Well, the wizard can cast shocking grasp five times per day at most, and the fighter can double slice all day everyday for the rest of time, so shocking grasp should probably be a little better than spending a limited resource to get -4 to hit and +3 to damage.
42,3-26,4 = 15,9 > 3
But by how much do you think it needs to be to be worth it, double; 52 Average? Triple; 78 Average?
I was not taking into account that fighters get Master at level 5. How is double slice with its penalty doing +18? (4Str,11prof,1weapon,-2doubleslice,+2ffooted)
And yes, its 23,4+3.15 for the far Shocking Grasp
But 42,3+Persistent using true strike
So its 26,4 vs 42,3+persistent. And yeah, top slots... still needs more? how much more?
I don't see a penalty in my CRB copy as Shortswords are agile. Am I missing an errata?
Will probably give the TS enhanced SG some consideration later.
I don't see a penalty in my CRB copy as Shortswords are agile. Am I missing an errata?
Will probably give the TS enhanced SG some consideration later.
I was calculating it using 2 longswords xD, but that's ok, not much difference
Also, take ito account that a 4d12 have a massive roof of damage (48, crit 96) compared to 2d8+2d6 (28, crit 56)
Well, the wizard can cast shocking grasp five times per day at most, and the fighter can double slice all day everyday for the rest of time, so shocking grasp should probably be a little better than spending a limited resource to get -4 to hit and +3 to damage.42,3-26,4 = 15,9 > 3
But by how much do you think it needs to be to be worth it, double; 52 Average? Triple; 78 Average?
You're assuming true strike here with your damage, which is yet ANOTHER limited resource. That's hardly fair.
You're assuming true strike here with your damage, which is yet ANOTHER limited resource. That's hardly fair.
Yeah, thats the fun part though, Im expending 2 spells to deal more damage that one of the greatest damage dealers of the game, my question remains the same, by how much do I have to surpass him to call it "Good" or "Viable"
Yeah, thats the fun part though, Im expending 2 spells to deal more damage that one of the greatest damage dealers of the game, my question remains the same, by how much do I have to surpass him to call it "Good" or "Viable"
You're assuming true strike here with your damage, which is yet ANOTHER limited resource. That's hardly fair.
Enough to be worth over 10% of your total daily resources. You should probably have a decent chance of actually hitting your target and not fizzling out completely, and when you hit it should hurt a little more than what the fighter can do 9,599 more times that day.
Enough to be worth over 10% of your total daily resources. You should probably have a decent chance of actually hitting your target and not fizzling out completely, and when you hit it should hurt a little more than what the fighter can do 9,599 more times that day.
With the setting im doing you do have massive chance of hitting, with a 7 with the best of 2 d20, that is 92% chance of hit. But then again, how much more do you need?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From my experience playing Pathfinder, a lot of the AP dungeons are small or divided into sections that you're supposed to do in 1 visit. Whatever spells you came in first with will have to suffice for the mooks + boss of this "dungeon level". And then the next one will just be something totally different.
Exactly! Taking a little bit of time to find out what kinds of things are likely to be in that dungeon is critical to your caster's effectiveness. You might not be able to guess all of it, but it is very rarely the case that biggest meanest thing in the dungeon is unknown to anyone, or if not the biggest/meanest thing (some times dungeons surprise you) the most common monster usually is known. That's not to say you shouldn't have anything else prepared, but if you are never encountering clues about what lies ahead in your adventure, your party tactics might need to change, or you might need to talk to your GM, if you are taking actions/expending resources to try to have some foresight and it is never giving you useful results.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With the setting im doing you do have massive chance of hitting, with a 7 with the best of 2 d20, that is 92% chance of hit. But then again, how much more do you need?
Enough to be worth over 10% of your total daily resources. You should probably have a decent chance of actually hitting your target and not fizzling out completely, and when you hit it should hurt a little more than what the fighter can do 9,599 more times that day.
I don't have a precise integer value for you, I havn't looked at the hp of every monster to see what percentage the wizard and fighter are doing, I don't know the average number of encounters modules run to see how many times the wizard can do this practically. I have incomplete information, and even if I knew all of that, I'm not sure there's a single number I could pull from the aether that would be perfect.
What I know if that spending two of your limited spell slots and all of your actions for a round is not worth a chance to slightly out damage the fighter this once.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Exactly! Taking a little bit of time to find out what kinds of things are likely to be in that dungeon is critical to your caster's effectiveness. You might not be able to guess all of it, but it is very rarely the case that biggest meanest thing in the dungeon is unknown to anyone, or if not the biggest/meanest thing (some times dungeons surprise you) the most common monster usually is known. That's not to say you shouldn't have anything else prepared, but if you are never encountering clues about what lies ahead in your adventure, your party tactics might need to change, or you might need to talk to your GM, if you are taking actions/expending resources to try to have some foresight and it is never giving you useful results.
From my experience playing Pathfinder, a lot of the AP dungeons are small or divided into sections that you're supposed to do in 1 visit. Whatever spells you came in first with will have to suffice for the mooks + boss of this "dungeon level". And then the next one will just be something totally different.
This is BS, Paizo's own modules rarely give clues on what kind of encounter the big bad will be, and several of them are randomized.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I know if that spending two of your limited spell slots and all of your actions for a round is not worth a chance to slightly out damage the fighter this once.
Monster of level 5 for this example, has an average of 75HP...
So you could, in theory, kill him in one go with this setting. While the fighter could not, even with all his attacks on nat 20.So, using 10% of your resources, would you like to; Always kill him in 1 hit?, 90% of the time?
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is BS, Paizo's own modules rarely give clues on what kind of encounter the big bad will be, and several of them are randomized.Exactly! Taking a little bit of time to find out what kinds of things are likely to be in that dungeon is critical to your caster's effectiveness. You might not be able to guess all of it, but it is very rarely the case that biggest meanest thing in the dungeon is unknown to anyone, or if not the biggest/meanest thing (some times dungeons surprise you) the most common monster usually is known. That's not to say you shouldn't have anything else prepared, but if you are never encountering clues about what lies ahead in your adventure, your party tactics might need to change, or you might need to talk to your GM, if you are taking actions/expending resources to try to have some foresight and it is never giving you useful results.
From my experience playing Pathfinder, a lot of the AP dungeons are small or divided into sections that you're supposed to do in 1 visit. Whatever spells you came in first with will have to suffice for the mooks + boss of this "dungeon level". And then the next one will just be something totally different.
... no?
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is BS, Paizo's own modules rarely give clues on what kind of encounter the big bad will be, and several of them are randomized.
Wait, what. It's one thing to be subjectively wrong about wizards, but to be this objectively wrong is astounding.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I think it is prudent to try and figure out what's coming and that can work out in a lot of cases, I will note that Paizo APs can have individual encounters in dungeons that are wildly different from what players might expect, even if the big bad is known.
For instance, in Fall of Plaguestone...
The final dungeon seems like it might be a bunch of orcs and then turns into a very different experience once you get inside. This happens a lot in Paizo APs. Curse of the Crimson Throne comes to mind too.
Again, that's just an example, and I do think preparation can help a lot, but sometimes Paizo throws crazy curveballs that you'd be hard-pressed to prepare for ahead of time.
Again, that's just an example, and I do think preparation can help a lot, but sometimes Paizo throws crazy curveballs that you'd be hard-pressed to prepare for ahead of time.
But for it to be a curveball, there has to be a straight one... so in that dungeon, the creatures follow a certain logic, and then, there is the one that changes and forces you to adapt. Or is it?
I was calculating it using 2 longswords xD, but that's ok, not much difference Also, take ito account that a 4d12 have a massive roof of damage (48, crit 96) compared to 2d8+2d6 (28, crit 56)
Apart from the fact that the static strength bonus will be doubled too (20+16=36 =>72) I fully agree that if you manage to crit the roof is a lot higher which always should be taken into account when doing considerations about weapon and spell effectiveness.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... no?This is BS, Paizo's own modules rarely give clues on what kind of encounter the big bad will be, and several of them are randomized.Exactly! Taking a little bit of time to find out what kinds of things are likely to be in that dungeon is critical to your caster's effectiveness. You might not be able to guess all of it, but it is very rarely the case that biggest meanest thing in the dungeon is unknown to anyone, or if not the biggest/meanest thing (some times dungeons surprise you) the most common monster usually is known. That's not to say you shouldn't have anything else prepared, but if you are never encountering clues about what lies ahead in your adventure, your party tactics might need to change, or you might need to talk to your GM, if you are taking actions/expending resources to try to have some foresight and it is never giving you useful results.
From my experience playing Pathfinder, a lot of the AP dungeons are small or divided into sections that you're supposed to do in 1 visit. Whatever spells you came in first with will have to suffice for the mooks + boss of this "dungeon level". And then the next one will just be something totally different.
Oh really? Just the scenarios I've run:
Scenario #1-01: Has no big bad, encounters are randomized, no way to predict.
Scenario #1-02: Purposefully pulls the rug out from under the players at the end, preparing for the predicted encounter is actively wrong. Players taking too long will be punished by NPC death.
Scenario #1-03: This entire scenario is on a timer and there is no time to change spells at any point.
Scenario #1-04: This entire scenario is on a timer and the player's rest is actively interrupted by an encounter, the big bad is unpredictable anyway though.
Scenario #1-05: This scenario is one where you CAN actually rest and prepare for the final encounter.
Scenario #1-06: This scenario is randomized, although not on a timer. The players could rest and change spells if they make good guesses on the nature of the final encounter.
Scenario #1-07: This scenario has no information on the nature of the last two encounters and gives no time for a full rest.
Scenario #1-09: This scenario is one where you can know the final encounter in advance and prepare for it.
Out of these nine scenarios, less than half of them have the potential for predicting and resting before the final encounter to let you change your spells.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Enough to be worth over 10% of your total daily resources. You should probably have a decent chance of actually hitting your target and not fizzling out completely, and when you hit it should hurt a little more than what the fighter can do 9,599 more times that day.Yeah, thats the fun part though, Im expending 2 spells to deal more damage that one of the greatest damage dealers of the game, my question remains the same, by how much do I have to surpass him to call it "Good" or "Viable"
You're assuming true strike here with your damage, which is yet ANOTHER limited resource. That's hardly fair.
Donovan Du Bois,
I understand that thee root of your frustration is that the wizard has limited resources and the fighter does not.* But trying to analyze this in a completely dry environment of raw numbers ignores that the fun part of the wizard is having the flexibility to have the right tool to fit the more specific situation, rather than a broad general one.
That is why I was pushing for more concrete examples. In real play situations, parties with foresight of the situation are often able to come up with plans that exploit the situation and having access to a broad and diverse spell list, like the arcane spell list, gives the party a massively larger range of options for doing something creative than a party of melee focused martials who's basic plan is always going to be, lets figure out how to close in as quickly as possible and then attack a bunch. That is a strategy that can work often, but covering your weaknesses is also an important part of working together as a party. A single high AC boss enemy can be an absolute murder machine against a party of martial characters. Without a debuffer, Save or Suck caster, or Save targeting blaster, that combat is not going to go well for the martial team party.
And this might be where many of us are having a fundamental difference in our opinions, because in truth, when the party can learn about specific upcoming situations, they are going to look very sharp/be able to have a plan that will make the "just attack it more" plan look bad. But with no knowledge what-so-ever, it is easy to end up with the wrong things prepared and being even worse than "lets just charge this thing and attack it till it is dead" plan.
My love of wizards may stem from my preference for the diviner, and the fact that the appeal of playing the wizard is to be the best at figuring out what is going to happen next next and anticipating it/being prepared to pull my team out and regroup if the plan falls apart. I like the wizard best because I value prepared casting, divination, illusion, teleporting, and battlefield control. There is no other class that gets these things lined up like the wizard.
(*Although they do in the sense that HP is a limited resource, as is money, and the fighter is usually just lucky enough to assume that the rest of the party has a responsibility to cover the limits of a fighter more than you are giving the wizard the benefit that the party has the same responsibility for them. I.E. Fighters are rarely going to be the ones best at healing, because it does not make tactical sense for the team to have the fighter spending actions in combat to heal, but without a healer, a melee fighter is going to get into trouble.)
But for it to be a curveball, there has to be a straight one... so in that dungeon, the creatures follow a certain logic, and then, there is the one that changes and forces you to adapt. Or is it?
Again, that's just an example, and I do think preparation can help a lot, but sometimes Paizo throws crazy curveballs that you'd be hard-pressed to prepare for ahead of time.
It's more that Paizo adventures tend to have a lot of variety. Which is a good thing, but it'd be difficult for players to pin down everything, I think.
Apart from the fact that the static strength bonus will be doubled too (20+16=36 =>72) I fully agree that if you manage to crit the roof is a lot higher which always should be taken into account when doing considerations about weapon and spell effectiveness.
Yeah sorry about that.
But not only your crit damage, but your normal damage also has a higher ceiling as well.That particular spell has the chance of outright kill am an average creature (level5) in one go. That has to be taking into account as well, even though is a real low chance (1%)
This is BS, Paizo's own modules rarely give clues on what kind of encounter the big bad will be, and several of them are randomized.Exactly! Taking a little bit of time to find out what kinds of things are likely to be in that dungeon is critical to your caster's effectiveness. You might not be able to guess all of it, but it is very rarely the case that biggest meanest thing in the dungeon is unknown to anyone, or if not the biggest/meanest thing (some times dungeons surprise you) the most common monster usually is known. That's not to say you shouldn't have anything else prepared, but if you are never encountering clues about what lies ahead in your adventure, your party tactics might need to change, or you might need to talk to your GM, if you are taking actions/expending resources to try to have some foresight and it is never giving you useful results.
From my experience playing Pathfinder, a lot of the AP dungeons are small or divided into sections that you're supposed to do in 1 visit. Whatever spells you came in first with will have to suffice for the mooks + boss of this "dungeon level". And then the next one will just be something totally different.
I'm a player in Extinction Curse book 1 right now, and the adventure plainly tells you what several of the upcoming encounters are (through friendly NPCs who do some investigating for you).
Oh really? Just the scenarios I've run:
** spoiler omitted **...
Ah! PFS does seem like it would create a lot of challenges for a wizard because the sessions are usually short and you have to do your preparations between adventures where you know nothing about what you are about to face. I think this is especially punishing for an Evoker or blaster caster, because attack spells are not good if they are not targeting weak saves, weaknesses and bypassing resistances. The only semi-efficient blast caster in that circumstance is probably the magic missile, certain but low damage spells, which can be underwhelming when they are the only thing you get to do, unless you signed up for consistent low damage from the beginning, which is not most people's idea of a fun fantasy.
In the situations you describe, I think a Buff/debuff caster has a massive advantage and the issues that you are bringing up make perfect sense. They are also not the only situations that players will find themselves in and I think Wizards probably do get better and better the more they are able to focus in on the larger objective of an extended campaign.
EDIT: A PFS blaster wizard probably needs to have the spell substitution thesis. Certainly 10 minute breaks are feasible in PFS play? I have only ever played in one scenario so I don't really know.
It's more that Paizo adventures tend to have a lot of variety. Which is a good thing, but it'd be difficult for players to pin down everything, I think.
Yeah, but of course we don't need to pin down everything, It would be really boring otherwise (Looking at the many critics of Book 5 of Giant Slayer)
I think is fair if 40% of enemies follow a certain patron.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I know if that spending two of your limited spell slots and all of your actions for a round is not worth a chance to slightly out damage the fighter this once.Monster of level 5 for this example, has an average of 75HP...
So you could, in theory, kill him in one go with this setting. While the fighter could not, even with all his attacks on nat 20.So, using 10% of your resources, would you like to; Always kill him in 1 hit?, 90% of the time?
And this is the point where pacing comes into play. If our level 5 wizard can pull off 3x True Strike and 3x Shocking Grasp in just one fight, ideally in 3 consecutive rounds then he probably is ahead of the fighter (still figuring the math). If however your session contains 6 fights of at least modest difficulty then I would not rate 0.5 spells per encounter a very good number.
Also your figures are off again. With +14 versus AC21 you have 36% chance of critting, doing an average of 52 damage and 4.5 persistent but having a real chance of one-shotting the monster (you probably need an average of at least 8.5 per die instead of 6.5). Ressource consumption is debatable, but when using spell level as an indication you are using 4 levels of your existing 18, so roughtly 22%.
Also your figures are off again. With +14 versus AC21 you have 36% chance of critting, doing an average of 52 damage and 4.5 persistent but having a real chance of one-shotting the monster (you probably need an average of at least 8.5 per die instead of 6.5). Ressource consumption is debatable, but when using spell level as an indication you are using 4 levels of your existing 18, so roughtly 22%.
But that was what I said (I said 92% chance of hit, not crit), and the average die you need for the kill is a 9.
If you can pull that damage every fight it would be kinda unfair, don't you think? 2 times or 3 times per day, Il take it. Filling the rest with utility and some cantrips.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding telegraphing of enemies in AP's I got some mixed signals in AoA. Some fights were indeed telegraphed, but most where not, respectively even if they were there often was no plausible opportunity for resting and replacing spells. What was strange was that the hardest fight was not telegraphed at all, but the final much less dangerous fight was. However I assume that much of this evolves around how investigative your group is and how your GM is handing out information, so expect vast inconsistencies in between groups when it comes to wizardly preparation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also your figures are off again. With +14 versus AC21 you have 36% chance of critting, doing an average of 52 damage and 4.5 persistent but having a real chance of one-shotting the monster (you probably need an average of at least 8.5 per die instead of 6.5). Ressource consumption is debatable, but when using spell level as an indication you are using 4 levels of your existing 18, so roughtly 22%.But that was what I said (I said 92% chance of hit, not crit), and the average die you need for the kill is a 9.
If you can pull that damage every fight it would be kinda unfair, don't you think? 2 times or 3 times per day, Il take it. Filling the rest with utility and some cantrips.
Using the math as presented, the average shocking grasp does ~ twice as much damage as a double strike. Because shocking grasp has such a high crit ceiling, and multiple double strikes take more actions, I'm going to say that 3 double strikes are 'worth' the same as a single truestrike shocking grasp.
So using your two or three times a day, would you be fine with fighters only being able to double strike four to six times a day and then needing to using single attack actions and other abilities (utilities and cantrips) for the rest of the day?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So using your two or three times a day, would you be fine with fighters only being able to double strike four to six times a day and then needing to using single attack actions and other abilities (utilities and cantrips) for the rest of the day?
In this scenario, do the fighters get to fly and turn invisible?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So using your two or three times a day, would you be fine with fighters only being able to double strike four to six times a day and then needing to using single attack actions and other abilities (utilities and cantrips) for the rest of the day?In this scenario, do the fighters get to fly and turn invisible?
No, I'm afraid they are stuck with the ability to attack all enemies within their attack range and infinite number of times per day.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds like a pretty crap deal. I'll go with the wizard. They can fly and turn invisible. Maybe if the fighters could use their Double Strike at will things would be more balanced.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So using your two or three times a day, would you be fine with fighters only being able to double strike four to six times a day and then needing to using single attack actions and other abilities (utilities and cantrips) for the rest of the day?
But the fighter doesn't have utility tricks... If the fighter can turn invisible, then yes, as currently presented though, Im gonna have to say no.
Why dont you answer the simple question, how much damage to a 75hp enemy, the spell has to do, for you to be happy doing it at max 3/day.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Casters cant have that amount of versatility you described Narxiso because at most they get 3/4 of their highest level. Choosing to prepare a spell of one type will decrease the number of other spells you can get.
Assuming you pick half saves and half spell attack. There is a 1 in 6 chance (1/3 per spell) to target the right save. While the attack spells will always have that 50% (60% at best) chance of just nothing happening.
Then the fact you "have to" use True Strike, meaning spending more spell slots, which means even less options when preparing spell attack rolls. And then you are spending 3 actions which means you are effectively standing still with a high chance to not do nothing.
*****************
Hail Mary's are characterized by being very unlikely but incredibly rewarding if successful. They are by definition something you only do when nothing else would work. The key part is that the effect must be worth the trouble of even attempting it. Spell attacks are not rewarding enough when you can have another spell with a much higher chance to hit and just as much damage.Trump cards would work, except that by definition a trump card is an advantage. Aka something that gives you a benefit. Spell attacks give no benefits and in fact have a large chance of actually being a penalty (no effect, lost resources, and lost actions.
I posit that between all a wizard's spells, (s)he should be able to cover at least two defenses and many different elements.
Cantrips: Acid Splash, Electric Arc, Produce Flame, Ray of Frost, Telekinetic Projectile
Level 1
1st: Magic Missile, Burning Hands, Acidic Burst, +1 of these
Level 3
1st: Magic Missile, Burning Hands, Acidic Burst, Chilling Spray
2nd: Acid Arrow, Flaming Sphere, Flaming Sphere, +1
Level 5
1st: Magic Missile, Burning Hands, True Strike, Acidic Burst
2nd: Acid Arrow, Flaming Sphere, Flaming Sphere, Acid Arrow
3rd: Fireball, Lightning Bolt, Fireball, +1
Level 7
1st: Magic Missile, True Strike, True Strike, True Strike
2nd: Acid Arrow, Flaming Sphere, Flaming Sphere, Acidic Burst
3rd: Fireball, Fireball, Fireball, Flaming Sphere
4th: Lightning Bolt, Acid Arrow, Lightning Bolt, +1
Level 9
1st: Magic Missile, True Strike, True Strike, True Strike
2nd: Flaming Sphere, Flaming Sphere, Flaming Sphere, Flaming Sphere
3rd: Fireball, Fireball, Wall of Wind, Magic Missile
4th: Acid Arrow, Fireball, Acid Arrow, Flaming Sphere
5th: Cone of Cold, Acid Storm, Cone of Cold, +1
From what I see up to level 9, even just using cantrips, a wizard has the ability to target both reflex and AC and can target weaknesses for most elements. While there are more creatures that have resistances to different elements that physical damage, there are also far more creatures with weaknesses to different magical damages that I'm sure Paizo looked at when figuring out how much damage spells can get, and while the lower level spells diminish in blasting power over time, I think Paizo gave a thesis option for those who want to play pure blasters, sacrificing lower slots for higher ones.
And there are most assuredly times when spell attacks have the advantage over save targeting spells, at least from a mathematical point of view. While the most often condition is flat-footed, there are times when creatures' AC can drop while the wizards' bonus to hit can increase, resulting in a net +7 (the highest we've gotten in our game) difference in the wizard's favor. At that point, there's an 85% chance for the wizard to hit with an attack spell, which also (if my math isn't wrong) results in a 35% chance to crit, and that is before true strike. While this isn't an every session occurrence, my group has been able to pull it off a few times. Using a spell that targets a creature's weakness in that situation sounds like a trump card to me. Trump cards are a gamble, but they pay off when used at the right time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So using your two or three times a day, would you be fine with fighters only being able to double strike four to six times a day and then needing to using single attack actions and other abilities (utilities and cantrips) for the rest of the day?But the fighter doesn't have utility tricks... If the fighter can turn invisible, then yes, as currently presented though, Im gonna have to say no.
Why dont you answer the simple question, how much damage to a 75hp enemy, the spell has to do, for you to be happy doing it at max 3/day.
Because it's not a simple question, and you know it. You are also completely ignoring the fighter's entire feat list of other abilities they can use, many of them also infinite times per day. Fighters are not just empty handed with one single trick.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because it's not a simple question, and you know it. You are also completely ignoring the fighter's entire feat list of other abilities they can use, many of them also infinite times per day. Fighters are not just empty handed with one single trick.
With complete disregard for action economy, too! Those fighters and their pesky minute long duration actions that apply to their other attacks. Infinitely.
I forgot that 2e has very strongly noted that feats are a direct power boost and not something silly like, "expanding your toolkit of options in combat." Like spells! Except instead a lot of 'em that you can change out, you just have the one feat. Man, fighter is looking pretty weak.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because it's not a simple question, and you know it. You are also completely ignoring the fighter's entire feat list of other abilities they can use, many of them also infinite times per day. Fighters are not just empty-handed with one single trick.
Yeah, but he cannot turn invisible or fly, or make your buddy resistant to fire, ergo letting him using his bag of feats more often.
As you are not telling me how much damage you want (I say average 52 is pretty decent against 75hp 3/day, but that's me) I will ask, how much do you want to do with cantrips, so you can do it all day long, like the fighter and his feat.Using telekinetic projectile, you can do 13 damage on average, throw some focus ("unavoidable" Force Bolt) and you do 20 damage, a little less than the fighter. So how much more do you need to not feel bad doing it
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because it's not a simple question, and you know it. You are also completely ignoring the fighter's entire feat list of other abilities they can use, many of them also infinite times per day. Fighters are not just empty-handed with one single trick.Yeah, but he cannot turn invisible or fly, or make your buddy resistant to fire, ergo letting him using his bag of feats more often.
As you are not telling me how much damage you want (I say average 52 is pretty decent against 75hp 3/day, but that's me) I will ask, how much do you want to do with cantrips, so you can do it all day long, like the fighter and his feat.
Using telekinetic projectile, you can do 13 damage on average, throw some focus ("unavoidable" Force Bolt) and you do 20 damage, a little less than the fighter. So how much more do you need to not feel bad doing it
If we just remove the fly spell from the game can Wizards have good offense spells? I will make that trade. You can have fly, invisibility, and every 10th level spell that no one ever gets to actually use if wizards can be fun and useful during combat, the thing that takes up most of the game time.
I don't know why killing one enemy (average 52 against 75hp 3/day) is worth 22% of everything a wizard gets to do today, but that seems completely unreasonable to me.
I don't know why killing one enemy (average 52 against 75hp 3/day) is worth 22% of everything a wizard gets to do today, but that seems completely unreasonable to me.
How much do you want? you are doing on average 75% of the creature's life. That's more than any other class.
You want 100% 4/dayHow much do you want the Cantrip to be, the same as a fighter? Please, enlighten me, just tell me straight.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What if -and hear me out- we give the wizard one more trained skill.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What if -and hear me out- we give the wizard one more trained skill.
You know what? You've convinced me. Pathfinder 2e is perfect, nothing is wrong with the wizard class, people who are not having fun are just objectively wrong, and there is no war in Ba Sing Se.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What if -and hear me out- we give the wizard one more trained skill.You know what? You've convinced me. Pathfinder 2e is perfect, nothing is wrong with the wizard class, people who are not having fun are just objectively wrong, and there is no war in Ba Sing Se.
Why are you ignoring me, he is obviously joking. PF2 has a lot to grow to become the masterpiece that is PF1... And Im not saying the wizard is perfect. But is not because it lacks damage. And if it is, why dont you tell me how much more do you want?
Like I said, on a cantrip (Fighter Average 27) how much more do you want?
why against 75?
Why simulate the use of top slot + 1 lvl slot against same level mob?
to burn everything in a fight like this is realistic? you keep talking about turning invisible and flying, but with what resource? if you make heavy use of slot like that.
Some mob? That is an average level 5 enemy, vs a 5level character
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What if -and hear me out- we give the wizard one more trained skill.You know what? You've convinced me. Pathfinder 2e is perfect, nothing is wrong with the wizard class, people who are not having fun are just objectively wrong, and there is no war in Ba Sing Se.
This is why I think it is much more important to focus on specific situations.
You brought up a good one that I had not been considering, and that is the PFS wizard. PFS does present a set of unique circumstances that make general blasting for wizards much more difficult. Do you find that there is often 10 minutes of down time between encounters? If so, it might be worth trying out the spell substitution thesis for PFS play on your Wizard, and see if you find yourself able to go into combats with more exciting, encounter specific spells.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread has turned into one side arguing that a wizard is fine because the math shows that a limited resource can, with enough luck, out perform a martial class temporarily and the other side pointing out that is terribly unreliable.
Frankly the only lessons I've taken from this thread is that I need to be okay with marginal success rates -in other words, accepting that my spells will consistently have reduced effects because clearly it's fun to have spell consistently saved against- and that missing with limited resources on a consistent basis is fine because when they do hit they can be cool!
Don't worry, I'll take my badwrong fun blasting character and put him away. I've switched to Bard anyway since they actually seem to have positive impacts on the field.
For you math folks I spent literal real world months playing through Age of Ashes, once a week for 2-4 hours. If the party needed to stop early in the adventuring day it was almost exclusively because I was out of spells and my cantrips were ineffective compared to the martial characters and the players could tell that my turns weren't terribly fun. Enemies consistently saved or crit saved against my spells that had saves and unless I was using true strike I was consistently missing, and even then I was consistently missing anything remotely in the league of a boss monster was missed with regularity even with true strike.
There was a single combat in which my spells were effective. I was put at Dying 3 to do so, and that's only because we forgot that a critical hit puts you at Dying +1, so technically my wizard died in that combat. Fun.
While I understand that by the math this character was unlikely, but at what point do you stop blaming the unlikely scenario and start looking at the math? How many consecutive sessions where you character is a quantifiable (not perception, actually by the numbers) burden on the party before you start looking at mechanics or switch characters?
Right now, playing anything but a wizard that is focused on debuffs and field control is remarkably unfun. This is doubly so when compared to the cool things other casters get (I'm ignoring martials because you all like to pretend they don't get things as cool as spells, you're wrong, but I can't change that pretense) in my personal case, particularly Bards.
My bard regularly has +1Att/Dmg & +1Ssaves+Physical Resistance up, then I can attempt to demoralize or position so that my whip with reach provides flanking. That's a fairly massive swing in to hit and damage for the party for *Zero* per day investment. We haven't even touched my spells yet. There's nothing a wizard can do to have that same impact for that same resource investment. But Wizards are fine, don't look behind the curtain, the math is clearly spotless and the design irreproachable.