Did wizards get nerfed?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

701 to 750 of 954 << first < prev | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Donovan Du Bois wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
Donovan Du Bois wrote:
Unicore wrote:
See, I think the interesting magic feats belong in other classes like the sorcerer. Wizards make spells awesome.
But metamagic feats aren't awesome, they take your entire action economy and make small improvements to spells. Sure they might be useful, but they aren'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.
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.

it feels pretty awesome in play, it is just harder to imagine when you are drawing your character up. Conversely, some options sound much cooler on paper but become much harder to make use of in play. PF2 has done a good job of making metamagic more of the former than the later, but it might be difficult to see it until you try it out.

maybe that is what you don't like, but I appreciate that wizard feats modify what you can do with spells (including focus spells), rather than give some specific abilities that probably belong more in another classes wheelhouse.


Those metamagic are not Wizard exclusive

Wizards have 3 exclusive feats with the metamagic tag: Conceal, Silent, and Bonded.

Also while looking apparently eschew materials is a Wizard exclusive, when it originally was a Sorcerer default.

* P.S. Clerics have 6 exclusive, Druids have 3, Sorceres have 2, and Bards have 3


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:


Also while looking apparently eschew materials is a Wizard exclusive, when it originally was a Sorcerer default.

Sorcerers get a better version of Eschew baked into their casting feature, so it's still their default.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

They're a bang-up option for archetyping into as they don't have any significant feats or class abilities you're looking forward to that would be delayed. That's about it though. They fulfill little enough of the old wizard niche that I'd say they weren't so much nerfed as removed.


Squiggit wrote:
Temperans wrote:


Also while looking apparently eschew materials is a Wizard exclusive, when it originally was a Sorcerer default.
Sorcerers get a better version of Eschew baked into their casting feature, so it's still their default.

I was pointing it out as more of a, "oh another thing for the 'what's different from pf1?'" thread.


Excaliburproxy wrote:
Donovan Du Bois wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
Donovan Du Bois wrote:
Unicore wrote:
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.
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.
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.

He has three first level spells, that's only one an encounter.


Donovan Du Bois wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
Donovan Du Bois wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
Donovan Du Bois wrote:
Unicore wrote:
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.
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.
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.
He has three first level spells, that's only one an encounter.

Plus his focus spell, of course. 3 level 1 spells and a focus spell is already more then a level 1 wizard got in 1e, especially when you consider that your combat cantrips already more or less outstrip 1e's old lv 1 school powers.

Still, I can get feeling a little underwhelmed at level 1 in general.


That's a matter of 1st level being higher power in PF2. PF1 lv1 is brutal remember the whole "a cat can kill you" thing?

Also I believe part of the reason why they increased lv1 cantrip damage was because of the bonus HP characters get now; Which normalizes the damage. If they didnt increase the power casters would feel even worse. The alternative is that they increased early HP because they decided to increase cantrip damage (and the fact everyone can land at least 2 attacks easily).

* P.S. can you imagine if everyone can make 2 attacks for 1d8, but cantrips are stuck at 1d3 for 2 action? That sounds like a non option, might as well not exist nerf.


Excaliburproxy wrote:
Donovan Du Bois wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
Donovan Du Bois wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
Donovan Du Bois wrote:
Unicore wrote:
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.
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.
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.
He has three first level spells, that's only one an encounter.

Plus his focus spell, of course. 3 level 1 spells and a focus spell is already more then a level 1 wizard got in 1e, especially when you consider that your combat cantrips already more or less outstrip 1e's old lv 1 school powers.

Still, I can get feeling a little underwhelmed at level 1 in general.

That's at level 2, all casters except sorcerers only get two 1st level spells at level 1.


One of my players (I'm usually the DM on PF2 currently) wants to try how middle level plays, so a new campaign with him as DM is about to begin. The idea is something similar to Dragon Quest video-games, so an evil overlord, many monster, not much intrigue. And many of those games have a wise old man on the character roster, so I decided to do a wise, old, and caring Dwarf Wizard. As a caring and compassionate person, I decided Abjurer.
The process of doing the character was shocking. "An Abjurer wizard that don't approach melee and is on the back of the party protecting his companions" seems quite usual. Let's look at the low level wizard feats...
-I don't want a familiar, I don't see it. That takes out familiar feats.
-I'm an Abjurer, so the others specialist feat are not useful. That takes out all those Universalist spells.
-The campaign will have few social/intrigue parts, so I pass on feats that works there.
- I will be allergic to melee. Countermagic requires a miracle to work (the same exactly spell).
That takes out near all the feats available at low levels; Widen spell and little else. This has been the first time I have seriously considered taking a dedication, not because the character concept, but because I can't find enough interesting feats on the main class¡
On the other hand, while I was surprised for the extremely specific nature of so many Wizard feats, I don't find it a serious problem. With more books there will be more available options.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Donovan Du Bois wrote:


That's at level 2, all casters except sorcerers only get two 1st level spells at level 1.

Wizards get 2 + 1 school spell + drain bonded item at level 1. That's double other casters, and one more than the sorcerer. Plus like the others they possibly have a decent focus spell available. Universalists are behind until level 3 when they start getting additional uses of drain bonded item.

Honestly, that's where I put the wizard's 'niche'. They have the most spells, from the most versatile spell list. Half of their feats are about getting even more spells, and the other half are about making those spells better.

Combine that with spell blending and you have the caster with the absolute most high level slots available. Combine it with spell substitution and you have the caster who can get several castings of just the right spell with a ten minute break.


Donovan Du Bois wrote:
That's at level 2, all casters except sorcerers only get two 1st level spells at level 1.

Wizards get Arcane Bond and Drain bonded Item. They can recast any 1 spell they cast that day. Specialist Wizards get 3 spells at level 1, plus Drain bonded item for 4 1st level spells per day at level 1.

Clerics get healing font, which means they have 2 plus a heal or harm, so 3 slots at 1st.

Bards get their composition cantrips which can be used an unlimited time per fight, and are arguably better than normal cantrips, as 1 action for 1 round AoE heroism-like effect is better than many 1st level spells. But it is true they only get 2 1st level spell slots.

Druids are about the only ones who might not have the greatest focus spell and only 2 spell slots at 1st.

Alaryth wrote:

The process of doing the character was shocking. "An Abjurer wizard that don't approach melee and is on the back of the party protecting his companions" seems quite usual. Let's look at the low level wizard feats...

-I don't want a familiar, I don't see it. That takes out familiar feats.
-I'm an Abjurer, so the others specialist feat are not useful. That takes out all those Universalist spells.
-The campaign will have few social/intrigue parts, so I pass on feats that works there.
- I will be allergic to melee. Countermagic requires a miracle to work (the same exactly spell).
That takes out near all the feats available at low levels; Widen spell and little else. This has been the first time I have seriously considered taking a dedication, not because the character concept, but because I can't find enough interesting feats on the main class¡
On the other hand, while I was surprised for the extremely specific nature of so many Wizard feats, I don't find it a serious problem. With more books there will be more available options.

Personally, I'd put reach spell on the list of low level things to take. If I want to be at the back of the party, that strikes me as the highest priority feat to take. It converts your touch buff spells to 30 foot range, and makes your 30 foot "I'm within 1 move of melee spells" into 60 foot range spells so you're only "within 2 moves of melee".

Also, the developers have stated its a mistake for specialists to get a 1st level wizard feat. Their school focus spell is nominally their "1st level feat replacement". So once the errata is out, a Dwarven abjurer would take widen (or reach) at 2nd level.
A mid to late level focused dwarven Abjurer build might be:
2nd Reach Spell
4th Widen Spell
6th Spell Penetration
8th Advanced School Spell (Energy Absorption)
10th Scroll Savant


I mean, "Wait for more books so my character is fun" is something that afflicted a great number of non-wizard classes in the last edition, which nonetheless ended up pretty decent so this is not an unworkable situation.

When designing a new edition, without knowing what those things are, it's probably wisest to err on the side of making the weakest things from the old edition too strong and the strongest things from the old edition too weak. Which is why the CRB rogue and fighter are now excellent and the wizard is a bit underwhelming.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, "Wait for more books so my character is fun" is something that afflicted a great number of non-wizard classes in the last edition, which nonetheless ended up pretty decent so this is not an unworkable situation.

When designing a new edition, without knowing what those things are, it's probably wisest to err on the side of making the weakest things from the old edition too strong and the strongest things from the old edition too weak. Which is why the CRB rogue and fighter are now excellent and the wizard is a bit underwhelming.

Yeah, I can agree with that. I think they really are are some reality to affirm they are underpowered, but is not something that really worries me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Excaliburproxy wrote:
Donovan Du Bois wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
Donovan Du Bois wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
Donovan Du Bois wrote:
Unicore wrote:
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.
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.
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.
He has three first level spells, that's only one an encounter.

Plus his focus spell, of course. 3 level 1 spells and a focus spell is already more then a level 1 wizard got in 1e, especially when you consider that your combat cantrips already more or less outstrip 1e's old lv 1 school powers.

Still, I can get feeling a little underwhelmed at level 1 in general.

That would be incorrect.

Base Wizard 1 Slot
Specialization 1 Slot (Two if you're Azlanti, although you lose the school power)
Bonus From Stats 1 Slot (Two if you're at 20+)
Bonded Item 1 Spell Per Day (at 1st level it's 1 extra spell) [There's also the fact that a 1E item allows the casting of any spell in the wizard's book, instead of functioning as a pearl of power]
School Power X per day (effects vary by school, the Evoker one is pretty closely matched at level 1 given that it doesn't take a 10 minute rest to recharge the 1E version so you can use it multiple times in succession)

This gives a 1st level Wizard 4-6 spells per day, access to an unprepared emergency spell, and potentially a useful per day use school power. A 2E wizard is considerably less flexible and less powerful although they do potentially have the ability to adventure for longer via cantrips although I find the repeated cantrip use extremely boring. "Roll reflex. Take 1d4+4 damage. Is where I'm standing within 15' of the Champion for protection? That's my turn."
Cantrips do outstrip the power of 1E cantrips, however, the change in how action economy and AoO's makes that a different story than just a flat comparison.

I'm currently playing an Evoker in Age of Ashes. We're about 80% of the way through the first 'dungeon' of book 1 and I'm feeling extremely underwhelmed. With the lack of ability to manage AoE's hitting my allies my options are essentially Magic Missile or Cantrips with the utility spells feeling absurdly lackluster as they generally last only for a single fight, or even round, which makes me feel like a glorified potion rather than a wizard. Looking ahead it appears that things might be better down the road but I'm already hoping that they'll release some cool magic user archetypes because -at least for a blaster- wizard feats are...meh for most the game and I'm very unexcited by the changes (or removal) to utility spells where previously the buff/debuff wizard was my absolute preferred play style.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

... how did beginning Wizards in P1 manage their AOEs?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mabtik wrote:
I'm currently playing an Evoker in Age of Ashes. We're about 80% of the way through the first 'dungeon' of book 1 and I'm feeling extremely underwhelmed. With the lack of ability to manage AoE's hitting my allies my options are essentially Magic Missile or Cantrips with the utility spells feeling absurdly lackluster as they generally last only for a single fight, or even round, which makes me feel like a glorified potion rather than a wizard. Looking ahead it appears that things might be better down the road but I'm already hoping that they'll release some cool magic user archetypes because -at least for a blaster- wizard feats are...meh for most the game and I'm very unexcited by the changes (or removal) to utility spells where previously the buff/debuff wizard was my absolute preferred play style.

I've never been a fan of the evoker, but at low levels all wizards have always been pretty lackluster haven't they? PF1 Wizards would be using a crossbow instead of cantrips which is even less thematic or interesting. Meta magic feats in PF1 were even more useless to a low level wizard than in PF2 and most of the must have ones have essentially been built into spell casting with heightening covering both heighten spell and maximize spell with no additional investment.

It took 8 years for PF1 to have any offering for wizards to do concealed spell casting short of having to get silent spell and then have them take up higher level spells. Now you can get concealed spell casting by level 2 and you can use silent spell on cantrips and even focus spells with the right components.

PF2 has remarkable versatility with what spell casters can do, a lot of it is just very subtle and more thoughtful planing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
... how did beginning Wizards in P1 manage their AOEs?

At level one people didn't move as much. The added mobility of every piece on the map has made it unexpectedly difficult to manage to catch multiple people in AoEs (and not due to the DM deliberately making it difficult, just how it plays out), then at later levels via either using the Select Spell feat or rod. I haven't been able to find the PF2 equivalent yet although it may be coming in later books which is why I'm hoping they add some useful things.

@Unicore because I forgot how to multi-quote-
I'd actually rather use a regular crossbow than a reflavored magic crossbow, although it was usually a single heavy crossbow shot at the start of the combat followed by spells as I had more per day to use. And as I stated previously Evoker normally isn't my first choice for most effective wizard but I wasn't terribly thrilled with the options for buff/debuff in PF2 after the play test so I decided to try an Evoker to see how they work out. In theory with Spell Blending, Wands, and the temporary scrolls class feat I think I'll be able to lay out a fair amount of chaff clearing blasts at later levels; but there's something to be said about how underwhelming I've felt so far. Right now I feel like an Electric Arc/Ray of Frost turret. Although at least on the first round I get to use my third action to make a recall lore check, how exciting!


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean, to each their own but I think you're the first person I've ever spoken to who's told me they'd rather plink away with a crossbow than actually do magic on their wizard (not including people actually trying to build battlemages).


You still could use a heavy crossbow for your first round attack, only you could tag on a focus spell, or even cast another spell.

If cantrips feel boring, do something else.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

You can multi-quote in here? Interesting.


For multi-quote just copy paste manually and use the code they have at the bottom (where it says "show").

At least that's how I understood it.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Well, sure, you can do that. I thought he was talking about an automated way of doing it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
james014Aura wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:

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.

Yes. A bard has a feat path called Polymath. This allows them to pick up spells from other spell lists and use them as an occult spell. It also allows them to do that with skills. I even picked up electric arc using a half-elven feat as an additional cantrip.

Generally I use Harmonize with Inspire Defense and Inspire Courage. Not many classes can boost the party with two cantrips in a 60 radius.

Bards are more versatile. As are druids. Try them. Druid does have access to fireball and can shapeshift or have an animal companion that can attack without using spell slots.

Give the bard a read. Their feats are far more interesting. They even have a composition that can haste someone every round at higher level.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Deriven Firelion wrote:
james014Aura wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:

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.

Yes. A bard has a feat path called Polymath. This allows them to pick up spells from other spell lists and use them as an occult spell.

What feats do this? I'm not finding them atm.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
What feats do this? I'm not finding them atm.

Impossible Polymath lets you add spells from other traditions to your spellbook, one of which you can add to your spell repertoire each day.

It's limited to one spell per day though and it's a level 18 feat.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Squiggit wrote:
Rysky wrote:
What feats do this? I'm not finding them atm.

Impossible Polymath lets you add spells from other traditions to your spellbook, one of which you can add to your spell repertoire each day.

It's limited to one spell per day though and it's a level 18 feat.

...


Bards are quite good. However I thought the trade off for not having the bardic cantrips was more spell slots and spells known. Sorcerers and wizards get 33% more spells per day than bards. Sorcerers also know 33% more spells, while wizards are limited only by their gold and time in terms of spells known.

Bards have solid options when they're out of spells, but wizards can go 33% longer before requiring to use their cantrips. So at low levels bards are likely to perform better (since everyone gets so few spell slots), but even by level 6 or so, there is some reason to want to play a wizard or sorcerer. At 6th, a wizard's 12 spell slots is 3 spells per fight assuming 4 fights. A bard's 9 spell slots is only 2 spells per fight assuming 4 fights.

So do you want good buff cantrips or do you want more powerful and varied spell slots? Sounds like personal preference to me.

Deriven Firelion wrote:
They even have a composition that can haste someone every round at higher level.

As for Allegro, its a 14th level feat, which requires the target to be within 30 feet to continue to benefit round after round, and it eats 1 of your actions each round. So no net action economy for the party. In general, using a 3rd level spell slot for haste on the 1st turn will be more efficient, or even a 7th level heightened haste for the entire party. You've got 21 spell slots. Might as well use a few per fight to be more efficient.

True Hypercognition or Soothing ballad strike me as better choices for 14th level feats, expanding capabilities rather than giving you an inferior backup option to a spell you've likely had already for 9 levels.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Although the high-level feats technically mean I was wrong:
1) that happens so late it doesn't matter for vesatility unless you start at a high level.
2) fireball is just one blast of many.
3) I am not disputing that bards are versatile. It's just that Arcane casters have versatility in spades.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My players think that the new cantrips make it worth taking them.


Hiruma Kai wrote:

Bards are quite good. However I thought the trade off for not having the bardic cantrips was more spell slots and spells known. Sorcerers and wizards get 33% more spells per day than bards. Sorcerers also know 33% more spells, while wizards are limited only by their gold and time in terms of spells known.

Bards have solid options when they're out of spells, but wizards can go 33% longer before requiring to use their cantrips. So at low levels bards are likely to perform better (since everyone gets so few spell slots), but even by level 6 or so, there is some reason to want to play a wizard or sorcerer. At 6th, a wizard's 12 spell slots is 3 spells per fight assuming 4 fights. A bard's 9 spell slots is only 2 spells per fight assuming 4 fights.

So do you want good buff cantrips or do you want more powerful and varied spell slots? Sounds like personal preference to me.

If the spells were really powerful and varied compared to the Occult List and didn't allow saves every round or complete no damage saves, then I would be in agreement. But the "powerful" spells have a lot of limitations. And 1st level bard cantrips are quite useful and can be boosted for one focus point to a level that is quite good.

Quote:


As for Allegro, its a 14th level feat, which requires the target to be within 30 feet to continue to benefit round after round, and it eats 1 of your actions each round. So no net action economy for the party. In general, using a 3rd level spell slot for haste on the 1st turn will be more efficient, or even a 7th level heightened haste for the entire party. You've got 21 spell slots. Might as well use a few per fight to be more efficient.

True Hypercognition or Soothing ballad strike me as better choices for 14th level feats, expanding capabilities rather than giving you an inferior backup option to a spell you've likely had already for 9 levels.

Giving an extra strike or move per round to two people isn't bad at all. Or giving an extra action and hasting one person can do quite a bit damage. You can still launch a powerful spell on occasion given Occult spells are pretty powerful at high level as well, but you also have the option of not spending a spell slot to haste someone or boost them every round. At higher levels that may do more damage than a damage cantrip they get a save for.

It's situational, but you don't lack for powerful spells if you don't feel like using a cantrip. Look at the high level occult spells. They aren't bad at all. You can one extra from your polymath book every day of any level.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

One thing to remember about PF2 is that it is a collaborative game and that sometimes the value of certain feats and abilities don't really become apparent until you consider them in combination with a party.

For a wizard specific example, AOE damage and debuff spells like burning hands or even glitter dust, can feel pretty lack luster. But if the wizard picks up widen spell they can really affect a pretty large number of enemies. However, that usually comes at the cost of moving in a round, which can make targeting them all very difficult.

However, if the party is built around moving and immobilizing enemies, or around granting allies move actions as a reaction, then suddenly a first level wizard with burning hands can be in position to light up 4 or more enemies at once.

Sure a druid or a sorcerer can benefit from this as well, but the wizard doesn't have to go all in on a single spell or few spells like a sorcerer, and will be casting many more spells per day than the druid (by class and potentially thesis), as well as either having widen spell at first level (through thesis or human), or be able to switch spells out quickly (through thesis) meaning that they can take advantage of their versatility better.

There are so many ways for different ancestries and classes to synergize as a party in PF2 it is pretty awesome. The wizard is in a pretty good situation to be able to adapt to the rest of the party in play, whereas a lot of other mega-caster builds require the party to adapt around them, which can be difficult to do, or make the rest of the party feel like their characters are second fiddle.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:

One thing to remember about PF2 is that it is a collaborative game and that sometimes the value of certain feats and abilities don't really become apparent until you consider them in combination with a party.

For a wizard specific example, AOE damage and debuff spells like burning hands or even glitter dust, can feel pretty lack luster. But if the wizard picks up widen spell they can really affect a pretty large number of enemies. However, that usually comes at the cost of moving in a round, which can make targeting them all very difficult.

However, if the party is built around moving and immobilizing enemies, or around granting allies move actions as a reaction, then suddenly a first level wizard with burning hands can be in position to light up 4 or more enemies at once.

Sure a druid or a sorcerer can benefit from this as well, but the wizard doesn't have to go all in on a single spell or few spells like a sorcerer, and will be casting many more spells per day than the druid (by class and potentially thesis), as well as either having widen spell at first level (through thesis or human), or be able to switch spells out quickly (through thesis) meaning that they can take advantage of their versatility better.

There are so many ways for different ancestries and classes to synergize as a party in PF2 it is pretty awesome. The wizard is in a pretty good situation to be able to adapt to the rest of the party in play, whereas a lot of other mega-caster builds require the party to adapt around them, which can be difficult to do, or make the rest of the party feel like their characters are second fiddle.

Let me give you a real example comparing the bard and wizard.

As a wizard I would cast a damage cantrip or daze and erect a shield or maybe do a ranged attack nearly every round. I never used by Necromancy focus spell that I could use 1 time per 10 minutes to maybe give a target enfeeble one for a turn. I might work in a [b]burning hands[/i] or sleep on occasion, which may work or may not. sleep started working less as I leveled due to the incapacitate trait unless I wanted to use a higher level slot. Even fireball was moderately effective on occasion.

As a bard I have the following options:

1. harmonize and inspire courage and inspire defense for +1 to every major combat stat and half-level resistance to physical damage to everyone in a 60 foot emanation.

2. Inspire Courage or Inspire Defense as needed with:

A. A 2 action spell.

B. A 2 action cantrip

C. Two Attacks

D. A move and attack.

E. Any other ability that requires 1 or 2 actions.

Occult spells can be good at control as well.

I have all these options as a bard and I still get to provide the party with a substantial and useful boost in any given situation.

From a player perspective, I felt fairly useless as a wizard over the long-term. I was not providing a substantial boost to the party very often. My focus spell was something I never used because it was so utterly pointless.

As a bard I feel like I provide an extremely useful bonus every round. I even used my soothe spell to heal a party member near dying while boosting the party with inspire defense. When the party needed some damage, I used inspire courage while damaging the target with telekinetic projectile. And the inspire courage improved my telekinetic projectile damage.

How can you even compare a one time per 10 minute use of a sickening ray versus Inspire courage and/or Inspire Defense over the course of an adventuring day?

And the cleric's healing is so powerful at this point, they have a clear and powerful niche as well.

If we were using the old tier system, the wizard would be on the bottom tier. Though this is amusing from the standpoint of martials who have been in that position for years, it kind of sucks for wizard lovers. Or maybe the bard is too powerful in a group setting and overshadows the other non-healer casters.


14 people marked this as a favorite.

If nothing else (and actually, plenty else), they nerfed the fun of wizards. They took the magic out of spellcasting. Maybe, on paper, it works out to be useful to cast a spell and result in a -1 to hit and ac for a round, but a person reading the name "Fear" as a spell probably imagines a more interesting result. Enemies flee in terror before you. Actual game: enemy (singular) suffers a slight debuff for a moment.

Or Paralyze! I can paralyze my foes. This enemy dungeon lord will be frozen, and we can strike when his defenses are lowered. Actual game: he's more likely to crit succeed than to succeed, and success is that he loses 1 action (for your two + spell slot), and even if he fails (can't crit fail, 5-10% chance of failing), he has -2 ac and loses actions for 6 seconds.

Fly! I can fly across the land... for 5 minutes.

Unseen servant! My butler will cook for me... but it takes a lot of concentration on my part, and he only lasts 9 minutes 54 seconds.

Floating disc? A magical mule replacement... but it lasts 8 hours, and holds 2.5 longbows.

Feather fall sounds neat. I can save my.. friend. Singular. No heighten.

See invisible. Still concealed to you though.

Mage armor? Still dex capped :) Also, just put a rune on your clothes.

Darkvision level 2: don't bother casting, cave elf. (why is this self?)

Deafness, weird, but could be useful. Oh, it lasts 10 minutes on a failure.

Blindness sounds neat. Oh, incapacitate.

Augment summoning? I can make my Creature -1 broom slightly better? I guess that's ok. Except, due to sustain, and 3-action summons, this prevents you from casting a useful spell on the second round (assuming your always low CR summon survived the first round). The best damage I've seen from a summon was when it was summoned 30 ft up and dropped onto a creature.

Couple the crumminess of these spells, with the level range limitation caused by hit/ac/save bump per level (a bad decision, hopefully the GMG gives thorough rules on removing it), and you're unlikely to get the actual, interesting result. Instead, you debuff the enemy a little. And with 1 minute durations for most spells, you're reactively spending your first turn or two casting any buffs, if you bother to at all.

The effects and durations of spells seem so much worse, and many of the potentially fun ones have their levels raised, or are on the uncommon list now. I don't know where the idea that wizards were gods came from. I ran a fair bit of pathfinder, and while the wizards were always interesting, it was the martials the broke the game. I'm sure there were combinations of things that lead to trouble, but the answer isn't to turn wizards into knob adjusters, who slightly turn the combat difficulty down (-1 to this, +1 to that, vs some more qualitative effect).

I guess I'm a little sour on it. I'm not even playing, only running games. But wizards just don't seem very fun anymore.

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

The most random thing to zero in on on your post I'll admit, but Unseen Servant being able to cook is a lot more than what it could do previously, which was basically push/pull/open/carry and clean.

As for altering the all-or-nothing instant lose spells to be more commonly debuffs than fight enders, that's healthy for the system and games.

I've never seen a martial break the game either, in the way that spellcasters can anyway.


14 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

In P1E, it was the martials who broke the fights. Every damned time. On the other hand, it was the casters who broke the narrative.

Everyone had a grand time doing all sorts of interesting things...except the GM. The GM just cried all the time for some reason. It was weird.

Not seeing any of those things in P2E. Yet somehow, martials remain fun, casters remain fun (for me at least), and even GMing is fun now too.

Grand Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I think Ravingdork's report is the most solid evidence that I will enjoy PF2. I trust his analysis.

In PF1, I just had a CR14 creature run through three fights with a party of 9th-11th characters. When it lost initiative to the martials, it got one action before being finished off. When it won initiative on the party, the fight lasted 5 rounds thanks to SLAs. When it lost initiative to the caster, it never got to act.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

After 2 completed and 2 ongoing PF1 campaigns I can attest that PF1 is a game about building your character and winning the Initiative roll. Everything else just rolls on from that with negligible variance.


I have yet to be able to play a caster in PF2 as a player, but I am planning on being a wizard in the age of ashes AP when my party finishes fall of plaguestone. Maybe i’ll Rescind my excitement, but I feel like both the illusionist and the diviner have so much to offer I am struggling to chose between them. I understand why folks are having fun with the bard and Druid. But neither is the master of arcane knowledge and spellcraft. The wizard of PF2 still fits that mold for me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Rysky wrote:
The most random thing to zero in on on your post I'll admit, but Unseen Servant being able to cook is a lot more than what it could do previously, which was basically push/pull/open/carry and clean.

Except for the 10 minute duration which isn't enough to cook anything, really. Some Eggs, I guess. 1 steak, unless it has to do prep. Unseen Servant needs errata to be sustained for up to eight hours if its going to be remotely usable in its classic sense.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
I think Ravingdork's report is the most solid evidence that I will enjoy PF2. I trust his analysis.

Though I appreciate that, you may want to take it with a grain of salt for the time being. Im still mostly armchair theorizing at this point. So far I've only had the opportunity to host two games of 3rd-level characters as a GM. I have no experience yet as a player, and have not been exposed to any actual play of higher level outside the Knights of Everflame Paizo vlog.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I keep meaning to watch that. And failing. :-(


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Ed Reppert wrote:
I keep meaning to watch that. And failing. :-(

For showing what P2E is capable of, it's positively fantastic.

Just last night I watched an encounter

minor spoiler:
in which the heroes fought a giant snake off a lake shore. The fighter charged in and was subsequently bitten and grabbed by the snake. The snake then transferred the fighter to its coils, freeing up its bite attack. When the fighter attempted to escape, the snake reacted by tightening its coils, constricting him so tightly that he blacked out (mind you this wasn't from hp loss, but a monster ability in action).

The barbarian and cleric ran into the fray to try and save their companion, fearing the snake would drag him deeper into the lake, but since the snake had freed up its bite, it was able to use the water to its advantage and fend off the barbarian with a nasty fang-filled crit (quite nearly swallowing her whole). The cleric was trying to maneuver closer to provide healing to her companions, but was having a hard time of it due to standing in waist-high water.

Meanwhile, the party ranger pelted it with arrows from the shore, getting a lucky critical and pinning the snake in place with an arrow, preventing it from withdrawing with its meal.

Finally, just as the cleric got close enough to heal her companions, the snake lashed out with its tail (which had reach) and knocked her back onto the shore like a bowling pin, stymying her attempts at a rescue.

I won't spoil the ending of the encounter for you, but needless to say, it was VERY harrowing and absolutely chock full of interesting mechanics at work! And that was just a big simple snake too! Imagine what other creatures and characters might be able to do. It boggles the mind.


Regarding Floating Disk.

If I understood the new version correctly, it's impossible to use the Magic Trick (Floating Disk) feat (as originally written or simple conversion). Because Floating Disk now ends if: You ride it, lift/force it above 3ft, or if it goes over 5 bulk (before was 100 lbs/lv). You can't even use it to hold liquid as there is a clause about "needing to balance".

Now maybe the feat will alter that, but Magic Trick was already a huge feat. Which would mean splitting, which then makes it a huge feat tax.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Kasoh wrote:
Rysky wrote:
The most random thing to zero in on on your post I'll admit, but Unseen Servant being able to cook is a lot more than what it could do previously, which was basically push/pull/open/carry and clean.
Except for the 10 minute duration which isn't enough to cook anything, really. Some Eggs, I guess. 1 steak, unless it has to do prep. Unseen Servant needs errata to be sustained for up to eight hours if its going to be remotely usable in its classic sense.

Nah.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
Ed Reppert wrote:
I keep meaning to watch that. And failing. :-(

For showing what P2E is capable of, it's positively fantastic.

Just last night I watched an encounter ** spoiler omitted **

That is very cool. :-)


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:

Regarding Floating Disk.

If I understood the new version correctly, it's impossible to use the Magic Trick (Floating Disk) feat (as originally written or simple conversion). Because Floating Disk now ends if: You ride it, lift/force it above 3ft, or if it goes over 5 bulk (before was 100 lbs/lv). You can't even use it to hold liquid as there is a clause about "needing to balance".

Now maybe the feat will alter that, but Magic Trick was already a huge feat. Which would mean splitting, which then makes it a huge feat tax.

If you buy and feed a donkey, you can gain the benefits that are greater than the effect of floating disk any number of times per day.

Q.E.D. Donkeys should be banned or at least made uncommon.


Temperans wrote:

Regarding Floating Disk.

If I understood the new version correctly, it's impossible to use the Magic Trick (Floating Disk) feat (as originally written or simple conversion). Because Floating Disk now ends if: You ride it, lift/force it above 3ft, or if it goes over 5 bulk (before was 100 lbs/lv). You can't even use it to hold liquid as there is a clause about "needing to balance".

Now maybe the feat will alter that, but Magic Trick was already a huge feat. Which would mean splitting, which then makes it a huge feat tax.

I doubt that feat would ever be brought in whole sale for PF2. More likely a few skill feats and/or a dedication archetype focused around using specific utility spells in an odd manner for combat.

701 to 750 of 954 << first < prev | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Did wizards get nerfed? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.