Did wizards get nerfed?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

1,451 to 1,500 of 1,952 << first < prev | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | next > last >>

I was not comparing PF2 core to the entirety of PF1, but the poster before asked about what I called "boost". So I gave many examples of what PF1 did that was fun and not just +1 to specific spells (I mentioned Spell Focus once).

As for "low level wizard felt bad". Well yeah it felt bad, the class was set up so that you were pretty much the weakest at low level, but by the late game you were casting world bending spells. I hoped that PF2 would make low level more fun, knowing that the late largely regarded as broken would be nerfed down; But again, this thread is about whether they took the nerfs too far (which I still say they did).

* Diviner was the number one most broken wizard, and 80% of it was because of the initiative bonus combined with save or suck mechanics (again I see save or suck as debuffs not damage).

* Necromancers are effectively gone the way of the dodo. Relegated to energy manipulators, which is the least interesting version.

* Conjurers, specially summoners have gone from a useful but easily mishandled build, to spending actions setting up a decoy. Which most likely will die the next round having done relatively little.

* Abjurers when it comes to counterspell are in a bind until level 7/8 at which point they can get Quick Recognition. Before that they have to counterspell blindly, which unless the GM is being nice wont work 50% of the time. (Last time I checked recognizing a spell is a reaction same as counterspell). But granted they arent that bad (notice they are a buffer).

* Illusionists got a wording update which made things much clearer, a huge win for everyone. Illusions were one of those spells that even I admit were too broad, specially with the better interactions.

* Enchanters are debuffers and buffers, which hit the jackpot this edition. Debuffers had a really hard time before due to the many immunities and low DCs.

* Transmuters are neutral and most likely the least controversial. Their spells being mostly buffs makes it hard to fail.

* Universalists due to how the system was made, is easily the most well represent. Heck people are saying that you should build any blaster like an universalists.

****************
* * Wizard wasn't a bad class for blasters, its just that Sorcerer Bloodline Arcana was generally stronger than Arcane schools, and Sorcerers got more spells slots compared to other classes. Its important to note, that the problem of minmaxing was not limited to Martial classes.


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

But ironically, blasting is much easier for a wizard at lower levels in PF2 than PF1, by a WIDE margin. Electric Arc is a phenomenal spell to lean on for the first couple of levels for all wizards because it actually has a decent return on action to target economy.

And at levels 1 and 2, using true strike by itself on cantrips like produce flame is worth while because that critical effect is a beast and your base accuracy is the same as any martial save a fighter.

I get that everyone is up in arms about the need for true strike for using attack roll spells, but the fact is that it exists, it is much better than a static +1 to +3 bonus and wizards have a lot of ways to spam lower level spells at higher levels. There is a reason this spell is on only two lists and only one suitable for blasting, it is a mandatory spell for spell attack roll blasting. This doesn't actually even make it that valuable for all blasters or all casters, but it is pretty clearly the way that the wizard has an edge in spell attack roll casting over primal casters and divine casters.

Interestingly enough, necromancers are probably better at going the spell attack route than evokers, which is also another reason why necromancers look so bad on paper.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:

I said boost, because we cant agree with anything concrete besides +1/+2 to attack roll from an item to fix the attack roll issue, and even that is not completely agreed with.

As for "Blood magic but for a school" is how PF1 handled things. Each school used to give some passive ability at level 1 that gave a benefit when casting spells of that school (most if not all of the abilities scaled with level). Illusion spells got longer duration, evocation got better damage, etc.

Yes, well, PF1 was all about stacking static modifiers - see Divine Grace, which is now a reaction. The same is true here. Where PF1 had a strong passive ability and an mediocre level 1 effect, PF2 runs by giving you a consistently usable level 1 active effect that scales up with you.

For the rest - which primarily consists of archetypes/prestige classes or arcane discoveries (aka more wizard feats), I'd suggest waiting for APG or other books. You had to wait for Ultimate Magic for that originally - it's kinda overly stuffed to want a ton of those for wizard in the CRB.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
EberronHoward wrote:
It's also an issue in player expectation of what a class 'means'.

I mean, if Paizo doesn't want players expecting wizards to be able to specialize, they shouldn't have published them with the suggestion that they can.

Though even that aside, if you need to make one class boring and thematically underwhelming to justify another class existing, that demonstrates a failure to effectively design either of them.

Quote:
When the argument for allowing a class to super-specialize at one thing while remaining able to super-specialize at other things

That... hasn't been the argument though, at all.

Unicore wrote:


Would it be better if there was more engaging language describing what happens when you cast force bolt?

Ultimately the problems I have with force bolt is just the spell itself in is entirety.

It is quite literally just magic missile, limited to the one action version of the spell. Same damage, same scaling, same traits, almost identical flavor. The only differences are that it lacks the verbal component and has a much shorter range.

And in terms of designing cool new spells to enhance a class' flavor and help show off Paizo's brand new focus system, that's... eh.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Squiggit wrote:


Unicore wrote:


Would it be better if there was more engaging language describing what happens when you cast force bolt?

Ultimately the problems I have with force bolt is just the spell itself in is entirety.

It is quite literally just magic missile, limited to the one action version of the spell. Same damage, same scaling, same traits, almost identical flavor. The only differences are that it lacks the verbal component and has a much shorter range.

And in terms of designing cool new spells to enhance a class' flavor and help show off Paizo's brand new focus system, that's... eh.

I think the force bolt ability was a cary over from what the evoker got as their specialization in PF1. The ability is almost identical. Did you expect them to significantly change the flavor of the school power? The only one that they really went a different direction in was for the illusionist, probably because it would have ended up looking much too similar to the enchanter ability.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Considering everyone else got shiny new toys for Focus spells and feats, yeah people expected better than "just weaker 1 action magic missile". The spell might work but its not fun.

Wizard is quite literally the worst designed class overall. And two interesting things at very high level (free spells when chaining and combining spells) doesnt make it more fun.

Liberty's Edge

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
Wizard is quite literally the worst designed class overall.

No. Alchemist is the worst class overall. Some of that is because of late stage changes in the rules, but that's probably true of Wizard as well, inasmuch as there are issues with Wizard, anyway.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I have to agree with DMW re: alchemists being worse.

A lot of similarities in them both having underbaked class features, a serious lack of high-flavor feats and less than impressive specialization mechanics, though.

Unicore wrote:
I think the force bolt ability was a cary over from what the evoker got as their specialization in PF1.

How relevant is that though? The developers have been pretty adamant about PF2's features being purpose built from the ground up. Even ignoring that that doesn't mean things in PF2 shouldn't be judged on their own merits.

Frankly, I think the notion that a feature might exist just because it was expedient to port it over makes it worse more than it makes it better.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

(I kind of actively choose to believe alchemist doesn't exist until I am somehow reminded. But yes, Alchemist is even worse than Wizard.)


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

I do not really beleive that it is fair to say that PF2 as a system has been "rebuilt from the ground up." It leans heavily upon previous versions of fantasy roleplaying games for its lore, feel and mechanics.

The PF2 force bolt is 300% better than the PF1 version of the same ability because it only takes one action, rather than your standard action, for doing the same thing damage wise. It is really cool that the evoker has access to one of very few focus spell options that do damage and take only one action. The other ones all require a spell attack roll, meaning that they have to contend with MAP and have limited utility as a 3rd action, especially with how much people hate using spell attack roll spells. Force bolt hits and does damage automatically. The evoker occupies a unique design space in PF2.

Sure anyone with the arcane list can cast magic missile as a one action spell, but the returns on doing so are minimal, since it occupies a spell slot (and must be a highest level spell slot to keep up with what force bolt does), and is 3x better cast with three actions. In that regards it is much less tactically diverse than the heal/harm spell used offensively. But the fact that the evoker gets a version of this spell that is built to always be a one action spell means that they should have at least one round in every battle where they are likely to get two damaging spells off in the same turn.

What I am really hearing from you squiggit, is not that the evoker's ability is terrible, but that it doesn't interest you personally, and you hope to get more diversity of options from future material released for the wizard. That is a perfectly fine opinion. Lots of classes have options that are boring and uninspired to me, that I will probably only play when I run out of other options that excite me (I am not a fan of the Thief rogue in much the same way you are not a fan of the evoker, because the ability feels uninspired, but I get that it fits, is balanced, and it works for a lot of people).

PF2 is going to get additional focus spell options for wizards. PF1 had 3 different versions of each specialist and I would not be surprised to see that return, as variant schools based on the basic magic schools will really not be a problem for the game or break the wizard class.


Unicore wrote:
What I am really hearing from you squiggit, is not that the evoker's ability is terrible, but that it doesn't interest you personally, and you hope to get more diversity of options from future material released for the wizard. That is a perfectly fine opinion. Lots of classes have options that are boring and uninspired to me,

force bolt is extremely unimpressive in terms of power. extremely uninspiring in terms of flavor and gives the character no new mechanics.

3.5 every two levels per fight doesn't make much difference. It is absolutely not the trump card as someone had the audacity to speak.

The fact that someone wants to use this as a defense that the class is not badly designed shows how the wizard is in a deplorable state.

It is not only one feature that is boring in the wizard class.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

The hyperbole in this thread is amazing.
In terms of raw power, what do you guys think Force Bolt had to be, in order to be an "strong choice"?
(Not "fun", because that is massively subjective)


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pawns, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
TSRodriguez wrote:

The hyperbole in this thread is amazing.

In terms of raw power, what do you guys think Force Bolt had to be, in order to be an "strong choice"?
(Not "fun", because that is massively subjective)

If it doesn't kill multiple level +4 enemies, then it's simply not worth casting.

/tongue-in-cheek


TSRodriguez wrote:

The hyperbole in this thread is amazing.

In terms of raw power, what do you guys think Force Bolt had to be, in order to be an "strong choice"?
(Not "fun", because that is massively subjective)

force bolt is ok.

if someone is going to say that a feature is strong it has to be above average.

force bolt is exactly average.

If it gave a new and interesting mechanic it would strengthen it. But as it literally replicates another mechanic it makes it a little less interesting.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, count me in with those rolling their eyes at claims that Force Bolt and Evokers are too weak.

Pu-leazzee!

I'm genuinely sorry to hear that the "I blast every turn all day" for maximum DPR playstyle that evolved over the last 25 years is something people grew attached to, but frankly, it was parasitic and actually detracted from both the balance and fun of the game.

Your sustain is better than ever, you get more spells per day that are actually useful as well as an infinite reserve of moderately powerful cantrips, but still, some complain that they cant do Area Damage to 2-15 enemies equal to what a fighter can output with 3 actions on a single target. Cant please everyone I guess.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Themetricsystem wrote:


I'm genuinely sorry to hear that the "I blast every turn all day" for maximum DPR playstyle that evolved over the last 25 years is something people grew attached to, but frankly, it was parasitic and actually detracted from both the balance and fun of the game.

Uh... What? CharOp 101 for blaster wizards for the majority of 3.5 and PF's life was "don't" (sometimes followed by someone pointing to a very specific, sometimes dubiously playable build that made it work because of how a specific spell interacted with a certain metamagic or something, but that's pretty far from the plague you're suggesting).

And now someone talks about blasters in PF2 and suddenly it's "wizards who like fireball? G!@~$~n parasites have been ruining the game for DECADES."

I'm sorry but this statement is just so radically out of line with the reality of the game I'm having trouble figuring out where it's even coming from.

Quote:
some complain that they cant do Area Damage to 2-15 enemies equal to what a fighter can output with 3 actions on a single target. Cant please everyone I guess.

This isn't even what most people have been complaining about, either.

Though uh, if you hit 15 people with an area attack and still end up doing less damage than the Fighter does just striking one dude that would be pretty sad. Again, also pretty far from the reality of the actual game though.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm going to argue that by the standards you're setting for the wizard, literally every class in the game is boring and uninspired.

What level 1 feature does dual-weapon fighters get that makes them so much more interesting than wizard's focus spells?
What do archery rangers get?
Champion? Rogue?

Why are they judged on such a different scale than wizard?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It has been stated multiple times its not about killing a bunch of enemies, but the feeling that you are often better of not bothering since you will simply fail. A problem specially for single target spell attack spells and dedicated blasters.

Also non of it negates the fact that wizard is not as fun to play.

Also if you are basing it off what Ravindork; He said, "/tongue-in-cheek", which means his statement was humor or sarcasm.

****************

They are judge better than wizards because they dont spend resources to actually do their thing, while actively engaging more with the action system. All while they are more often than not still great at doing their job, what ever it is they decide it to be.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Cyouni wrote:
I'm going to argue that by the standards you're setting for the wizard, literally every class in the game is boring and uninspired.

If you want to make a thread arguing that, go for it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber
Unicore wrote:

I do not really beleive that it is fair to say that PF2 as a system has been "rebuilt from the ground up." It leans heavily upon previous versions of fantasy roleplaying games for its lore, feel and mechanics.

The PF2 force bolt is 300% better than the PF1 version of the same ability because it only takes one action, rather than your standard action, for doing the same thing damage wise. It is really cool that the evoker has access to one of very few focus spell options that do damage and take only one action. The other ones all require a spell attack roll, meaning that they have to contend with MAP and have limited utility as a 3rd action, especially with how much people hate using spell attack roll spells. Force bolt hits and does damage automatically. The evoker occupies a unique design space in PF2.

Sure anyone with the arcane list can cast magic missile as a one action spell, but the returns on doing so are minimal, since it occupies a spell slot (and must be a highest level spell slot to keep up with what force bolt does), and is 3x better cast with three actions. In that regards it is much less tactically diverse than the heal/harm spell used offensively. But the fact that the evoker gets a version of this spell that is built to always be a one action spell means that they should have at least one round in every battle where they are likely to get two damaging spells off in the same turn.

What I am really hearing from you squiggit, is not that the evoker's ability is terrible, but that it doesn't interest you personally, and you hope to get more diversity of options from future material released for the wizard. That is a perfectly fine opinion. Lots of classes have options that are boring and uninspired to me, that I will probably only play when I run out of other options that excite me (I am not a fan of the Thief rogue in much the same way you are not a fan of the evoker, because the ability feels uninspired, but I get that it fits, is balanced, and it works for a lot of people).

PF2...

My problem with Force Bolt was that it was next to impossible to utilize frequently...actually really at all unless I went out of my way to do so. It's also boring, but that wasn't nearly so concerning to me.

If I wanted to stay out of melee range I was using spells with a range greater than 30', using an action to Stride after casting a spell, or using my extra action to use a metamagic feat to extend the range of my spells. Where, precisely, am I supposed to be using the Force Bolt?

Force Bolt is directly competing with your cantrips for space, and since cantrips are two actions but generally have a short range (where you don't want to hang out) you're either using them and moving, or using metamagic to extend them. Alternatively if you want to help your spells land via skill actions, then you're Demoralizing (or similar) then casting.

I just don't see a viable and consistent window to throw out a Force Bolt if you're doing everything else that a Wizard "should" be doing to make good plays.

I realize that not all posters are advocating the same things, but right now it seems like Wizards are fine if we just assume that they always make optimal spell choices, optimal skill choices, and optimal use of board state. That doesn't seem like Wizard is terribly well designed in relation to the other classes if the assumption is, "If they're playing optimally then they're fine." Not all of us want to play optimally at all times, other classes do a good job of leaving room to do things that may not be optimal (mechanically) but still make viable contributions to the party. Wizard really feels like Viable = Optimal and there isn't any room for other choices because your impact falls off sharply if you're not doing those things.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber
Themetricsystem wrote:

Yeah, count me in with those rolling their eyes at claims that Force Bolt and Evokers are too weak.

Pu-leazzee!

I'm genuinely sorry to hear that the "I blast every turn all day" for maximum DPR playstyle that evolved over the last 25 years is something people grew attached to, but frankly, it was parasitic and actually detracted from both the balance and fun of the game.

Your sustain is better than ever, you get more spells per day that are actually useful as well as an infinite reserve of moderately powerful cantrips, but still, some complain that they cant do Area Damage to 2-15 enemies equal to what a fighter can output with 3 actions on a single target. Cant please everyone I guess.

Ah, yes. Purposely and radically distort what's being discussed because some how spell casters are evil party wrecking forces that automatically detract from the balance and fun of the game. Thank you for your input.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mabtik wrote:

If I wanted to stay out of melee range I was using spells with a range greater than 30', using an action to Stride after casting a spell, or using my extra action to use a metamagic feat to extend the range of my spells. Where, precisely, am I supposed to be using the Force Bolt?

Force Bolt is directly competing with your cantrips for space, and since cantrips are two actions but generally have a short range (where you don't want to hang out) you're either using them and moving, or using metamagic to extend them. Alternatively if you want to help your spells land via skill actions, then you're Demoralizing (or similar) then casting.

I just don't see a viable and consistent window to throw out a Force Bolt if you're doing everything else that a Wizard "should" be doing to make good plays.

I don't think you need to be worried about ever being within 30 feet. That seems like excessive caution to me, particularly since it won't even protect you from someone Striding twice and attacking.

Demoralize isn't always what you want (and requires you to be trained in it and have high Cha, not to mention within 30 feet). Cause a Diversion is the same, assuming that's what you meant by 'similar'. Force Bolt is also a consistently higher damage increaser than either, even if you're throwing down a shocking grasp, the highest damage level 1 spell.
(Level 1 Wizard with +7 trying to hit a level 1 enemy with 15 AC, shocking grasp, 2d12. Averages 10.4 damage in a vacuum, 11.7 vs frightened 1, 13 damage vs flat-footed, 15.6 damage vs frightened 2 + flat-footed. In all scenarios, adding an additional 3.5 guaranteed damage will always be better, especially given that you don't have to actually succeed on any checks for it.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber
Cyouni wrote:
Mabtik wrote:

If I wanted to stay out of melee range I was using spells with a range greater than 30', using an action to Stride after casting a spell, or using my extra action to use a metamagic feat to extend the range of my spells. Where, precisely, am I supposed to be using the Force Bolt?

Force Bolt is directly competing with your cantrips for space, and since cantrips are two actions but generally have a short range (where you don't want to hang out) you're either using them and moving, or using metamagic to extend them. Alternatively if you want to help your spells land via skill actions, then you're Demoralizing (or similar) then casting.

I just don't see a viable and consistent window to throw out a Force Bolt if you're doing everything else that a Wizard "should" be doing to make good plays.

I don't think you need to be worried about ever being within 30 feet. That seems like excessive caution to me, particularly since it won't even protect you from someone Striding twice and attacking.

Demoralize isn't always what you want (and requires you to be trained in it and have high Cha, not to mention within 30 feet). Cause a Diversion is the same, assuming that's what you meant by 'similar'. Force Bolt is also a consistently higher damage increaser than either, even if you're throwing down a shocking grasp, the highest damage level 1 spell.
(Level 1 Wizard with +7 trying to hit a level 1 enemy with 15 AC, shocking grasp, 2d12. Averages 10.4 damage in a vacuum, 11.7 vs frightened 1, 13 damage vs flat-footed, 15.6 damage vs frightened 2 + flat-footed. In all scenarios, adding an additional 3.5 guaranteed damage will always be better, especially given that you don't have to actually succeed on any checks for it.)

Stride x2 means that they can't use most special 2 action abilities that monsters tend to have. As I found out the hard way.

You also forgot the entire rest of my party gets to tag off the Demoralize. Granted they're immune for 10minutes, but you can always tag the next guy in the combat.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

So... its low damage, and chance to fail with 2 acts/limited abilities what is intrinsically boring. I have read a lot of arguments and it always comes down to that.

1< The Wizard should be affecting the enemies more (So, more DC or Spell attack) "the feeling that you are often better of not bothering since you will simply fail"
2< Limited Abilities should do more (So, more damage, more range, fewer acts to do it) "Stride x2 means that they can't use most special 2 action abilities that monsters tend to have"

In conclusion, it's all about numbers at the end, more DC, more spell attack, less chance to fail, less dependence on team tactics/Buffs/Debuffs to gain chance of success.
No Feats that allow me to circumvent those weaknesses, implies that I cannot build what I want, therefore the class is underdesigned, and has only boring choices.

I think the design team gave the Wizard a heavy cost on the versatility of the arcane spell list, I think it is fair, but it's clear that some of you don't think it is.
And PF2 doesn't work like PF1, characters in a vacuum dont do that much, besides the more basic ones (Fighter, Barbarian, Archer)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mabtik wrote:


Stride x2 means that they can't use most special 2 action abilities that monsters tend to have. As I found out the hard way.

You also forgot the entire rest of my party gets to tag off the Demoralize. Granted they're immune for 10minutes, but you can always tag the next guy in the combat.

Sure, but what's your rate on Demoralize? Assuming you go 100% into it, that's +6 vs Will DC of 14/17/20. That's not too hard of a roll to fail, even with full investment. Demoralize is good if you're invested into it, but Force Bolt also isn't mental, doesn't require success on a roll, etc.

Basically, don't underestimate guaranteed damage.

Also, it shouldn't be too hard to set up party formations where you're more than one Stride away while staying within 30 feet.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
EberronHoward wrote:
It's also an issue in player expectation of what a class 'means'.

I mean, if Paizo doesn't want players expecting wizards to be able to specialize, they shouldn't have published them with the suggestion that they can.

Though even that aside, if you need to make one class boring and thematically underwhelming to justify another class existing, that demonstrates a failure to effectively design either of them.

FWIW, the Wizard is my favourite PF2 class, because of the spell-preparing playstyle. I don't find it boring at all, but enjoy the strategy of planning spell selections. Naturally, I prefer the Universalist approach, but like you said, specialization isn't that big of a commitment. The theme of an intelligent book-bound caster meticulously planning their daily load feels very on-theme. If I wanted a spellcaster that goes all-in on blasting, I've got the Sorcerer, which already does it better.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Themetricsystem wrote:

Yeah, count me in with those rolling their eyes at claims that Force Bolt and Evokers are too weak.

Pu-leazzee!

I'm genuinely sorry to hear that the "I blast every turn all day" for maximum DPR playstyle that evolved over the last 25 years is something people grew attached to, but frankly, it was parasitic and actually detracted from both the balance and fun of the game.

I agree, and add on that. The original Magic-Users were problem-solvers. Like how the Thief would step forward to handle traps and then fade back, so too did the Magic-User handle situations brute strength and clever improvisation couldn't handle. It wasn't an even split of the spotlight, but then, combat wasn't supposed to be the point of every encounter. It was about exploration: sometimes fighting to get by, sometimes sneaking around, and sometimes talking your way past. The Wizard had tools to solve these problems (Burning Hands, Charm, Knock), but couldn't do it all the time.

Nowadays, people want to be a part of each encounter, so the Wizard's playstyle of being the IT support goes away. Also, the Wizard's use of damage spells is no longer viewed as a tool to solve certain problems. So spellcasters get cantrips all day long, and their problem-solving spells aren't as overpowered as they used to be, because players expect them to be available more often than in Gygax's time.

Neither is better or worse, but if you want to have the tools from one era in another, the play will either be very overpowered or very underpowered.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mabtik wrote:

I realize that not all posters are advocating the same things, but right now it seems like Wizards are fine if we just assume that they always make optimal spell choices, optimal skill choices, and optimal use of board state. That doesn't seem like Wizard is terribly well designed in relation to the other classes if the assumption is, "If they're playing optimally then they're fine." Not all of us want to play optimally at all times, other classes do a good job of leaving room to do things that may not be optimal (mechanically) but still make viable contributions to the party. Wizard really feels like Viable = Optimal and there isn't any room for other choices because your impact falls off sharply if you're not doing those things.

I mean, the Wizard has more of a limit on spell choice than, say, the Cleric or Druid. It has more versatility in changing the spells available to them during the day, but the classes that get to change their entire spell output each day feel like they have much higher differences between 'optimal play' and 'suboptimal play'.

For the purpose of 'avoiding complexity', it feels absolutely possible to play a limited option Wizard with the right Arcane Thesis.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:


They are judge better than wizards because they dont spend resources to actually do their thing, while actively engaging more with the action system. All while they are more often than not still great at doing their job, what ever it is they decide it to be.

And what does that have to do with Force Bolt? How is it different from Lay on Hands in that it's a renewable resource usable once per combat?

How does that make martial stuff still not "boring and uninspired" by the standards you've set? How is Trap Finder, Double Slice, Hunted Shot, Animal Companion, Sudden Charge, Rage, Attack of Opportunity, Raging Intimidation, Divine Grace, Power Attack a "shiny new toy" while wizard focus spells are not?

And let's look at what exactly a dual-wielding fighter can "decide" is their job. They can do damage through Strike or Double Slice. They can do debuffs through Athletics, but only if they choose to stop dual-wielding or have weapons specifically set for that. They can do Intimidation or other skills.
Oh wait, wizards can also do that, except they do it through cantrips and focus spells. Do they do less damage than fighter? Sure, but that's why they also have spell slots. And that's just covering their combat specifications.
By the standards you've set, fighter is boring. And I can keep on extending that to the rest of the classes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Wizards are definitely more "balanced" in this version of the game. My only complaint is that magic very much feels like MMO magic. if anyone has ever played an MMO like everquest, you know exactly what I mean.

the thing that made magic in pathfinder and Dungeons and dragon special was it's ability to alter "the narrative" and it was unbalanced because it was also the best in combat situations.

I think the problem now, is that magic is no longer special but it also doesn't do that great at combat either. until you get to 10 level it doesn't feel very special, and it really doesn't really ever become more than a way to deal AOE damage effectively.

In the end, I think you have a better playing "game" but a lesser " imagined world".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Mabtik wrote:
Unicore wrote:

I do not really beleive that it is fair to say that PF2 as a system has been "rebuilt from the ground up." It leans heavily upon previous versions of fantasy roleplaying games for its lore, feel and mechanics.

The PF2 force bolt is 300% better than the PF1 version of the same ability because it only takes one action, rather than your standard action, for doing the same thing damage wise. It is really cool that the evoker has access to one of very few focus spell options that do damage and take only one action. The other ones all require a spell attack roll, meaning that they have to contend with MAP and have limited utility as a 3rd action, especially with how much people hate using spell attack roll spells. Force bolt hits and does damage automatically. The evoker occupies a unique design space in PF2.

Sure anyone with the arcane list can cast magic missile as a one action spell, but the returns on doing so are minimal, since it occupies a spell slot (and must be a highest level spell slot to keep up with what force bolt does), and is 3x better cast with three actions. In that regards it is much less tactically diverse than the heal/harm spell used offensively. But the fact that the evoker gets a version of this spell that is built to always be a one action spell means that they should have at least one round in every battle where they are likely to get two damaging spells off in the same turn.

What I am really hearing from you squiggit, is not that the evoker's ability is terrible, but that it doesn't interest you personally, and you hope to get more diversity of options from future material released for the wizard. That is a perfectly fine opinion. Lots of classes have options that are boring and uninspired to me, that I will probably only play when I run out of other options that excite me (I am not a fan of the Thief rogue in much the same way you are not a fan of the evoker, because the ability feels uninspired, but I get that it fits, is balanced, and it works for a

...

The first round of combat is tricky for a lot of parties. When players play only to their individual character and not a team strategy, it is very easy for one character to get left with sub-optimal action efficiency. It sounds like you were experiencing a lot of this with your wizard which is unfortunate. It also happens with martial focused parties that need flanking and end up having one person move into flanking get their attack, but have the enemy move between them and their ally. If the first martial delays and lets the enemy go first, both martials get flanking with only one move action.

What if the Barbarian or other Martial character didn't sudden charge forward into combat in the first round, creating cover for you to have to shoot past and isolating the combat far away from you, but not in a way that was advantageous to you being able to help out your allies when necessary? If those characters instead delayed, or even better, moved into strong defensive positions and then did the debuffing your wizard was desperate for, you would have a strong first round of blasting, (perhaps even being able to throw down a AoE without risking hurting your friends), or else if your allies delayed instead of debuffed, because of distance, you spend one round casting spectral hand so you can utilize those powerhouse melee touch spell attack roll spells that you can then buff with true strike AND flanking, maintaining a far distance/being able to take good cover.

This lets the enemy waste their actions moving towards you and your party is holding on to their most efficient actions. Even if the enemy moves forward twice and then hits your party's squishy casters, it is very very rare for any characters to have single action attacks that can drop the enemy. If your martial allies are close, they can retaliate with two stronger actions themselves, or even trip/grapple/shove the enemy so that you don't have to move on your second action and can lay down the hurt.


Nearly 1500 now, seems like the answer is yes but not so bad?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:
Nearly 1500 now, seems like the answer is yes but not so bad?

Eh... yes, but too far for some, just far enough for others.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:

But ironically, blasting is much easier for a wizard at lower levels in PF2 than PF1, by a WIDE margin. Electric Arc is a phenomenal spell to lean on for the first couple of levels for all wizards because it actually has a decent return on action to target economy.

And at levels 1 and 2, using true strike by itself on cantrips like produce flame is worth while because that critical effect is a beast and your base accuracy is the same as any martial save a fighter.

I get that everyone is up in arms about the need for true strike for using attack roll spells, but the fact is that it exists, it is much better than a static +1 to +3 bonus and wizards have a lot of ways to spam lower level spells at higher levels. There is a reason this spell is on only two lists and only one suitable for blasting, it is a mandatory spell for spell attack roll blasting. This doesn't actually even make it that valuable for all blasters or all casters, but it is pretty clearly the way that the wizard has an edge in spell attack roll casting over primal casters and divine casters.

Interestingly enough, necromancers are probably better at going the spell attack route than evokers, which is also another reason why necromancers look so bad on paper.

You have highlighted why true strike is a terrible spell. It is mandatory for blasters - that alone raises issues. Also a reroll is only about as good as a +4 bonus. I would much rather a +2 bonus that was always on for a school than 1 that cost me a spell slot and action.

The fact that Truestrike is not available to Primal casters (the other big blasting list) means there is a massive imbalance.

True strike is a balance problem which is why it is a bad spell. Its mandatory if available for blaster types, attack spells seem to be somewhat balanced around having it and not all that want it can get it.

True strike is probably too good with the reroll. If it just allowed 'The attack ignores circumstance penalties to the attack roll and any flat check required due to the target being concealed or hidden.' it would be far more balanced. Balancing blasting around its existence is terrible design. Its even more terrible for primal casters.

Regarding electric arc, it is great for a cantrip, so good in fact it is again a pretty much mandatory choice hurting other cantrips. It also means other cantrips will struggle if a foe is strong against Electric Arc (high save, electricity immunity/resistance).

I know blasters were not your cup of tea, you played god wizards in PF1 but that doesn't mean that blasters being an unsupported design (while being a very very common fantasy trope) was good design or good for the game. It is a mistake for Pf2e to repeat that issue.

The conversation in this thread seems to go to wizards (and a lesser extent blaster casters or casters in general) are ok because 'electric arc, true strike or other people creating debuffs for you' or the assumption that wizards have access to all spells at all times and always know what spells will be useful. No other class has this baggage.

Fighters are effective without debuff support, they are more effective with it. Wizards are said to be fine because debuffs exist.

I think there was an overreaction to nerfing some kinds of caster. They are still playable but then rogues and monks in PF1e were playable even if many felt they were not as effective as other options. This is kind of where some caster types and wizards in particular are right now.

Wizards (and to a less degree sorcerers) have very limited feat choices, very little to differentiate playstyle in feat choice (spell choice is a different matter but that affect sorcs more than wizards).

Hopefully this will improve overtime with more feats and better item support over time. I could see thesis being overhauled over time as it is hardly the class defining feature the preview blogs made it out to be. So far that and school choice are very meh in terms overall impact on the class or supporting different playstyles. What spells I choose to buy, learn and prepare make a far bigger impact on playstyle as a wizard than feats or thesis seem to in my opinion right now.

Wizards are if nothing else mechanically very boring with possibly the least change in tactical playstyle since pf1e


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:


And what does that have to do with Force Bolt? How is it different from Lay on Hands in that it's a renewable resource usable once per combat?
How does that make martial stuff still not "boring and uninspired" by the standards you've set? How is Trap Finder, Double Slice, Hunted Shot, Animal Companion, Sudden Charge, Rage, Attack of Opportunity, Raging Intimidation, Divine Grace, Power Attack a "shiny new toy" while wizard focus spells are not?

And let's look at what exactly a dual-wielding fighter can "decide" is their job. They can do damage through Strike or Double Slice. They can do debuffs through Athletics, but only if they choose to stop dual-wielding or have weapons specifically set for that. They can do Intimidation or other skills.
Oh wait, wizards can also do that, except they do it through cantrips and focus spells. Do they do less damage than fighter? Sure, but that's why they also have spell slots. And that's just covering their combat specifications.
By the standards you've set, fighter is boring. And I can keep on extending that to the rest of the classes.

Actually I think you have kind of made the boring point for us.

Fighters have a choice of styles, great weapon, switch, sword and board and dual weilding. Dual wielding is generally a 'pure damage' style (it has more feats to help combine attacks, give more attacks, it is a risk reward for greater damage). They kind of made that choice. Great weapon (bully) style is the control style but still with high potential damage. These are interesting choices. Choosing 1 school speciality or 1 thesis over another barely makes a difference on later feat choices or even what spells to prepare (other than having to prepare a spell each level for your specialty school).

Wizard focus spells are not shiny and new because they are a different flavour of what wizards already had in pf1e. They are just spells with a different frequency usage. In pf2e they get 1 and possibly a second one if they feat for it. Right not most focus spells are uninspired. Force bolt is a great example, its a half strength magic missile I can use once or maybe twice if I take the right feats per combat as a 3rd action. Its considered one of the better wizard focus spells.

Cyouni wrote:
Oh wait, wizards can also do that, except they do it through cantrips and focus spells. Do they do less damage than fighter? Sure, but that's why they also have spell slots. And that's just covering their combat specifications.

This is particularly pertinent. They do less damage than fighter and have to spend limited resources to achieve that. That is not a good outcome. Limited resources should always be better than unlimited ones. Most cantrips are pretty poor or have a low chance of control effects (on crit fails and there is no way for wizards to improve that chance which kind of highlights the problem).

Equipment is another issue for wizards being boring. Fighters choose what weapons they use, it defines their style. They upgrade them, they upgrade their armour, they specialise weapon runes for different circumstances. These all interact a lot with how they play. This is even better in PF2e which has better (imo) feat support for differentiating between types of fighter combat styles. I feel round by round choices in what to do with actions between a sword and board fighter, 1 handed duelist, dual wielder and great weapon fighter (to use only melee examples) is nicely developed over 1e where it was usually full attack or move and attack. In PF2e they have done a great job of improving martial playstyle and differentiating it based on class and gear choices.

Wizards... buy wands to allow them to cast a lesser used more situational spell once per day. They buy spells so they get a greater choice of what to prepare per day. Neither really affect the playstyle that much. Gear choices and playstyle has barely moved since PF1e. Its much the same but everything is a bit weaker, a but more limited, lasts less time. It makes no difference how I arm myself as a wizard. My spell selection remains much the same. Most casters, especially wizards are very much stuck in PF1e with little evolution compared to martials, fewer feat choices, fewer real gear choices and little to differentiate themselves from others of their class.

Note: I referenced fighters as they are the most 'vanilla' martial much like 'wizards' are the most 'vanilla' caster being the oldest class in the genre of both types. If fighters could be evolved with great new rules, feats and playstyle support, why were wizards mostly left in the past?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
EberronHoward wrote:


FWIW, the Wizard is my favourite PF2 class, because of the spell-preparing playstyle. I don't find it boring at all, but enjoy the strategy of planning spell selections. Naturally, I prefer the Universalist approach, but like you said, specialization isn't that big of a commitment. The theme of an intelligent book-bound caster meticulously planning their daily load feels very on-theme. If I wanted a spellcaster that goes all-in on blasting, I've got the Sorcerer, which already does it better.

But this is the issue. Wizards in PF2e fit your fantasy so thats ok (or should be ok for everyone because its ok for you), people should look elsewhere if that isn't meeting their needs. Go play a different class.

Why can't an intelligent bookish type want to maximise their damage and be a blaster? Why should they be forced into the sorcerer magic is in my blood trope rather than I have spent years dedicating and researching myself to doing damage. If anything wizard to me screams it should allow the nerd that wants to make the bigger nuke, or make their nuke more powerful. To use the IT guy comparison, many IT goes spend a lot of time learning how to optimise their system components and then overclock their machines to get more out of it than normal users. Wizards should be able to be that.

Meticulously planning their daily load is actually less studious than meticulously preparing what spells I am going to be able access for the rest of my adventuring career that spontaneous casters deal with. Sorcerers choices matter for longer than a day and need to be better, wizards can fix yesterday's mistakes today. That is far less of a risk requiring less meticulous study as it were.

For me meticulously working out ways I can be better at some kind of magic than those who stumble on magic feels far more on theme for a wizard. Their studies should allow them to exceed what others can do with specialisation. Imagine if academics (closest real world approximation to the studious flavour of a wizard) could only achieve the same outcomes as an elementary grade student?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Quote:
When the argument for allowing a class to super-specialize at one thing while remaining able to super-specialize at other things
That... hasn't been the argument though, at all.

But this is the crux of the matter. If you want casters to rival martials in their damage-dealing abilities while *still* getting to break reality over their knees, you want 'Angel Summoner & BMX Bandit' back. Screw that.

Sure, martials are no longer BMX Bandit, thankfully. Maybe they are closer to, I dunno, G.I. Joe maybe? The point is, G.I. Joe still needs his team to combat Cobra, Angel Summoner needs nobody.

So no, casters don't get to excel at blasting (if by excel you mean matching or even out-damaging martials except when considering AoE effects) unless they sacrifice their plot-changing powers in return. And while those have been significantly nerfed in this edition, they are far from gone.

Besides, hitting attack rolls isn't the problem. Sure, you miss out on those item bonuses to to-hit, but you get Legendary casting proficiency, while all martial classes safe one only get Master weapon proficiency. That means casters are just 1 point to-hit behind martial classes at the highest of levels. Also, the effects of spells are so much worse then inflicting HP damage, which I will remind you does *nothing* unless it drops an enemy. What matters is that these spell effects are so hard to make stick. Monster saves could stand to be 1 or 2 points lower across the board methinks. Of course that would also make the martial debuffs easier to land. Perhaps that is a problem for some people...

Oh and as an aside: Arguing that martials can do so much more now because skills have been empowered is a bit disingenuous, seeing that they have been empowered for everybody, including casters, and so are not something martials have going for themselves.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyder wrote:
Fighters have a choice of styles, great weapon, switch, sword and board and dual weilding. Dual wielding is generally a 'pure damage' style (it has more feats to help combine attacks, give more attacks, it is a risk reward for greater damage). They kind of made that choice. Great weapon (bully) style is the control style but still with high potential damage. These are interesting choices. Choosing 1 school speciality or 1 thesis over another barely makes a difference on later feat choices or even what spells to prepare (other than having to prepare a spell each level for your specialty school).

Ok, play a level 1 divination wizard and show me how you can prepare 3 burning hands. I'll wait. The fact that one of your slots is locked to a particular school matters.

A level 1 fighter can drop their weapons at a moment's notice, pick up another set, and be exactly as fine. Why is this considered to be a good thing, but the wizard's ability to prepare different spells is considered to be "barely making a difference"?

"Cyder wrote:
Wizard focus spells are not shiny and new because they are a different flavour of what wizards already had in pf1e. They are just spells with a different frequency usage. In pf2e they get 1 and possibly a second one if they feat for it. Right not most focus spells are uninspired. Force bolt is a great example, its a half strength magic missile I can use once or maybe twice if I take the right feats per combat as a 3rd action. Its considered one of the better wizard focus spells.

And again, how is that different from any of the other things I listed? Let's take Fighter as an example. If you use Double Slice, it's considered unique because it's a thing you can do with two weapons others can't - despite the fact that it's 'just' two attacks made without a MAP penalty, aka attacks with a different action usage. If you can cast a 1-action magic missile every combat (something that others can't do), it's considered "boring and uninspired".

Cyder wrote:
This is particularly pertinent. They do less damage than fighter and have to spend limited resources to achieve that. That is not a good outcome. Limited resources should always be better than unlimited ones. Most cantrips are pretty poor or have a low chance of control effects (on crit fails and there is no way for wizards to improve that chance which kind of highlights the problem).

A cantrip is not a limited resource. They are unlimited. No one is going to come and take your magic away if you cast a cantrip too many times.

I've already demonstrated that wizards/sorcerers using spell slots/focus spells can output damage superior to martials in the short term if they choose. Those are limited resources.

Cyder wrote:


Wizards... buy wands to allow them to cast a lesser used more situational spell once per day. They buy spells so they get a greater choice of what to prepare per day. Neither really affect the playstyle that much. Gear choices and playstyle has barely moved since PF1e. Its much the same but everything is a bit weaker, a but more limited, lasts less time. It makes no difference how I arm myself as a wizard. My spell selection remains much the same. Most casters, especially wizards are very much stuck in PF1e with little evolution compared to martials, fewer feat choices, fewer real gear choices and little to differentiate themselves from others of their class.

First, the fact that you don't even mention staves has me raising an eyebrow.

I highly doubt that an evocation wizard is going to arm themselves with the same spells as a divination wizard, because 1/4+ of their spells are forced into a specific school. Similarly, they have focus spells which change their encounter by encounter play.

This is basically an argument of "if you play a bard but never use compositions, it's boring". Well, that's obvious, in the same way a barbarian never using rage or a ranger never using hunter's edge is boring.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyder wrote:


Actually I think you have kind of made the boring point for us.

Fighters have a choice of styles, great weapon, switch, sword and board and dual weilding. Dual wielding is generally a 'pure damage' style (it has more feats to help combine attacks, give more attacks, it is a risk reward for greater damage). They kind of made that choice. Great weapon (bully) style is the control style but still with high potential damage. These are interesting choices. Choosing 1 school speciality or 1 thesis over another barely makes a difference on later feat choices or even what spells to prepare (other than having to prepare a spell each level for your specialty school).

Comparing equipment + style + class feats vs just focus spells of course the Wizard is going to look boring.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Lycar wrote:
But this is the crux of the matter. If you want casters to rival martials in their damage-dealing abilities while *still* getting to break reality over their knees, you want 'Angel Summoner & BMX Bandit' back. Screw that.

Who said that's what they wanted, though?

Quote:
Sure, you miss out on those item bonuses to to-hit, but you get Legendary casting proficiency, while all martial classes safe one only get Master weapon proficiency. That means casters are just 1 point to-hit behind martial classes at the highest of levels.

How much time do you think people spend at the highest of levels, though?

Discounting item bonuses, the Wizard and Barbarian have identical to-hit rolls from 1-4, 7-12 and 15-18. They're ahead 19-20, but behind 5-6 and 13-14. Including item bonuses a Sorcerer spends most of a campaign at -2 or worse (a whopping -4 at level 13).

Cyouni wrote:
And what does that have to do with Force Bolt? How is it different from Lay on Hands

Well, most obviously, Lay on Hands isn't an almost 1:1 duplicate of another ability paladins already have.

Quote:
fighter is boring. And I can keep on extending that to the rest of the classes.

Then make a thread talking about how boring you think fighters are.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Lycar wrote:
But this is the crux of the matter. If you want casters to rival martials in their damage-dealing abilities while *still* getting to break reality over their knees, you want 'Angel Summoner & BMX Bandit' back. Screw that.
Who said that's what they wanted, though?

You. You are saying this. Not with those words, but unless you finally reveal what price you are willing to pay for a caster type to be able to inflict HP damage comparable to a martial class, that is exactly what you are saying.

Squiggit wrote:
Quote:
Sure, you miss out on those item bonuses to to-hit, but you get Legendary casting proficiency, while all martial classes safe one only get Master weapon proficiency. That means casters are just 1 point to-hit behind martial classes at the highest of levels.

How much time do you think people spend at the highest of levels, though?

Discounting item bonuses, the Wizard and Barbarian have identical to-hit rolls from 1-4, 7-12 and 15-18. They're ahead 19-20, but behind 5-6 and 13-14. Including item bonuses a Sorcerer spends most of a campaign at -2 or worse (a whopping -4 at level 13).

Ahh... so WITH item bonuses, they are about at -2 to-hit compare to martials (outliers excluded) you say. Hmm, intersting, let's see... correct me if I'm wrong, but apparently no caster class ever gets to be better then Expert with weapon attacks. So WITH item bonuses, they are about at -2 to-hit compared to martials. I'm sensing a pattern there...

Gee, it is almost as if there is a divide in to-hit accuracy between casters and martials (Fighter being special here), which just may ever-so-slightly discourage casters from using spells that need attack rolls. Unless they pay the True Strike tax presumably.

Is it possible to imagine that the core caster classes simply are intentionally not designed as magical damage dealers? That classes that fit the bill for the 'blaster caster' yet have to be published?

Imagine a Warlock or Kineticist class though, being perfectly capable of dealing adequate ranged magical damage (and merely adequate, because presumably they could inflict status effects along with damage) and in return having no to little out-of-combat utility. Would that fit your bill?

Because you can't have your cake and eat it. If you want Wizards to be able to specialise to the extend you want them too, they must pay the price in versatility. Currently they don't so they don't GET to be as special as you want them to. Because else we are right back at the old C/M disparity.

tldr: I'm afraid the CRB caster classes simply don't do what you want them to do. They are all pretty broad in their abilities, even if they can concentrate on one aspect of spellcasting. That precludes them from ever getting better, or even as good as, then non-caster classes in THEIR speciality.

If you find that boring, well, all I can tell you is that being dominated by the one player who chose a tier 1 class was not much fun either. If that means casters no longer get to feel special, oh boy, that's a price I'm happy to pay.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Quote:
fighter is boring. And I can keep on extending that to the rest of the classes.
Then make a thread talking about how boring you think fighters are.

Maybe you shouldn't cut out the bit that specifies by the standards you've set.

And fortunately, I don't have your double standards.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

The accusation that wizards are boring has me baffled. Spell effects are some of the most novel and interesting things in the game, and the arcane spell list has more unique effects than any other list. Further, the Wizard is uniquely set up to find out what spell effect to use with a primary intelligence stat meaning more access to Recall knowledge skills, a primary stat that lines up with that skill use, and access to the completely busted Unified Theory feat.

Because they are a prepared caster, they need time and preparation to pull off their best work. This puts them at odds with many members of the party. That may hurt their strength, but it makes them way less boring. They have a roleplaying niche that they fill best and the class requiring the most preparation.

I've never seen a class feature that's more involved than bond conservation. That may not appeal to some, but it's certainly not boring. Using Bond Conservation optimally is pretty much impossible even if you spend every second thinking about it. Boring is not how I'd describe a task that is so mentally complex and rewarding for getting it right. Wizards with Bond Conservation have the capacity to cast literally twice as many spells as any other class at higher levels.

I can understand that some players might consider Wizards to be underpowered. Their defensive numbers are all the way at the bottom for any class, and their offensive combat numbers are only as good as other classes if played completely optimally with save selection. They do, however, have access to the best unconventional defenses in the game including the obvious invisibility. They can also bypass combat with the best of them with flight, invisibility, teleportation, illusions with silent spell, and many many more tricks. Still, the burden of playing creatively to get the most out of the class isn't something everyone is going to want, and their play won't fit into every game style.

Calling Wizards boring is just the complete opposite of how I see them; they are the most engaging class in the game for me.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

One type of blaster needs truestrike, the spell attack roll blaster, not all blasters. In fact, I’d say that the evoker who focuses on blasting spells with save effects is the much stronger build. As I already pointed out, Truestrike is much more of a mandatory spell for the necromancer than the evoker.

Targeting saving throws and doing half damage when you miss is another huge advantage of the caster that seems to being turned against the wizard because some people’s biggest problem with the change from PF1 to 2 is that accuracy (for all characters) has normalized around characters missing with more regularity than in PF1. This makes having effects on a miss a very big deal, as is having abilities that never miss. This is where the evoker really shines.

Barbarians who miss on their first attack roll have a very high probability of doing nothing more interesting than moving/ repositioning themselves, or hopefully debuffing an enemy with a demoralize. The wizard very rarely should have a round where they do nothing unless the fall into the possible trap of only selecting flashy high risk/high reward type spells like shocking grasp, and don’t take any tactical effort to maximize those spells odds of connecting.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I just had a realization that could have a big boost on Wizards. I would probably recommend trying it first as is, by spending a skill feat on it at level 2, but maybe, if you really feel that wizards are under powered and not specialized enough, consider it as a house rule free feat.

Take additional Lore: Spell school (of your specialization). It will help you identify spells, learn spells, and even notice magical effects related to your school, it will advance automatically at the earliest possible levels, and if your GM is compassionate and wants to help make you feel like more of an expert at your specialization, it should be focused enough as a lore to give you a solid +2 to +4 (by lowering DCs) on things important to your character, maybe even more if your GM recognizes the specificity of your choice.

I'd also recommend considering using additional lore to focus in on any monster types that are going to be foci of the campaign because it scales automatically at the best possible rate and will let you identify weaknesses more effectively than the base knowledge skills. Especially monsters outside of your Arcana focus.

Skill feats are not as necessary for skills outside of knoweldge skills for wizards because their spells give them a lot of utility coverage for the things that consume skill feats for other classes.


Hmm... that could help boosting the loremaster/scholar aspect of Wizards. Certainly something to consider. Makes them even better at buffing and support. And certainly that is not a boring ability, yes?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Cyouni wrote:
Maybe you shouldn't cut out the bit that specifies by the standards you've set.

Well yeah, because it's dumb and nonsensical.

To even suggest that somehow my belief that Druids have more well defined and flavorful class features than Wizards is some act of hypocrisy is, frankly, comical and I'm not sure how you think it further this discussion for anyone.

There is no logic here.

This whole "Well this is what you REALLY MEAN" nonsense is a bit silly. There's no prize for winning, absolutely no stakes at all. Trying to prop up a straw man you've constructed so you can feel like you've 'won' accomplishes nothing for anyone. It just sort of wastes time.

Anyways, back to actually talking about stuff that's fun to talk about:

Lycar wrote:
Gee, it is almost as if there is a divide in to-hit accuracy between casters and martials (Fighter being special here), which just may ever-so-slightly discourage casters from using spells that need attack rolls. Unless they pay the True Strike tax presumably.

That's sort of the problem, yeah. The accuracy issues, along with the inferior mechanics generally make a lot of spell attacks poor investments. The conclusion isn't 'spellcasters suck' but rather 'these spell aren't really worth your time.' I don't know why that's supposed to be good though.

Quote:
Is it possible to imagine that the core caster classes simply are intentionally not designed as magical damage dealers?

Possible, yeah. If that's the case Paizo probably should have made that more clear, though.

That said I'm not convinced. It'd be weird to publish damage-oriented Sorcerer Bloodlines, Druid Orders, etc. if they weren't intended to be functional damage dealers... and they can be functional damage dealers in the right situations, so if that was the goal there were a lot of missteps here.

Quote:
Imagine a Warlock or Kineticist class...

Would be great, but I think there's room for a blasting Sorcerer and a Kineticist to co-exist with each other. Either way, unfortunately, such a class seems a long way off for now.

Quote:
Because you can't have your cake and eat it. If you want Wizards to be able to specialise to the extend you want them too, they must pay the price in versatility.

Sort of wondering how much of this thread you've been reading, because that's precisely the point I and others have been making. Wizard schools neither encourage specializations nor limit versatility, making them kind of nothing burgers that end up leaving most flavors of wizard feel exceptionally samey.

Again though, why is that a good thing? Why would the game be worse if your choice of School felt like a significant and meaningful part of what defined you as a Wizard?

Does that apply to other classes too? Would Monks be more interesting if they didn't have stances or special combat actions, but their base unarmed strike was stronger?

Quote:
If you find that boring, well, all I can tell you is that being dominated by the one player who chose a tier 1 class was not much fun either.

Cool, but, again, I don't really see anyone wanting PF1's spellcasting paradigms back (and if they do, they certainly aren't talking about Wizards who prepare Fireball four times).

It's also besides the point, because there's no connection between meaningful choices and power: PF1 Wizards had a pretty barren chassis too, yet were extraordinarily powerful. On the other hand, a lot of people thought Kineticists were pretty mediocre despite their playstyle defining wild talent and element options. On the other other hand, Core Monks (pre qinggong) and Oozemorph Shifters have no internal choices to make at all and are both considered underwhelming.

There's no connection, so trying to twist "Force Bolt is just magic missile again, that's kinda lame" into "Wow you want T1 Wizards" doesn't make a lot of sense.

Queaux wrote:
I've never seen a class feature that's more involved than bond conservation.

Bond conversation is definitely an example of a good wizard feat (probably too good, I'm not sure Paizo realized the ramifications of how it worked with the Universalist when they designed it), but I'd also say it's the exception rather than the norm.

There are a lot of feats that barely do anything or serve as math fixers or niche ways to adjust spells. Few and far between are the feats that give you new actions or ways to interact with the world around you, which are generally speaking the best kinds of PF2 class feats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
Maybe you shouldn't cut out the bit that specifies by the standards you've set.

Well yeah, because it's dumb and nonsensical.

To even suggest that somehow my belief that Druids have more well defined and flavorful class features than Wizards is some act of hypocrisy is, frankly, comical and I'm not sure how you think it further this discussion for anyone.

There is no logic here.

This whole "Well this is what you REALLY MEAN" nonsense is a bit silly. There's no prize for winning, absolutely no stakes at all. Trying to prop up a straw man you've constructed so you can feel like you've 'won' accomplishes nothing for anyone. It just sort of wastes time.

Then define what exactly makes Druid so much more well defined and flavourful, and how the differences between Tempest Surge and Goodberry show a difference where Illusory Terrain and Charming Words do not.

And if you think it's really a strawman, I will be happy to pull the exact posts that claimed each of those things.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Squiggit wrote:


Anyways, back to actually talking about stuff that's fun to talk about:

The accuracy issues, along with the inferior mechanics generally make a lot of spell attacks poor investments. The conclusion isn't 'spellcasters suck' but rather 'these spell aren't really worth your time.' I don't know why that's supposed to be good though.

It is not that fun talking against destructive arguments.

Saying that a spell attack is "Not worth your time" is so hyperbolic, so its better if you did nothing? Or if you attack with your crossbow? or maybe not even be there... Are you saying that all of those, are better than cast a spell, come on. I get you don't like missing the spells, but let's be real, how much more, do you think it needs to have to... be worth your time, same accuracy as fighters? More?

Everyone against the PF2 wizard has an argument based on failing spells, and lack of damage, then when we ask, how much more do you want? The answer is "I'm not talking about that" Is like discussing against someone who is just messing with you.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
TSRodriguez wrote:
Saying that a spell attack is "Not worth your time" is so hyperbolic, so its better if you did nothing?

Uh, no? You'd just cast a different spell, pretty much every time.

It's kind of goofy to complain about hyperbole, then immediately jump to one of your own with something as silly as "oh I guess you'd rather skip your turn."

1,451 to 1,500 of 1,952 << first < prev | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Did wizards get nerfed? All Messageboards