ymmv. One of the reasons I'm done with any iteration of 3E, including PF, is the whole Discount Larry's Crazy Low Low Prices WBL Appliance Mart attitude towards magic items that it fostered - you can get all the key big 5 items you want at low-low prices! Discount Larry has you covered!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTKRoBjjyeI
I'm not sure yet how much 2EPF has moved away from that - and I like cool magic items as well as anyone - so I don't need to move them too far. It has generally de-emphasized reliance on magic items.
Anyhow, the point is wizards might still find that being their thing here too even if by rule it's not an exclusive prerogative of wizards - but it wasn't in the previous edition, either. It just ended up that way due to how incentives played out. Crafting is int based still and wizards will be the int guy. People with int as their dump stat will be able to repair their armor and weapons but probably not be doing the enchanting.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Frankly, I find the idea that someone who knows absolutely nothing about magic can craft a magic item about as bizarre as I find the idea that all mundane longswords, whoever crafts them, have exactly the same characteristics.
Somewhere on these forums someone posted a while ago his bemusement at the idea that Mary the Master Seamstress down the street can craft a magic sword that requires Master in crafting, even though she's never made a sword and knows nothing about making them, while Joe the Expert Swordsmith can't do it. I'm with him.
Frankly, I find the idea that someone who knows absolutely nothing about magic can craft a magic item about as bizarre as I find the idea that all mundane longswords, whoever crafts them, have exactly the same characteristics.
Somewhere on these forums someone posted a while ago his bemusement at the idea that Mary the Master Seamstress down the street can craft a magic sword that requires Master in crafting, even though she's never made a sword and knows nothing about making them, while Joe the Expert Swordsmith can't do it. I'm with him.
What you want is a more complex rule system that requires people to take specific crafting (and perhaps performance) skills. Basically 3E's version, where if you took a skill like that you would specify (seamstress) or (tailor) or (blacksmith) or (armorer) or (weaponsmith) or, for perform, (song) or (dance) or (comedy) or (rhetoric) and the like.
The current system simplifies for playability because players also did not end up liking that version. But it's always possible to go back to that on the argument-for-verisimilitude. (The old pre-3E pre-skill-point era had that too). So just because your fighter was a good boyer or fletcher, it wouldn't make him any good at all at repairing his armor, too. He'd have to take a separate skill.
Since Wizards have INT as their primary skill and thus and advantage in skills as it is, they should also have to have the skill to make any item they're going to enchant, as part of the enchanting process. So they'd imbue it with magic as they craft it. So they'd need armorer for armor, weaponsmith for weapon, boyer for bows, alchemy (natch), seamstress or tailor for their robes, goldsmithing/silversmithing/jeweler for accessories, and so on. Because I think I can agree with you that the idea that any old masterwork-tier item is alike and is prepped to be imbued with magic by the wizard enchanting it is a bit of an abstraction. Like the legendary crafters of items in lore and myth, it shouldn't be just some item picked up down the street: it gets forged as an enchanted item as it is being made.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, if you want a character to be a master cabinetmaker and not an armorer, bladesmith, or farrier just have them make cabinets and not those other things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't think of one compelling reason to play a wizard in their current form within the PF2 structure other than a desire to play the archetype accepting your inferior abilities...Well then I guess it is a good thing that you feel like the Druid and bard are classes more to your liking. I hope you have fun with that.
I very much enjoy the school focus powers of my two favorite schools, illusion and divination, and think there are a lot of good arcane spell options.
I do think you are massively underselling wands and staves in PF2 and the wizards high INT will then them be the undisputed crafting master. Unless your GM gives you almost unlimited down time, the wizards ability to crit succeed on crafting checks will mean your entire party having the magic items they want when they set out adventuring.
There is a difference between a subjective idea of "liking a class" and an objective idea of class effectiveness. I played a wizard initially because I like them and usually prefer to play a wizard type. I quit the wizard in both 5E and PF2 because they are objectively weaker than the bard and druid at things they're supposed to be good at like utility or control.
Enjoying the school powers is subjective. Whether they are equally mechanically effective is objective. Objectively they are not as effective as a bard composition or a druid animal companion.
I am not underselling crafting at all. Given how easy it is to acquire found items, crafting is mostly useful for repairing items. It's far easier to build up crafting as a rogue than a wizard unless that is all you want to focus on.
It is also easier as a bard give you can take a path that gives you all the skills with a bonus equal to your level while focusing skill increases on crafting.
It is good that you enjoy the wizard. They can still be effective, just not as effective in most circumstances as an equally well built bard or druid.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is also easier as a bard give you can take a path that gives you all the skills with a bonus equal to your level while focusing skill increases on crafting.
It is good that you enjoy the wizard. They can still be effective, just not as effective in most circumstances as an equally well built bard or druid.
Okay. Now can your Bard use Fireball, or your Druid use Phantasmal Killer (without multiclassing)?
What a Wizard is not is a specialist in a field. What a Wizard is is a specialist in being versatile. It sounds like your previously-mentioned party didn't need more physical magics, so the Bard was a good idea there.
Basically: What Bards are to the game at large (the jacks of all trades), Wizards are to magic specifically (and they get more of it, too). Except for healing, of course.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even with the school specialization, they're easily built as being more general. But, the Arcane list itself is the jack of all spells list.
Specialization is +1 spell slot, from 3 (from 2 at highest level if you just got it). Yeah, that's 25% of the spells you prepare outside cantrips. But it's still lots of room to be diverse.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If they specialize, they still get as many spell slots outside the specialization as others do, but those slots are free for other schools. They can skew towards a school, but specializing does not mean they're exclusively that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Somewhere on these forums someone posted a while ago his bemusement at the idea that Mary the Master Seamstress down the street can craft a magic sword that requires Master in crafting, even though she's never made a sword and knows nothing about making them, while Joe the Expert Swordsmith can't do it. I'm with him.
Of course she can't. She also does not have master profciency, nor does the swordsmith have expert. These are rules for PCs, meant to regulate and define their actions and options, they should not be taken to be descriptive of the world beyond them. After all, a smith does not have to do quests and murder monsters in order to get better at smithing and goodness gracious will not be a grat warrior just because he is a goos smith.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Frankly, I find the idea that someone who knows absolutely nothing about magic can craft a magic item about as bizarre as I find the idea that all mundane longswords, whoever crafts them, have exactly the same characteristics.
Somewhere on these forums someone posted a while ago his bemusement at the idea that Mary the Master Seamstress down the street can craft a magic sword that requires Master in crafting, even though she's never made a sword and knows nothing about making them, while Joe the Expert Swordsmith can't do it. I'm with him.
This isn't how the PC crafting rules work before you even touch the possibility of NPCs working differently.
First off, Mary couldn't craft a magical sword unless she had the Magical Crafting feat. So anyone who has that feat, by definition, knows something about magic . It is just very specific knowledge about how to craft with it, not how to cast with it.
It is worth remembering that 2e has really opened the doors on how people understand and interact with magic. They have created two new traditions and there are four skills you can use to identify the same magic, and those skills aren't all based off of intelligence anymore.
This also gets extended out to rituals which only require skill proficiencies and instructions on the ritual, although it usually requires at least one skill that is also associated with a magical tradition.
As Possible Cabbage once said, a blacksmith could hum to himself while he's working steel and tap into magic in a very similar fashion to a bard singing. He might not have as good an understanding of why this helps to make a stronger sword, and he certainly doesn't have other Occult skill applications... But he can still tap into those magics.
Finally, neither Mary or the swordsmith can make a high end magical sword unless they have the formula for it. Which further reinforces the point that you can't make magic swords unless you specifically learn to make magic swords.
People with the magical Craftsman feat don't necessarily have the same general knowledge of occult magic that a bard does, but as PossibleCabbage out it
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also want to second what the last poster on the previous page mentioned in that the Wizard's feats aren't very interesting. Contrast all the work that went into giving Fighter's multiple types of actions and unique attacks and... Wizard feats are astoundingly bland.
This is my biggest problem with the class. I really feel increasing the versatility of martial classes was a great move, but they didn't need to make casters boring in the process.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also want to second what the last poster on the previous page mentioned in that the Wizard's feats aren't very interesting. Contrast all the work that went into giving Fighter's multiple types of actions and unique attacks and... Wizard feats are astoundingly bland.This is my biggest problem with the class. I really feel increasing the versatility of martial classes was a great move, but they didn't need to make casters boring in the process.
Wizard feats are all focused on spell casting. People keep asking about the wizard's niche, but "ultimate caster" is the niche. Feats that modify spells or are based on spells are not going to look exciting on their own. A lot of the more utility/non-combat focused meta-magic feats are not going to look as good on paper as they will in play.
Now if you wanted to be an ultimate combat blaster, the storm druid might be the better option, and that is kinda weird, but wizards were not that great at it in comparison to other classes in PF1.
Bards are capable of disguising their magic, but not with subtlety. Enchanters, Illusionists, and Diviners don't want to be breaking into song and dance every time they want to use magic in a public setting without shouting "I'm casting a spell over here!"
I think a lot of the people looking for the big flair caster will be happier with sorcerers, druids and bards. Wizards no longer have to carry that role like they have in the past. The wiard in PF2 is the careful, studied caster who excels with the opportunity to plan a course of actions in advance.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, being careful and studied is a good niche, but it doesn't preclude having exciting mechanics. Metamagic feats that are vaguely useful in very specific circumstances aren't exciting. Being able to ignore small amounts of resistances or partially negate an enemy's save bonus are effective, but they don't necessarily feel awesome to grab... some of them are the kind of small, forgettable bonuses that might get glossed over in play that PF2 was supposed to avoid too.
They made a conscious effort to give certain classes feats and options that opened up whole new avenues of play and ways of managing encounters, and then other classes (like the wizard and the alchemist) they didn't.
Which is just kind of a shame in a game that used more meaningful, less niche and less numbers focused feats as a major selling point.
I'm sure exciting mechanics aren't that far off. The system is robust, and its designers nothing if not creative.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sure exciting mechanics aren't that far off. The system is robust, and its designers nothing if not creative.
Just wait till you can buy better mechanics for $30 isn't a strong selling point.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
That’s been the entire selling point of Pathfinder/DnD’s history.I'm sure exciting mechanics aren't that far off. The system is robust, and its designers nothing if not creative.Just wait till you can buy better mechanics for $30 isn't a strong selling point.
There's a difference between "here are even more exciting options to add onto our great base game" and "here wizards, now you can finally be fun to build."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sure exciting mechanics aren't that far off. The system is robust, and its designers nothing if not creative.
I'd like to hope so, but who knows really. It could just be a book space issue where they wanted to get core metamagic feats in earlier and they could add weird stuff later, but on the other hand with the way familiars were sterilized for the new edition that might be the MO carrying forward in terms of 'fun' options too.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The counterspelling wizard tract has a lot of mechanical oomph to it. By the time you get reflect spell you have a pretty potent anti-magic character Abjurationist going.
The concealed spell, silent spell, advanced school tract works out pretty well for illusionists and Enchanters. Having some free levels to multi-class into rogue or bard for skill versatility is fine as well, and would be waste of wizard feats to try to accomplish.
The bond feats + scroll savant will equal absurd levels of spells per day for any route, especially universalist.
The bottom line about wizard feats is that they don't look like much until you start putting them together with specific spell combinations, of which, the arcane list is the broadest, but if you dip into another casting class, you can really be looking at an ultimate caster. A glass cannon, sure, but I am very glad that there are no obvious win choices.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The counterspelling wizard tract has a lot of mechanical oomph to it. By the time you get reflect spell you have a pretty potent anti-magic character Abjurationist going.
The concealed spell, silent spell, advanced school tract works out pretty well for illusionists and Enchanters. Having some free levels to multi-class into rogue or bard for skill versatility is fine as well, and would be waste of wizard feats to try to accomplish.
The bond feats + scroll savant will equal absurd levels of spells per day for any route, especially universalist.
The bottom line about wizard feats is that they don't look like much until you start putting them together with specific spell combinations, of which, the arcane list is the broadest, but if you dip into another casting class, you can really be looking at an ultimate caster. A glass cannon, sure, but I am very glad that there are no obvious win choices.
A few specific builds having some 'oomph' isn't the problem, the problem that wizard feats are really boring unless you want to run this specific character, and even then they are not interesting, they are just required for the build.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A few specific builds having some 'oomph' isn't the problem, the problem that wizard feats are really boring unless you want to run this specific character, and even then they are not interesting, they are just required for the build.The counterspelling wizard tract has a lot of mechanical oomph to it. By the time you get reflect spell you have a pretty potent anti-magic character Abjurationist going.
The concealed spell, silent spell, advanced school tract works out pretty well for illusionists and Enchanters. Having some free levels to multi-class into rogue or bard for skill versatility is fine as well, and would be waste of wizard feats to try to accomplish.
The bond feats + scroll savant will equal absurd levels of spells per day for any route, especially universalist.
The bottom line about wizard feats is that they don't look like much until you start putting them together with specific spell combinations, of which, the arcane list is the broadest, but if you dip into another casting class, you can really be looking at an ultimate caster. A glass cannon, sure, but I am very glad that there are no obvious win choices.
you are missing the point. The wizard always comes to life when you start putting together their spell list/ how they can put different spells together on different days to accomplish specific tasks. It has never been about the feats. The feats just enable you to do cool stuff with the spell list.
From the way I see people play spells like ghost sound and charm, a lot of wizards need to be picking up conceal spell/silent spell pretty early on, and then feats that let you cast more spells start rolling in at almost every level.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
A few specific builds having some 'oomph' isn't the problem, the problem that wizard feats are really boring unless you want to run this specific character, and even then they are not interesting, they are just required for the build.The counterspelling wizard tract has a lot of mechanical oomph to it. By the time you get reflect spell you have a pretty potent anti-magic character Abjurationist going.
The concealed spell, silent spell, advanced school tract works out pretty well for illusionists and Enchanters. Having some free levels to multi-class into rogue or bard for skill versatility is fine as well, and would be waste of wizard feats to try to accomplish.
The bond feats + scroll savant will equal absurd levels of spells per day for any route, especially universalist.
The bottom line about wizard feats is that they don't look like much until you start putting them together with specific spell combinations, of which, the arcane list is the broadest, but if you dip into another casting class, you can really be looking at an ultimate caster. A glass cannon, sure, but I am very glad that there are no obvious win choices.
you are missing the point. The wizard always comes to life when you start putting together their spell list/ how they can put different spells together on different days to accomplish specific tasks. It has never been about the feats. The feats just enable you to do cool stuff with the spell list.
From the way I see people play spells like ghost sound and charm, a lot of wizards need to be picking up conceal spell/silent spell pretty early on, and then feats that let you cast more spells start rolling in at almost every level.
but second edition is about the feats though. 2e has a lot of focus on character building that the wizard just skips, I also don't think any core class should need to take an archetype in order to feel cool.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not about 'obvious win choices', it's about interesting choices with exciting mechanical implications.
Plus there clearly are really potent choices. Being able to ignore large amounts of resistance is an amazing feat for blasters. It's also ultimately just a situational damage bonus.
Being able to negate status bonuses to saves is potentially very significant for any sort of offensive casting. It's also the kind of bonus that's very easy to forget to keep track of because of how specific it is.
Stuff like Hand of the Apprentice or even Bespell Weapon at least... add something new to some extent. In fact they're very much less 'obvious win choices' than some of these blander options. They're just very few and far between.
See, I think the interesting magic feats belong in other classes like the sorcerer. Wizards make spells awesome.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
See, I think the interesting magic feats belong in other classes like the sorcerer. Wizards make spells awesome.
But metamagic feats arn't awesome, they take your entire action economy and make small improvements to spells. Sure they might be useful, but they arn't awesome and don't feel great to use.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
See, I think the interesting magic feats belong in other classes like the sorcerer. Wizards make spells awesome.But metamagic feats arn't awesome, they take your entire action economy and make small improvements to spells. Sure they might be useful, but they arn't awesome and don't feel great to use.
I don't know about that. Reach spell and widen spell can both do a lot to expand the usefulness of certain spells. For instance, the level 5 version of command can target 10 creatures and has a range of 30 feet. Reach spell quadruples the number of squares that command can target.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know about that. Reach spell and widen spell can both do a lot to expand the usefulness of certain spells. For instance, the level 5 version of command can target 10 creatures and has a range of 30 feet. Reach spell quadruples the number of squares that command can target.See, I think the interesting magic feats belong in other classes like the sorcerer. Wizards make spells awesome.But metamagic feats arn't awesome, they take your entire action economy and make small improvements to spells. Sure they might be useful, but they arn't awesome and don't feel great to use.
Which is useful, but I don't really think it feel great to use. I have a player who has cast nothing but reach electric arc for 5 consecutive sessions. It's the optimal play in most situations. The character is doing fine and contributing to fights, but the player is already turned off of playing wizard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which is useful, but I don't really think it feel great to use. I have a player who has cast nothing but reach electric arc for 5 consecutive sessions. It's the optimal play in most situations. The character is doing fine and contributing to fights, but the player is already turned off of playing wizard.I don't know about that. Reach spell and widen spell can both do a lot to expand the usefulness of certain spells. For instance, the level 5 version of command can target 10 creatures and has a range of 30 feet. Reach spell quadruples the number of squares that command can target.See, I think the interesting magic feats belong in other classes like the sorcerer. Wizards make spells awesome.But metamagic feats arn't awesome, they take your entire action economy and make small improvements to spells. Sure they might be useful, but they arn't awesome and don't feel great to use.
Are you actually saying that the character doesn't use any of their spell slots or is this just a comedic overstatement? Your max-level spells are all pretty good when the situation arises and can significantly turn the tides of a fight.