Did wizards get nerfed?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

751 to 800 of 954 << first < prev | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
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.

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.

Anyone who refuses to play along with the rest of the group or go on the adventure that you planned can break the game. I've had more difficulty, over the decades, with a first level rouge or bard trying to pick every pocket in town or seduce the nuns at the local monastery than I've had with a wizard breaking reality.

I did have a druid in 3.5 that photo copied every single druid spell in the game into one big tome, so you never knew which of his thousand+ spells he was going to prepare for the day. That was a pain in the butt to try and plan around.

Silver Crusade

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

That kinda exemplifies the point about spellcasters breaking stuff :3

And Wizards, Druids, Sorcerers can totally go around seducing people. Especially the latter, dat Charisma.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well if its prepared then you should know what spells they are. But then specifically countering those spells is bad. Also what difference is 1 big tome of druid spells vs clerics who dont even need to write it down in the first place?

Or do you mean he irl made a time of all druid spells? In which case that kind of sounds awesome.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I think Wizard looks *very* appealing, getting a hold of Spell Blending, Scroll Savant, the Universal Item Bond, and maybe even a familiar with spell battery means quite a lot of magical power on a regular basis.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

it's just weird, it seems a lot of utility spells are just better done by things you spend money on, which is weird magic should be money savers.

it's not really a problem with the classes, just the spells are kinda on the unimpressive side.

The Exchange

I'm really surprised I haven't seen the new Scrolls come up as a counterpoint in these nerf threads. I know it'll take some getting used to but now that all of a caster's relevant stats apply to them, they're actually viable for combat use and not just utility.

If you're a caster you definitely need to grab Magical Crafting at level 2 and churn out batches of scrolls in downtime and a 10th level Wizard can grab Scroll Savant to create extra spells each morning.

It's true that there are fewer slots overall but I think that may have been a factor of rebalancing stuff like scrolls and wands using your relevant stats.


Scrolls and Wands can be used by anyone, it just requires the Trick Magic Item skill feat which isnt hard to get. It's also much easier to use than PF1, since there are no requirements or extra emulate rolls (from what I understood); It says GM determines DC so there might be some table variation (but no 20+spell lv).


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Eoni wrote:
If you're a caster you definitely need to grab Magical Crafting at level 2 and churn out batches of scrolls in downtime and a 10th level Wizard can grab Scroll Savant to create extra spells each morning.

Only rogues can qualify for magical crafting at level 2.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Eoni wrote:

I'm really surprised I haven't seen the new Scrolls come up as a counterpoint in these nerf threads. I know it'll take some getting used to but now that all of a caster's relevant stats apply to them, they're actually viable for combat use and not just utility.

If you're a caster you definitely need to grab Magical Crafting at level 2 and churn out batches of scrolls in downtime and a 10th level Wizard can grab Scroll Savant to create extra spells each morning.

It's true that there are fewer slots overall but I think that may have been a factor of rebalancing stuff like scrolls and wands using your relevant stats.

Ugh. I didn't notice that the Scribe Scroll feat was removed since the playtest, since Hero Lab still had it up until a week or so ago.

Is Magical Crafting, and being expert in Crafting, truly the only way to scribe scrolls now?


Scroll Savant (Wizard 10) let's you craft 2 scrolls of different spells of 2 levels lower than your max. And maybe the Scrollstaff, not sure if it still requires magical crafting.

The Exchange

Ravingdork wrote:
Eoni wrote:
If you're a caster you definitely need to grab Magical Crafting at level 2 and churn out batches of scrolls in downtime and a 10th level Wizard can grab Scroll Savant to create extra spells each morning.
Only rogues can qualify for magical crafting at level 2.

Huh, you know what I just noticed that Expert rank qualification. It looks like they did lock everyone except the Rogue out till level 4.

Removing Scribe Scroll was probably not the best idea but my general point about Wizards leaning into scrolls still stands. You get them as loot or can pick them up in town to help supplement your reduced slots.

The Exchange

Temperans wrote:
Scroll Savant (Wizard 10) let's you craft 2 scrolls of different spells of 2 levels lower than your max. And maybe the Scrollstaff, not sure if it still requires magical crafting.

Scroll Savant requires Expert in Crafting as well but at least it improves with your spell casting proficiency. 2 scrolls to start then 3 when you reach master proficiency at 15 and then 4 when you reach legendary at 19.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

You can take Magical Crafter as your general feat at 3rd level if you have expert crafting.

The Exchange

thewastedwalrus wrote:
You can take Magical Crafter as your general feat at 3rd level if you have expert crafting.

Ah, right. I forget you can pick up skill feats as General feats. There's one little problem there though in you'd be stuck with that as a General feat till you can retrain it at level 4 and pick it up as a skill feat. I guess that's less of a real issue though and just one of those tough decisions you have to make when feat juggling. I think I'll take advantage of this though when I build my Wizard.


To be fair, there isn't many General feats you really need as a Wizard. Only Fleet is kinda useful, everything else is nice-to-have but hardly critical.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
NemoNoName wrote:
To be fair, there isn't many General feats you really need as a Wizard. Only Fleet is kinda useful, everything else is nice-to-have but hardly critical.

For now anyways. As more options are released, this may well change.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
For now anyways. As more options are released, this may well change.

And we are discussing now, not some imaginary future.

Also, there's plenty of ways now to get Expert in Crafting on level 2 via taking various Archetypes.

The Exchange

NemoNoName wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
For now anyways. As more options are released, this may well change.

And we are discussing now, not some imaginary future.

Also, there's plenty of ways now to get Expert in Crafting on level 2 via taking various Archetypes.

Yeah you kind of just sold me on the Pathfinder Agent archetype since Wizards aren't so feat intensive.

It is a bit of a paradigm shift though. Before I would've never thought to scroll my combat spells but now four scrolls of fireball sound pretty attractive.


NemoNoName wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
For now anyways. As more options are released, this may well change.

And we are discussing now, not some imaginary future.

Also, there's plenty of ways now to get Expert in Crafting on level 2 via taking various Archetypes.

So what you are saying is - that right now - Wizards have no feats worth taking at all at level 3 - so they should go for a skill feat instead - because that's actually useful.

Well it's nice that you participated in what the thread is about - in a odd way - but that does go to show how lackluster wizard feats are I guess.

I mean... "When everyone else agonizes over cool choices your best option is to go for a skill feat!" at least makes me feel like the thread topic is on point.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ckorik wrote:

So what you are saying is - that right now - Wizards have no feats worth taking at all at level 3 - so they should go for a skill feat instead - because that's actually useful.

Well it's nice that you participated in what the thread is about - in a odd way - but that does go to show how lackluster wizard feats are I guess.

I mean... "When everyone else agonizes over cool choices your best option is to go for a skill feat!" at least makes me feel like the thread topic is on point.

This has been my position from the start.

It's more impressive Ravingdork admitted as much.


Ckorik wrote:
but that does go to show how lackluster wizard feats are I guess.

While I don't disagree that wizard feats are boring and often lackluster, just to clarify, at level 3 you get a general feat, not a class feat.

Incredible Initiative is probably my favorite choice for that level. Toughness, maybe if you're trying to play a frontliner/battlemage (except not really because gish wizards have all their general feats devoured by PF2's dumpster fire of a proficiency system).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Who's agonizing over cool choices with their general feat? There's hardly anything worth considering in that category that isn't a skill feat or a numbers bump (IE toughness).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

The General feats in the CRB are just pretty lackluster. Regardless of class there are often cases where you are better served by a skill feat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Ckorik wrote:
NemoNoName wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
For now anyways. As more options are released, this may well change.

And we are discussing now, not some imaginary future.

Also, there's plenty of ways now to get Expert in Crafting on level 2 via taking various Archetypes.

So what you are saying is - that right now - Wizards have no feats worth taking at all at level 3 - so they should go for a skill feat instead - because that's actually useful.

Well it's nice that you participated in what the thread is about - in a odd way - but that does go to show how lackluster wizard feats are I guess.

I mean... "When everyone else agonizes over cool choices your best option is to go for a skill feat!" at least makes me feel like the thread topic is on point.

Nope, the trick with magical crafting and the creation of scrolls is that its roughly as good as the kinds of scrolls you can create, meaning its as good as the spells you know- (except you can just create them and shove them in your bag until they come up, so they don't have to take up a prepared daily slot, which is nice for the more niche spells) functionally it "amplifies" the wizard class features. This seems to be an intended design as one of the bullet points for exploration reads:

"You locate magical auras and determine the arcane significance of magical writing or phenomena you uncover. When you run across an unusual obstacle to further exploration, you probably have a scroll that will make it easier to overcome."

A bullet point for wizard downtime reads:

"You learn new spells, craft magic items, or scribe scrolls for your party, and seek out new and exciting formulas in addition to spells. You might even forge scholarly connections and establish a school or guild of your own."

In both cases we see that scrolls are part of a Wizard's basic design, you might argue that it isn't a wizard exclusive class feature, but they're certainly the best at it- they learn a large number of spells from the most diverse spell list (and therefore can create the largest variety of scrolls), they use the crafting stat (intelligence) as their primary so unlike a sorcerer or cleric or druid or bard they aren't paying any extra cost with their ability boosts to be good at it, and we see that they have class feats that revolve around scrolls (Scroll Savant, being the one that comes to mind.)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
but they're certainly the best at it- they learn a large number of spells from the most diverse spell list

Ish. The arcane list is fantastic, but how many spells a Wizard knows is kind of limited by the nature of the campaign and that's not really something that should be glossed over.

A level 3 wizard, for instance, is only guaranteed to know seven first level spells and two second level spells while a druid is going to have 29 and 37 instead. Even Sorcerers are going to know more top level spells than Wizards at odd levels (and the same at even levels).

To close the gap, the wizard needs money (and it can get kind of expensive if you have to learn from scrolls), but more importantly time and access, which aren't things you can count on having at all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is only 1 scroll based feat, so it's not hard being "the best" when there is no other competition.

Having int is definitely a plus due to not having to spread stats, but it's hardly a deal breaker for other classes since it's so easy to get high stats.

But yes they are really pushing Wizards as scroll crafters, however does that 1 feat make the class more interesting?

* Reminder: Scroll Savant stops work at the end of the day, so no storing from that.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Temperans wrote:

There is only 1 scroll based feat, so it's not hard being "the best" when there is no other competition.

Having int is definitely a plus due to not having to spread stats, but it's hardly a deal breaker for other classes since it's so easy to get high stats.

But yes they are really pushing Wizards as scroll crafters, however does that 1 feat make the class more interesting?

* Reminder: Scroll Savant stops work at the end of the day, so no storing from that.

I'm not arguing from the position that a wizard without scrolls is "nerfed" as the thread title implies, my impression is actually that the class is already interesting without that investment- the scroll thing is just one of a handful of things I like about the class.

Scroll Savant is functionally four extra slots of the whatever level added to your daily preparation with a few slightly different rules in terms of having to hold the scroll, it is really good.


Oh I'm not saying it's not good, anything to get extra casting is good. I'm asking whether it makes playing the class more fun.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Temperans wrote:
Oh I'm not saying it's not good, anything to get extra casting is good. I'm asking whether it makes playing the class more fun.

Absolutely, I'm primarily a GM and I'm fantasizing quite heavily about a Wizard after reading the mechanics- one who uses scrolls, in addition to the other stuff I find exciting about the class.


Here is a weird question?

I do not see any reference to whether armor interrupts thee ability of casters to cast spells. I see for instance that the Bard only has proficiency in Light Armor.

Before that there were either no ability to cast in armor if the spell had a somatic component without making a concentration check which was pretty impossible if you wore say Plate Mail.

So it would seen the control is if you where armor you are not proficient in you lose your level bonus and the extra +2 to 8 or so which might balance it out.

However if at second level you multiclass as a Champion in 2E you gain proficiency in Light, Medium and Heavy Armor.

So by multiclassing your Bard can wear Plate Mail. There does not seem to be a rule that says he cannot cast spells.

If this is so then if a wizard multi classes as a Champion then it seems he can cast his spells in Plate Mail.

Am I wrong? It seems I should be.....

I


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You're not wrong, there's no arcane spell failure in PF2.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
(except not really because gish wizards have all their general feats devoured by PF2's dumpster fire of a proficiency system).

I think it's less a dumpster fire and more a serious of pedestals above a pool filled with manure. Still bad though.

Squiggit wrote:

Ish. The arcane list is fantastic, but how many spells a Wizard knows is kind of limited by the nature of the campaign and that's not really something that should be glossed over.

A level 3 wizard, for instance, is only guaranteed to know seven first level spells and two second level spells while a druid is going to have 29 and 37 instead. Even Sorcerers are going to know more top level spells than Wizards at odd levels (and the same at even levels).

To close the gap, the wizard needs money (and it can get kind of expensive if you have to learn from scrolls), but more importantly time and access, which aren't things you can count on having at all.

Wizards probably should have learned four spells a level instead of sticking to the classic two.

Indi523 wrote:
I do not see any reference to whether armor interrupts thee ability of casters to cast spells. I see for instance that the Bard only has proficiency in Light Armor.

You can cast just fine in any armor, that old rule has gone the way of the dodo.

Just keep in mind, you better get your proficiency from champion and not from general feats. If you go the general feat option you will fall behind at level 13-15. It's a major problem with the general feats for proficiency. And if you don't want to play a champion MC you're SOL.


For the record, wizards had the same limitations about 2 new spells per level in PF1 and it was never a problem. Being able to buy, research or find new spells has always been a fun part of being a wizard, not a limitation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Yes, wizards got nerfed. This is fine because the 3.5 Wizard ranks towards the top of classes in any RPG that really needed a nerf.

In a sense it depends on how you define nerf!

Take Baleful Polymorph for instance. IT is 6th level now but my point is the spell.

The regular failure turns one into a frog for one minute which is worse than the other version where is lasted longer. So roleplaying wise it is nerfed. But combat wise no because most combats end after 10 rounds so the time length is not relevant there.

What makes it useful is the other effects. The success is minor but useful if used right for instance during a wedding or someone giving an important speech.

What I really like is the versatility of the critical failure. This is useful. So I can have a high level witch crash a royal wedding and turn the 0 level princess into a frog with the PC's watching. Most likely she critical fails and it is permanent. The PC's might be able to handle the witch and kill her but now have to go on an adventure to save the princess.

Having spells assured to do major things to low levels makes the spellcaster mirror fantasy writing. Sure the protagonists could overcome the magic themselves but it was a terror for the populace. This in a sense I like.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

PF1 spell due to caster level scaling had better damage, duration and range. So even if you only knew a few you could do a lot with the right spells. A great example is Fly.

PF1 vs PF2 Fly:

PF1: Level 3. Duration 1 min/CL; Min 5 min, Max 20 min. Speed 60 (if not using medium/heavy armor). Has a lesser feather fall built in. No heightening needed. Mas move for 30 ft speed creature = 120 ft.

PF2: Level 4. Duration 5 min; when heightened to 7th lv, 1 hr. Speed yours or 20 which ever is better. Max move for 25ft speed creature = 75 ft.

So Fly now requires a higher spell lv, has no scaling duration, no feather fall clause, and its slower.

The 1 hr as a 7th level spell is kind of a joke, when considering the level. As a 5th lv spell a PF1 caster could had gotten Overland Flight (upgraded fly). Which has a minimum duration of 9 hrs (max of 20 hrs); same max move as PF2 at 80 ft; still need no heightening and still has the feather fall clause.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:

PF1 spell due to caster level scaling had better damage, duration and range. So even if you only knew a few you could do a lot with the right spells. A great example is Fly.

** spoiler omitted **

Movement and utility spells were deliberately restricted for the sake of story telling purposes, not some mechanical balance issue. That was a change for the sake of adventure designers and being able to have skills be a more meaningful choice for players for a longer period of time. Having spells just cover everything that skills can do, only better was a design flaw of D&D.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
Being able to buy, research or find new spells has always been a fun part of being a wizard, not a limitation.

Whether or not you like it it's still pretty clearly a limitation, one that gets glossed over way too often when people theorycraft about Wizards. So it's worth bringing up when people talk about Wizards knowing tons of spells.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
Temperans wrote:

PF1 spell due to caster level scaling had better damage, duration and range. So even if you only knew a few you could do a lot with the right spells. A great example is Fly.

** spoiler omitted **

Movement and utility spells were deliberately restricted for the sake of story telling purposes, not some mechanical balance issue. That was a change for the sake of adventure designers and being able to have skills be a more meaningful choice for players for a longer period of time. Having spells just cover everything that skills can do, only better was a design flaw of D&D.

I know why it was restricted and I'm not going to argue about it because it's all subjective, but that was not my focus. My focus was that you didnt need to know many spells in PF1 because they were so much stronger.

Aka they could had let wizards learn more spells this edition to counter the drop in power/usage, but they didnt.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Some spells were condensed into a single one, though.
In PF1 you needed to learn both Invisibility and Improved Invisibility; now you only need one, and you can prepare the heightened version freely - as a Wizard, at least.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Have wizards not always leaned on scrolls or other spell books to add more than their granted spells to their list? This isn't really a change from 1e. The only real difference is now you'd Scribe that scroll of lightning bolt into your book and then make a new one since you can use it without a chance of the enemy automatically making the save.

I don't get the talk of it being an expensive option since melee fighters aren't complaining about having to spend so much money on weapon upgrades. Since there are no stat boosting items, scrolls and wands will be a prime purchase for casters till they can afford staves and even then they'll still want to have some scrolls of not oft used spells.

Also this system is a bit more built around the concept of character downtime so you will get the chance to make batches of scrolls and if you have enough extra time then you can make them cheaper than you would purchase them for. Even if you don't get the downtime they're a common loot item.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

FYI, not that this changes your point, but you don't have to make a new one [scroll] after adding it to spellbook in 2E, the scroll isn't consumed, you just pay cost for learning spell (which is same even if you are Sorceror not scribing it in spellbook...).


7 people marked this as a favorite.

From the perspective of a player that has played various home brew of every DND along with non home brew 1e and DND 5e.

Casters have almost if not always terribly overpowered in the hands of a semi knowledgeable player.

It was too the point that I couldn't have fun playing a wizard because I was just so much better than everyone.

You want to be a God go play 1e or a single player game imo.

Now I'm finally after years excited to play a caster.

But a lot of people's complaints mechanically or numerically are deeply mired due to it being from a 1e mindset in a new system that uses new math. If you cannot seperate the two you will be unable up make a worthwhile opinion as it will just be a misinformed one.

The Exchange

Quandary wrote:
FYI, not that this changes your point, but you don't have to make a new one [scroll] after adding it to spellbook in 2E, the scroll isn't consumed, you just pay cost for learning spell (which is same even if you are Sorceror not scribing it in spellbook...).

Thanks for letting me know that! I hadn't noticed that in the rules and was going from 1e assumptions. That makes it even better.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Eoni wrote:
Have wizards not always leaned on scrolls or other spell books to add more than their granted spells to their list? This isn't really a change from 1e.

No one said it was. But this claim that Wizards learn 'significantly' more spells than everyone else keeps cropping up and it's just not an assertion you can rely on.

People theorycrafting often seem to treat the Wizard like it has access to its whole list at all times like a Druid or Cleric and that's almost never true in actual play. And yeah, it was definitely an issue when people were talking about wizards in 1e too.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
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.

A magic butler spell that lasts for only ten minutes and only if I stand over it and concentrate on it is completely useless for its intended purpose of being a magic butler.

Sure there's probably stuff you can do with it in combat and exploration mode, (even then, don't you likely have better options?) but I always kind of thought of it as a fluff spell that you keep in your spellbook because you're a wizard and have no need for such nonsense of hiring a stupid muggle butler. But it sucks for that purpose now, and they didn't give anything to replace its niche.

Silver Crusade

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

It wasn't really a butler with it's limitations in P1 either.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
It wasn't really a butler with it's limitations in P1 either.

Maid. Whatever. I guess butlers also cook and answer doors, and I really don't know much about butlers, It was still a much better one than the PF2 version though because you didn't have to stand over it repeating "keep sweeping the floor" every 6 seconds.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Squiggit wrote:
Eoni wrote:
Have wizards not always leaned on scrolls or other spell books to add more than their granted spells to their list? This isn't really a change from 1e.

No one said it was. But this claim that Wizards learn 'significantly' more spells than everyone else keeps cropping up and it's just not an assertion you can rely on.

People theorycrafting often seem to treat the Wizard like it has access to its whole list at all times like a Druid or Cleric and that's almost never true in actual play. And yeah, it was definitely an issue when people were talking about wizards in 1e too.

Looking at a couple of Ravingdork's recent Wizard characters, he has them with spell books containing all common spells up to two levels below their highest spell level (so a 9th level caster would have all common 1st, 2nd, and 3rd level spells). When I asked him about it, he said in essence that he figured the Wizard would spend most of his downtime and money researching those spells - which makes sense to me. I suppose if you start with a 1st level character, it will depend on the nature of the campaign how much time and money he has to do that.

Silver Crusade

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

Well it was mindless in P1 so if it could cook at all is questionable.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

In PF1 it can mend things, which requires it having a concept of what a thing is supposed to be, so being able to make food seems pretty reasonable. They set a limit of skill checks with a DC no higher than 10 and only those that can be made untrained, and I think it's reasonable to expect it to be able to do anything that isn't excluded by that limit.

PF2 makes the thing mindless like a vermin rather than mindless like a golem. It's a pretty substantial change.

751 to 800 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.