| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was never a fan of migrating active characters from one version to another, and certainly wouldn't recommend it for a previous version with so much content (like the last character I played was a Gillman Medium, something I'd have no idea how to do in PF2.)
But if you've enjoyed playing a type of character before, maybe give it a shot in the new edition next time you're starting off with new chars. Heck, give the things you didn't like a shot too.
Plus, focus powers are going to be a fun new paradigm for the wizard- the wizard who takes the general feat to gain training with the greatpick so they can hurl it at people with hand of the apprentice is pretty hilarious IMO.
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
So all in all: As a player playing a mid-level wizard, why should I bother switching from 1e to 2e?
Well, what's your goal here?
Is it to be the most powerful character you can? If so, you definitely shouldn't switch.
Is it to not have the other players feel left out or feel forced to play casters because you are, too? Maybe you should.
Is it to have a clearer and more consistent rules system where you can build your character more easily without worrying about as many fiddly bits? Again, switching may be in your future.
Is it to have better non-spell options in general, allowing you to better solve problems without using magic? Again, PF2 may be for you.
But really, as PossibleCabbage notes, switching systems mid-campaign for any reason is usually not a great plan. Rather than actually switching if the above apply, think about doing PF2 for your next game rather than switching mid-stream.
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
So all in all: As a player playing a mid-level wizard, why should I bother switching from 1e to 2e?
My BFC spells get (heavily) nerfed. What's in for me? The best things in 2e (in general opinion), the 3-action-system and the versatility in character advancement, are they any good in the light of the nerf? Isn't the new action system more a benefit for the fighting classes? And my character advancement was already fine because of the nice BFC spells I could aquire.
Honestly, if "the other people in my party will probably have more fun" isn't a compelling reason by itself, I really don't know what to offer you.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the “winning” point, and not talking about the poster who asked about switching, just mentioning it because it has been brought up:
Has anyone noticed an increase in people “playing to win” in TTRPGs? And by that I mean playing to make *their own* character be the absolute best in the group and responsible for said winning?
Where has this come from? Is it from newer people who have started off with computer games (RPG or not). And how do you teach people (sometimes years in) that the game is about a group effort ?
(Again, not targeted at the switching player and perhaps a topic for another post)
*
As to the switch - the framing of the question is strange. Is it about switching mid game? Or does the poster consider themselves a “wizard player” so will be affected when a switch ultimately happens as that is all they really want to play?
If you really are a player then part of it will be what your GM and the rest of your group want to do. Whilst ill advised if they truly want to switch mid campaign and you don’t want to quit there might not be a choice involved. But I assume a discussion will take place
Or is there really no intention to switch and your question purely hypothetical to complain about a spell power down?
And what are BFC spells ?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the “winning” point, and not talking about the poster who asked about switching, just mentioning it because it has been brought up:
Has anyone noticed an increase in people “playing to win” in TTRPGs? And by that I mean playing to make *their own* character be the absolute best in the group and responsible for said winning?
Where has this come from? Is it from newer people who have started off with computer games (RPG or not). And how do you teach people (sometimes years in) that the game is about a group effort ?
I don't think it's a new thing at all. People who play like that have been a thing for as long as competition has been a thing. It's not just in RPGs, either - it's not hard to find stories about athletes that aren't happy unless they are the ones winning, not just their team.
I do think it's more visible now, and more widely recognized as a not-ideal way to be, which makes people notice it more.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the “winning” point, and not talking about the poster who asked about switching, just mentioning it because it has been brought up:
Has anyone noticed an increase in people “playing to win” in TTRPGs? And by that I mean playing to make *their own* character be the absolute best in the group and responsible for said winning?
Where has this come from? Is it from newer people who have started off with computer games (RPG or not). And how do you teach people (sometimes years in) that the game is about a group effort ?
I don't think it's a new thing at all. People who play like that have been a thing for as long as competition has been a thing. It's not just in RPGs, either - it's not hard to find stories about athletes that aren't happy unless they are the ones winning, not just their team.
I do think it's more visible now, and more widely recognized as a not-ideal way to be, which makes people notice it more.
Well there is a culture thing - perhaps not relevant to TTRPGs. For example there are people who are fans of football (soccer) players and not the teams. So will change allegiance to wherever the player goes
Or in the case of South Korea - threaten to sue because the player they are a fan of didn’t play in a preseason friendly
So an element of team sports has been corrupted somewhat
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, the Wizards are really nerfed in this edition. Ha well, what can you do.
I find it almost comical just how many nerfs they get, including truly minor things. For example, did you realise Humans Feat Unconventional Weaponry is useless for a Wizard? :D https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=72
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is it to be the most powerful character you can? If so, you definitely shouldn't switch.
Is it to not have the other players feel left out or feel forced to play casters because you are, too? Maybe you should.
I am always amazed at how much this isn't the case in the campaigns I GM or play in.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, the Wizards are really nerfed in this edition. Ha well, what can you do.
I find it almost comical just how many nerfs they get, including truly minor things. For example, did you realise Humans Feat Unconventional Weaponry is useless for a Wizard? :D https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=72
How is that useless?
To help you, weapon proficiency and fighter multiclass exist if you want battle wizard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How is that useless?
To help you, weapon proficiency and fighter multiclass exist if you want battle wizard.
I don't want a battle wizard, I'd just prefer not to pay double feat taxes or extra feats for nothing.
I wonder, is it a battle Sorcerer if they take this feat then? And battle Bard? How about a battle Cloistered Cleric?
I assume they meant that it makes the weapon a "simple weapon" for you, and Wizards are the only class that aren't trained in "all simple weapons", so it doesn't make it trained for you. But like you say, that's what the Fighter Dedication is for.
I know what they meant. However, according to their claim, this makes Sorcerers and Cloistered Clerics always Battle Sorcerers and Battle Cloistered Clerics, because they don't need to pay this extra tax.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't need to go into fighter multiclass for that, you can just take the weapon proficiency general feat once and become trained with all the simple weapons.
A Versatile Human can do it at level 1 without too much effort.
If somehow using an uncommon weapon is important to your character.
How is that useless?
To help you, weapon proficiency and fighter multiclass exist if you want battle wizard.
I don't want a battle wizard, I'd just prefer not to pay double feat taxes or extra feats for nothing.
I wonder, is it a battle Sorcerer if they take this feat then? And battle Bard? How about a battle Cloistered Cleric?
If you don’t want a battle wizard why is is a feat tax? You just would never want or take the feat? Unless I have missed something
You are not compelled to take it. The closest way to ask a comparative question is would you or anyone spend your first level human bonus feat in PF1 on exotic weapon proficiency? I would guess “no”
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I assume they meant that it makes the weapon a "simple weapon" for you, and Wizards are the only class that aren't trained in "all simple weapons", so it doesn't make it trained for you. But like you say, that's what the Fighter Dedication is for.I know what they meant. However, according to their claim, this makes Sorcerers and Cloistered Clerics always Battle Sorcerers and Battle Cloistered Clerics, because they don't need to pay this extra tax.
Actually, your claim was that it was useless. I showed you this was not the case.
Then you moved the goal posts and said you didn't want a feat tax.
Now you're trying to argue semantics about what we call classes to prove your point? The fact is, it's not useless.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, your claim was that it was useless. I showed you this was not the case.
Then you moved the goal posts and said you didn't want a feat tax.
Now you're trying to argue semantics about what we call classes to prove your point? The fact is, it's not useless.
I'm so sorry, you are absolutely right, I was completely wrong. Please excuse my poor ignorance.
You know, sure, it's all good. I just wonder why did they bother giving Wizards weapon proficiencies in the first place. This all could've been much simpler if they just wrote "Wizard may never gain any weapon proficiences. Use cantrips or multiclass into Fighter."
Sigh. So many good stuff about this edition but the Wizard setup is reminding me about AD&D too much. And why I was so happy to jump to 3rd edition.
Actually, your claim was that it was useless. I showed you this was not the case.
Then you moved the goal posts and said you didn't want a feat tax.
Now you're trying to argue semantics about what we call classes to prove your point? The fact is, it's not useless.
I'm so sorry, you are absolutely right, I was completely wrong. Please excuse my poor ignorance.
You know, sure, it's all good. I just wonder why did they bother giving Wizards weapon proficiencies in the first place. This all could've been much simpler if they just wrote "Wizard may never gain any weapon proficiences. Use cantrips or multiclass into Fighter."
Sigh. So many good stuff about this edition but the Wizard setup is reminding me about AD&D too much. And why I was so happy to jump to 3rd edition.
No problem. I was trying to be helpful and show you that Pathfinder still lets you do any wacky builds you want, like a wizard with a dogslicer at level 1 that is almost as effective as any other class at it.
Imo, Wizards are such nerds that they need to do extra work to catch up.
I think that Wizards will still be quite powerful, especially with the 10 minute spell slot switch ability (Spell Substitution). Either way, I reserve final judgment until I see one in action.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm really not seeing the problem (or the need for sarcasm). Wizards aren't good at stabbing by default. If you want your wizard to be good at stabbing, pick the easily available options that do that - Whether that's Weapon Proficency, Fighter Multiclass, etc.
Except I don't want to be good at stabbing, I just want my Wizard to be as average with a weapon of my choice as they are with a stick or pointy thing.
That is, I want to be good at stabbing things with my choice of object as I am at stabbing things with a stabby object chosen by Gary Gygax.
I am already paying a price of a feat. Yet that is not good enough. And for RP reasons (if nothing else) I don't want Fighter dedication.
Or they should remove Weapon Proficiency feats from the game and say "you have Fighter dedication for that".
So all in all: As a player playing a mid-level wizard, why should I bother switching from 1e to 2e?Well, what's your goal here?
Is it to be the most powerful character you can? If so, you definitely shouldn't switch.
Is it to not have the other players feel left out or feel forced to play casters because you are, too? Maybe you should.
Is it to have a clearer and more consistent rules system where you can build your character more easily without worrying about as many fiddly bits? Again, switching may be in your future.
Is it to have better non-spell options in general, allowing you to better solve problems without using magic? Again, PF2 may be for you.
But really, as PossibleCabbage notes, switching systems mid-campaign for any reason is usually not a great plan. Rather than actually switching if the above apply, think about doing PF2 for your next game rather than switching mid-stream.
I admit, I didn't elaborate on the reason for my asking, apologies.
I'm the GM and I'd like to switch, and I have to switch mid-game (if anytime), cause we are playing a year-long campaign which presumably will go on (forever?) many years.
My concern is that my wizard player will be unhappy about the nerfed spells. He definitely is not the always-wanna-win guy, but I can understand if he'd say, why should I switch when all I get is a nerf for my favourite spells.
Hence my question.
To say, the rest of the group will have more fun, is a good point (of view).
So all in all: As a player playing a mid-level wizard, why should I bother switching from 1e to 2e?Well, what's your goal here?
Is it to be the most powerful character you can? If so, you definitely shouldn't switch.
Is it to not have the other players feel left out or feel forced to play casters because you are, too? Maybe you should.
Is it to have a clearer and more consistent rules system where you can build your character more easily without worrying about as many fiddly bits? Again, switching may be in your future.
Is it to have better non-spell options in general, allowing you to better solve problems without using magic? Again, PF2 may be for you.
But really, as PossibleCabbage notes, switching systems mid-campaign for any reason is usually not a great plan. Rather than actually switching if the above apply, think about doing PF2 for your next game rather than switching mid-stream.
I admit, I didn't elaborate on the reason for my asking, apologies.
I'm the GM and I'd like to switch, and I have to switch mid-game (if anytime), cause we are playing a year-long campaign which presumably will go on (forever?) many years.
My concern is that my wizard player will be unhappy about the nerfed spells. He definitely is not the always-wanna-win guy, but I can understand if he'd say, why should I switch when all I get is a nerf for my favourite spells.
Hence my question.
To say, the rest of the group will have more fun, is a good point (of view).
What level are they right now ? Because an option might be to try out an ad hoc game with the new rules to see how they like it? But there isn’t going to be high level published stuff for a while - although maybe there will be variable tier PFS stuff that goes relatively high. But my guess would be 7 at most?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fundamental framing of that question is really bizarre.
That aside, PF2 wizards are more fun unless your primary source of enjoyment is just winning.
Framing was not intended, just asking a question. And what's bizarre with that? No offense meant, I am not a native speaker and maybe I an missing a (semantic?) point here.
Oh and what are the rest of the group playing ?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Framing was not intended, just asking a question. And what's bizarre with that? No offense meant, I am not a native speaker and maybe I an missing a (semantic?) point here.The fundamental framing of that question is really bizarre.
That aside, PF2 wizards are more fun unless your primary source of enjoyment is just winning.
I think it was just the framing of you as the player wanting to switch
It gave of the idea of someone who only cared about the power of the character they were playingAsking why your wizard player would want to and if they could be convinced is a different case
What level are they right now ? Because an option might be to try out an ad hoc game with the new rules to see how they like it? But there isn’t going to be high level published stuff for a while - although maybe there will be variable tier PFS stuff that goes relatively high. But my guess would be 7 at most?So all in all: As a player playing a mid-level wizard, why should I bother switching from 1e to 2e?Well, what's your goal here?
Is it to be the most powerful character you can? If so, you definitely shouldn't switch.
Is it to not have the other players feel left out or feel forced to play casters because you are, too? Maybe you should.
Is it to have a clearer and more consistent rules system where you can build your character more easily without worrying about as many fiddly bits? Again, switching may be in your future.
Is it to have better non-spell options in general, allowing you to better solve problems without using magic? Again, PF2 may be for you.
But really, as PossibleCabbage notes, switching systems mid-campaign for any reason is usually not a great plan. Rather than actually switching if the above apply, think about doing PF2 for your next game rather than switching mid-stream.
I admit, I didn't elaborate on the reason for my asking, apologies.
I'm the GM and I'd like to switch, and I have to switch mid-game (if anytime), cause we are playing a year-long campaign which presumably will go on (forever?) many years.
My concern is that my wizard player will be unhappy about the nerfed spells. He definitely is not the always-wanna-win guy, but I can understand if he'd say, why should I switch when all I get is a nerf for my favourite spells.
Hence my question.
To say, the rest of the group will have more fun, is a good point (of view).
Good guess, they are at 6th level.
Yes, might be an option. But our sessions are so rare. But you can't help with that. :)
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Quite honestly, if I were playing a caster of *any* stripe, I'd find it very hard to see a good reason to change. But I suppose some people would like getting all their good stuff nerfed.
As someone who likes casters,yup I'm happy. My friends get to join in the fun, check. I can cast relevant spells all day, check. I don't have to spend most of my character options pumping dc,check! Oh no I don't single handidly shut down encounters? Think I can live with that.
Yup, I'm in the same bucket. I'm critical about some small segments that impact my preferred builds, but overall it is a big improvement.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Quite honestly, if I were playing a caster of *any* stripe, I'd find it very hard to see a good reason to change. But I suppose some people would like getting all their good stuff nerfed.As someone who likes casters,yup I'm happy. My friends get to join in the fun, check. I can cast relevant spells all day, check. I don't have to spend most of my character options pumping dc,check! Oh no I don't single handidly shut down encounters? Think I can live with that.
My buffs don't last for more than one encounter anymore, check? Most of my spells fail half of the time, check? Actually, most of my buffs are now trash compared to before, check?
I mean, your prerogative to like what you want. I personally find the nerfs just as bad as during the playtest, where I really put in some extensive time to document them.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, that's why I said "most of my buffs". Ten minute *per level* buffs have mostly been nerfed down to just exactly *ten minutes*. That's two encounters, if your GM is nice and doesn't take time how long you need for looting and checking doors and so on.
See, casters of all stripes have more roles than "blasters" and "save or die spammers". The same thing applies as in the playtest, that *all roles* of the caster classes have been nerfed. Overall the new edition feels as if the developers wanted a game with much less player comfort and more GM power and this is the one part which really sticks out for me.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, that's why I said "most of my buffs". Ten minute *per level* buffs have mostly been nerfed down to just exactly *ten minutes*. That's two encounters, if your GM is nice and doesn't take time how long you need for looting and checking doors and so on.
See, casters of all stripes have more roles than "blasters" and "save or die spammers". The same thing applies as in the playtest, that *all roles* of the caster classes have been nerfed. Overall the new edition feels as if the developers wanted a game with much less player comfort and more GM power and this is the one part which really sticks out for me.
There is an Extend Spell Focus power, don't ya know! :) https://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=507
(too bad it's unusable by wizards...)
Anyway, I do dislike how much focus is put on doing damage with Wizards in this edition. I much prefer my battlefield control Wizards.
1 minute buffs are actually quite bad - they mean you can't prebuff. Even in ideal circumstances, you'll spend a lot of the spell durations during the prebuff phase, and if it's the Big Bad, chances are they can make you waste time by some speechefying or simply not being next to the door so you have to spend effort getting to them.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, that's why I said "most of my buffs". Ten minute *per level* buffs have mostly been nerfed down to just exactly *ten minutes*. That's two encounters, if your GM is nice and doesn't take time how long you need for looting and checking doors and so on.
See, casters of all stripes have more roles than "blasters" and "save or die spammers". The same thing applies as in the playtest, that *all roles* of the caster classes have been nerfed. Overall the new edition feels as if the developers wanted a game with much less player comfort and more GM power and this is the one part which really sticks out for me.
There is an Extend Spell Focus power, don't ya know! :) https://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=507
(too bad it's unusable by wizards...)
Anyway, I do dislike how much focus is put on doing damage with Wizards in this edition. I much prefer my battlefield control Wizards.
1 minute buffs are actually quite bad - they mean you can't prebuff. Even in ideal circumstances, you'll spend a lot of the spell durations during the prebuff phase, and if it's the Big Bad, chances are they can make you waste time by some speechefying or simply not being next to the door so you have to spend effort getting to them.
Well, that's mostly a role taken away from casters. As you said, one minute buffs are not really usable, except already in combat.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, that's mostly a role taken away from casters. As you said, one minute buffs are not really usable, except already in combat.
True. And then you have a choice - spend the combat buffing other people (boring), or put one buff on yourself and join in. Which means that one buff has to be good enough.
Or be a blaster wizard.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean it isn't that telling. We are trying to convince like three people, one of whom seems to just hate the idea of pf2 in general. Its not like there is a vast majority of upset wizards.
Yeah, I'm sure a snapshot of two to three hours with four or five people discussing is indicative of all players, everywhere. :p
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Conjuration specialist are still alright(Black Tentacles is still pretty good but now pushed to a 5th level spell).
Necromancers have been nerfed, at least the minionmancer role. Create Undead is an uncommon level 2 ritual with some caveats (intelligent undead are almost not an option, you can but it is very limited).
Illusions have a lot of improvement but I know illusionists aren't a popular wizard choice in general.
Evocation is stronger and that's pretty much all there is to say about it.
The other school of magic are alright, with divination having many uncommon spells (so would depend on how generous your GM feels like giving you some spells).
I might have missed what someone is trying to say but in 1E one minute buffs were pretty much combat only unless you had the most generous GM in the world or such amazing group tactics that allowed you to discover enemies and silently buff yourself and quickly engage them
In my experience it doesn’t happen a lot. Rounds per level spells are informally in combat spells
*
Out of interest how many of the above points criticising the nerfing of wizards are based on actually playing with the 2E rules that were released officially yesterday ? Things like “my spells fail half the time”
I get that the maths may suggest that and perhaps the playtest did but it may not work out like that
For example success is more likely against lower level foes .
And I get the impression (perhaps the incorrect one) that level appropriate foes are supposed to be a challenge (so equivalent of old CR+2 or maybe even 3?). Hence the existence of CR -1 and 0 threats.
Happy to be corrected on that but if that really is the case then we’re your spells really succeeding more than 50% of the time against challenging threats ? If that is the case for anyone of course they don’t want to switch - they would have been untouchable gods (and too me in what sounds like a boring game)
(All this could be based on faulty understanding of the new CR)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Battlefield control is probably the most effective role of a Wizard in this edition as well, even the low level spells like grease do a good area denial making the enemy lose 2 actions if they fail their save in the area.
Then we have spell like Confusion that are not only amazing when the enemy fail their save but still makes them lose an action if they succeed.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I definitely get the impression there are going to be far fewer instances of "rocket tag."
It used to be that a primary spellcaster could take out an equivalently leveled foe simply by going first and delivering a save or suck spell against his target's weak save.
Now that's only going to work on somone who is much weaker than the spellcaster. Equal opponents are, well, going to be more equal.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Definitely nerfed. But in a non-linear way that will take alot of playtime to get a handle on. For ex. Sleep , which on the surface is much weaker in combat, but now has no HP limit so has more longevity and utility use. Ditto no more Charm Person /Dominate Person - it's any creature now.
On the plus side there is no more spell resistance so that's one less gate to surmount to push a spell thru.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems like part of the change to those prebuff tactics is due in part to the change to the math and to the Bard. They can gain cantrips to increase attacks, defenses, and skills so they're kind of walking Heroisms. Also Mage Armor is still there and lasts all day right out of the gate, Invisibility starts out at 10 minutes which you wouldn't have even gotten till level 10, and Barkskin has been changed to DR for balance since we now add our level to AC so its value is different. Those are 3 of the routine buffs I can think of off the top of my head that I'd be applying before an encounter.
You also have to remember we now have Staves that aren't ridiculously priced and recharge daily without you having to do anything unless you want to add more charges if they're a prepared caster or expend a charge and a same level spell to cast from it.