| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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?
This is the essential question I want to discuss as well: How often should the wizard/caster have be able to be the hero of the encounter with a spell that saves the day/a specific character?
In my parties, once every four sessions is what it currently is at, and that seems to be enough for our casters to have fun. One out of every four sessions also involves a lot of out of combat role playing so I'd probably estimate it as 1 out of every 10 encounters the caster does something amazing with a spell that defines the encounter. Interestingly enough, this is usually against solo monsters as our casters tend not to use spell slots against groups of lower level monsters. We'd probably have more encounter defining spells if our casters unleashed AoEs, but we typically haven't. We'd also probably have less big spell effects against bosses, since we wouldn't have those spells memorized if we did.
These numbers leave us happy because our casters contribute a little bit less than martials the other 9 times, but we love having that trump card when we need it, even if it is only every 10th encounter.
We also play long running campaigns and take a LOT of time before entering the dungeons figuring out what our goal is, who our opposition is, and how to best accomplish our goals.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
So, after all the data, calculations, anecdotes and tips... your conclusion is; I didn't have fun doing, so it's bad, and you are all fools for even considering that maybe I had bad luck, or the circumstances had a great effect on my experience.
And now every one of us, trying to rescue the best part of the class, to look the big picture and try to understand why it was designed that way, are just suddenly blind idiots who think PF2 es perfect.
So, there was no point in your thread, it was all a sham, to see how many people say that the designers are dumb, and they didn't do their job, that's the ONLY possible answer to why the wizard is like that.
Have fun with your bard, not every class is for everyone
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is the essential question I want to discuss as well: How often should the wizard/caster have be able to be the hero of the encounter with a spell that saves the day/a specific character?
In my parties, once every four sessions is what it currently is at, and that seems to be enough for our casters to have fun. One out of every four sessions also involves a lot of out of combat role playing so I'd probably estimate it as 1 out of every 10 encounters the caster does something amazing with a spell that defines the encounter. Interestingly enough, this is usually against solo monsters as our casters tend not to use spell slots against groups of lower level monsters. We'd probably have more encounter defining spells if our casters unleashed AoEs, but we typically haven't. We'd also probably have less big spell effects against bosses, since we wouldn't have those spells memorized if we did.
These numbers leave us happy because our casters contribute a little bit less than martials the other 9 times, but we love having that trump card when we need it, even if it is only every 10th encounter.
We also play long running campaigns and take a LOT of time before entering the dungeons figuring out what our goal is, who our opposition is, and how to best accomplish our goals.
I should also add that in PF1 the answer was that casters solved 9 out of 10 encounters our parties encountered. A little bit less at levels 1-4 and nearly all of them by level 12 or higher.
That was far too extreme and needed to be scaled back a lot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ Unicore
I don't want to be the hero, not even consistently. I want to be a consistently and reliably benefit to the party on the scale of the rest of the players.
@TSRodriguez
Not my thread. Not what I said. Have a nice day putting words in people's mouth though, you seem good at it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
@ Unicore
I don't want to be the hero, not even consistently. I want to be a consistently and reliably benefit to the party on the scale of the rest of the players.
@TSRodriguez
Not my thread. Not what I said. Have a nice day putting words in people's mouth though, you seem good at it.
It sounds like the bard is a better fit for you then. Blaster casting is very much more of an attempt at being in the spotlight and bringing down the foes that the rest of your party cant.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not my thread. Not what I said. Have a nice day putting words in people's mouth though, you seem good at it.
You come all flustered about how nonsense is the discussion, referring again to your anecdotal data. Sorry for reading a dismissive tone in your post, I apologize.
"But Wizards are fine, don't look behind the curtain, the math is clearly spotless and the design irreproachable"
Sorry for misrepresenting what you said, I should have said the exact same words in agreement next time.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
@ Unicore
I don't want to be the hero, not even consistently. I want to be a consistently and reliably benefit to the party on the scale of the rest of the players.
As Unicore notes, being a buff focused caster, such as a Bard, or any debuff/Save-or-Suck caster, or both, does exactly this with a very high degree of reliability if done properly (in particular, on debuffs, even a successful Save still usually means quite a bit if you're being careful not use Incapacitate effects on the wrong enemy). As does having healing, really. Or going the Wild Shape route on a Druid.
It's solely being a blaster that is more of a gamble.
You know what I want? I was cantrips to be worth the average two action damage output of the suboptiomal martial classes, rogue or warpriest, something in the zone.I want damaging spells to be consistent enough to rely on them to deal serious damage without needing to spend additional resources on a support spell first.
I want blaster caster to be able to contribute consistently to a fight about as well as the average martial.
I actually agree. Maybe a little up in damage cantrips, for a Feat or specialization would be fun, and maybe help close the gap with the stronger classes. Na man, I agree. Thanks for answering
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not my thread. Not what I said. Have a nice day putting words in people's mouth though, you seem good at it.You come all flustered about how nonsense is the discussion, referring again to your anecdotal data. Sorry for reading a dismissive tone in your post, I apologize.
"But Wizards are fine, don't look behind the curtain, the math is clearly spotless and the design irreproachable"
Sorry for misrepresenting what you said, I should have said the exact same words in agreement next time.
Hey look! One line, no context. Clearly the entire point of the post.
Maybe pay attention to the previous block of questions. It's in reference to the fact that several months of collected rolls don't bear out the pre-calculated expected results. As I've said, multiple times, this surprised me. It's not like I'm new to playing spell casters. I've spent roughly two decades playing almost exclusively wizards, mainly Illusion & Enchantment wizards to be precise.
@Deadmanwalking
Only because Bards have large (60'AOE) one action cantrips that target allies. And they still get a good spell list, a fair number of spells per day, and other interesting class feats. Heck, I could probably make what amounts to an Occult wizard if I wanted to via the Polymath feats. Which is...fair(?) somehow.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
There has been one version of D&D where the blaster caster was perfectly balanced around what a martial character could do as a striker. It is also the version of D&D that got decried as the most boring version of D&D because all of the classes felt the same.
What you are asking for is a very tricky request to fill, because parties that are good at maximizing what they can get from magic have exponential gains over other parties when the generic damage and effectiveness of spells is set to be balanced with generic martial attacks.
That is why I have been trying so hard to avoid generic situations, as they will always (and always should) favor martials over casters. Magic is about exploiting the situational advantages beyond even the realms of the possible (as martials can exploit mundane situational advantages).
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Only because Bards have large (60'AOE) one action cantrips that target allies. And they still get a good spell list, a fair number of spells per day, and other interesting class feats. Heck, I could probably make what amounts to an Occult wizard if I wanted to via the Polymath feats. Which is...fair(?) somehow.
No, I'm pretty convinced you can do this very successfully on a Wizard or Cleric, or any other spellcaster you care to name, though Bard is easier I'll grant you. The difference is in the spells you use, not mostly in the Class.
Several Wizard spells are very solid for debuffing enemies, and a few are even solid buffs. Focusing on those you can be a solid and contributing party member quite reliably (occasionally you'll run into a crit save, but failure some time is inevitable).
It's not like I'm new to playing spell casters. I've spent roughly two decades playing almost exclusively wizards, mainly Illusion & Enchantment wizards to be precise.
I have read everything you said, I'm sorry if I misinterpreted anything you said, I was too confrontational.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Martials and Skill Monkeys having abilities they can use 'all day long for infinity', while casters only have limited resources is one of the greatest lies in the history of D&D.
Why? Because that claim is *technically* true. Except, while a Fighter never runs out of sword, he can only 'cast sword' as many times a day as there are combat rounds (also, casters can do cantrips/orisions all day long for infinity, but whatever).
Please remember that iterative attacks are merely how martials were supposed to get scaling damage, because a +x (max +5) weapon does do jack for damage compared to getting +1d6 damage on damage spells every level for free. Yes, free. A PF 1 10th level fireball does 10d6 damage out of a 3rd level slot. Just *another* way casters were OP.
And how many combat rounds are there in a day? Well, seeing that everybody and their dog used '4 encounters per day' as their benchmark, we will go with that. And how many rounds are in a combat? 2-3 in rocket tag territory? Maybe 4-5 if we are stretching that, getting us to 20 rounds of combat in the D20 system. Let's use that, such a nice, round number.
So, does a martial type get to make 60 attacks per day? Of course not. Moving is a thing. Raising your shield is a thing. Many combat actions require two actions to perform, even if they may include multiple attack rolls. But again, more attacks is how martials scale their damage, as all they ever get is a +3 damage dice from runes and +8 static damage bonus from class features.
On top of that, outside of the lowest of levels 'casters can't cast all day long' was a dirty, rotten lie too, even without cantrips being at will. At 7th level, an INT 18 Wizard could cast 20 spells per day. Even if we take into account that daily boost spells like Mage Armour should not be counted against that number, the 'one spell per round of combat a day' thing would hold true from level 9 onward.
Sure, low-level spells only really matter for utility, and thus out-of-combat purposes, but that still means that 'a Wizard can cast spells all day long' becomes *techncially* correct. So there is that.
In PF 2, the number of spell slots casters have at their beck and call is severely limited compared to earlier editions. So it is true that a caster will probably only have about 2-3 spells (outside of cantrips) that can influence any given encounter. But to only consider direct damage spells in this calculation is dishonest.
Why are Bards awesome? Because they make other people awesome. Every hit that lands because of Inspire Courage is damage caused by the Bard. Every save that is made because of the Bard is equivalent to a Cure or Restoration spell that now does not need to be cast.
And a buff/debuff Wizard is in the same boat. Wizards *do* a lot of damage, just not directly. And thus, their direct damage abilities can not, nay, MUST NOT rival that of the classes *that only have doing damage* as their saving grace.
Oh sure, there is 'Scare to Death' which it the literal example of a Save-or-Die effect. It *still* isn't something martials and skill monkeys have going for them, because guess what? CASTERS CAN SCARE PEOPLE TO DEATH TOO, if they deign to cough up the skill and feat investment. So no, that is not a feather in the cap of martials. Plus, you only ever get 1 chance to intimidate an enemy. If that fails, that's it. No retry.
So, scarcity of resources is a thing, but it is not nearly as much of a thing as some people wish you would believe. Casters, check your privileges...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, scarcity of resources is a thing, but it is not nearly as much of a thing as some people wish you would believe. Casters, check your privileges...
Have you ever played a 2e caster? Just like for a month or so worth of sessions? Running out of spell slots is a regular occurrence, and spell slots are ALL YOU HAVE.
You know what I want? I was cantrips to be worth the average two action damage output of the suboptiomal martial classes, rogue or warpriest, something in the zone.
You CAN'T have that AND everything else you already have.
I want blaster caster to be able to contribute consistently to a fight about as well as the average martial.
Cool. And I'm reasonably confident that Paizo will publish such a class eventually. Wizard isn't it.
No of course not, you are going to hold Fly and Invisibility over the conversation like out of combat situational utility spells somehow make up for being useless/boring for a majority of combat. Failing that, you are going to point to the math and say "Well it REALLY isn't THAT much lower, everyone who isn't having fun is just unlucky."
Yes, if you have out-of-combat utility, YOU DO NOT GET to have as much combat power as a class that DOES NOT HAVE YOUR OUT-OF-COMBAT UTILITY. It really is as simple as that.
Caster, check your priviliges.
If you are willing to give up Fly and Invisibility for blasting, then sure, just wait for the new Warlock/Kineticist to roll out and you should be happy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Only because Bards have large (60'AOE) one action cantrips that target allies. And they still get a good spell list, a fair number of spells per day, and other interesting class feats. Heck, I could probably make what amounts to an Occult wizard if I wanted to via the Polymath feats. Which is...fair(?) somehow.No, I'm pretty convinced you can do this very successfully on a Wizard or Cleric, or any other spellcaster you care to name, though Bard is easier I'll grant you. The difference is in the spells you use, not mostly in the Class.
Several Wizard spells are very solid for debuffing enemies, and a few are even solid buffs. Focusing on those you can be a solid and contributing party member quite reliably (occasionally you'll run into a crit save, but failure some time is inevitable).
Not all day. Please tell me which Wizard cantrip does a 60' party buff.
And the Bard *still* gets the entire occult spell list to pick from.I honestly don't see how Wizards came out even with other spell casters, regardless of build type. A blaster wizard came out the worst in the new edition, which is the primary source of my frustration with my most recent character, however, I don't see a way for any of the casters to compete with a dedicated support/CC Bard. Which is fine if that was the niche for Bard, but it appears to *also* be the design niche for Wizard and right now a wizard is pretty far behind.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing that interests me is how people say that a Wizard is fine for being, "Only -1 or -2 behind" while simultaneously saying that a Wizard is fine for applying a -1 or -2 with a spell that is saved against because "a -1 or -2 is a big deal." Which is is? One or two behind is fine, or one or two reduced is a big deal.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I think is happening with the perception of the wizard is that Wizard is among the worst classes until level 7.
Mostly, wizards depend on targetting the weak save, but a lack of number of spells before level 7 really prevents them from having a complete kit. Further, the proficiency valley just before 7 hits the wizard/arcane sorcerer harder than any other class. The arcane spell list doesn't handle being able use offense well, and all the other lists can lean back into support and healing during the duration of the proficiency valley.
At 7, the wizard can actually cover all it's bases and have room for a few utility options that aren't absolutely mandatory parts of it's kit, and it isn't in a proficiency valley. From that level on, the wizard is quite a strong and unique class that can consistently target the weak save, which can't be said for any other list but the arcane list.
Is scraping by for 6 levels worth the most versatile and clever offensive spell list? I think it is, but I like gritty experiences.
One thing I think is happening with the perception of the wizard is that Wizard is among the worst classes until level 7.
Mostly, wizards depend on targetting the weak save, but a lack of number of spells before level 7 really prevents them from having a complete kit. Further, the proficiency valley just before 7 hits the wizard/arcane sorcerer harder than any other class. The arcane spell list doesn't handle being able use offense well, and all the other lists can lean back into support and healing during the duration of the proficiency valley.
At 7, the wizard can actually cover all it's bases and have room for a few utility options that aren't absolutely mandatory parts of it's kit, and it isn't in a proficiency valley. From that level on, the wizard is quite a strong and unique class that can consistently target the weak save, which can't be said for any other list but the arcane list.
Is scraping by for 6 levels worth the most versatile and clever offensive spell list? I think it is, but I like gritty experiences.
While most of the white room number produced earler seem to indicate that the wizard seems to be at least okish I wholeheartedly agree to this assessment, simply because my own play experience fully complies.
I have seen my fair share of 100% unassisted +7 to +10 spell attacks (neither True Strike, nor debuffs; don't ask me why, our party sucks at debuffing) during the first 4 levels and volume of AoA and our wizard is currently at a point of not picking up any spell that has a spell attack ever again.
There has been one version of D&D where the blaster caster was perfectly balanced around what a martial character could do as a striker.
Just for the record, not true. A damage-oriented wizard kinda sucked in that edition. They were specifically designed to sweep low HP enemies and then debuff tougher enemies and bosses rather than just do straight damage.
Rangers and Fighters (despite fighters not even being a striker) vastly outstripped them in terms of damage output. Like, obscenely so.
No, I'm pretty convinced you can do this very successfully on a Wizard or Cleric, or any other spellcaster you care to name, though Bard is easier I'll grant you. The difference is in the spells you use, not mostly in the Class.
I think Mabtik has a point. There's no fallback mechanic the Wizard has that can compete with the power of something like Dirge or Inspire Courage.
Obviously that's kind of the point, full casters get an extra spell slot per level and partial casters get better class features, but those extra class features often translate into much more robust fallback mechanics, which gives them much better longevity and leaves them a lot less likely to feel like they're dead in the water if they guessed wrong about what the GM was going to throw at them.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, scarcity of resources is a thing, but it is not nearly as much of a thing as some people wish you would believe. Casters, check your privileges...Have you ever played a 2e caster? Just like for a month or so worth of sessions? Running out of spell slots is a regular occurrence, and spell slots are ALL YOU HAVE.Wrong. You have your weapon training (only -2 compared to the ALL martials except Fighter) and you have your skill feats (completely divorced from your class feats).
In fact you have THE SAME ability to do skill stuff as EVERY OTHER CLASS beside the Rogue.
Seriously, this complaint comes off as super whiney. :(
Your right! Once my class feature run out, I can be a generic humanoid with access to some skill feats and the smallest selection of simple weapons that I'm not built to use effectively, how fun!
One a fighter runs out of class features they become ... a fighter because their class features never run out so that's never a problem.
You know what a caster's class feature is? Casting spells. And they too can do that all. Day. Long.
Just because you have exhausted your daily complement of spell slots does not mean you can't cast spells any more. Sure, cantrips are not nearly as powerful as 'real' spells, because of course they aren't. But a caster player running out of spells because they can't be bothered to pace themselves because 'gods beware' other people get to play their characters too have nobody to fault but themselves.
Spells are at a premium because of their devastating potential. Sure, that potential doesn't always get realised, but non-casters do not have that potential to begin with. So maybe learn to pace yourself and cast a damn cantrip if they rest of the party don't need you to waste spell slots on fights that are already in the mop-up phase.
Besides, and that goes for everybody, 'Optimisation' is ultimately self-defeating. Either you make every fight a cake-walk, which is boring, or the GM adjusts the difficulty, and that makes all the sacrifices you made to optimise null and void.
Not all day. Please tell me which Wizard cantrip does a 60' party buff.
And the Bard *still* gets the entire occult spell list to pick from.I honestly don't see how Wizards came out even with other spell casters, regardless of build type. A blaster wizard came out the worst in the new edition, which is the primary source of my frustration with my most recent character, however, I don't see a way for any of the casters to compete with a dedicated support/CC Bard. Which is fine if that was the niche for Bard, but it appears to *also* be the design niche for Wizard and right now a wizard is pretty far behind.
Support is part of the niche generally covered by the spirit essence, which falls under divine/occult.
Arcane and occult share mental, so all the mind-affecting things.
Where arcane shines and occult does not, is affecting the physical world. You're functionally incapable of blasting in occult, for example. Arcane also has things like enlarge, water breathing, earthbind, stinking cloud, and stoneskin. Also polymorphs.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They are two different things, but my point was that the Paizo scenarios often don't give a wizard the chance to prepare spells for specific encounters. Time pressure and unknown enemies both prevent a wizard from swapping to appropriate spells.You’ve given up arguing just to try and get off insults you think that makes you look witty that you’re not even paying attention to what others are saying, that’s quite said honestly.
My statement doesn’t change. “We’re on a timer and cannot rest” and “everything is random/there’s no clues” are two completely different things.
And not being able to customize your spells for each individual fight is a separate discussion entirely.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the floor on the wizard is lower than any other class. I think the ceiling is higher than any other class. A perfectly placed offensive spell has more effect than any other ability in the game. Before level 7, you don't often see that ceiling, so the class looks quite bad.
One thing that interests me is how people say that a Wizard is fine for being, "Only -1 or -2 behind" while simultaneously saying that a Wizard is fine for applying a -1 or -2 with a spell that is saved against because "a -1 or -2 is a big deal." Which is is? One or two behind is fine, or one or two reduced is a big deal.
Simple. Either 1-2 points of difference is a big deal, then casters being able to inflict that upon their foes is a big deal too, or it is not, and then they being behind hitting things with simple weapons or crossbow bolts is not a big thing either.
They can have it one way or another, their choice. ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know what a caster's class feature is? Casting spells. And they too can do that all. Day. Long.
Cantrips are worse than the basic attacks and abilities of every other class in the game, I don't think they need to rival the damage a fighter does, but they simply are not good.
Just because you have exhausted your daily complement of spell slots does not mean you can't cast spells any more. Sure, cantrips are not nearly as powerful as 'real' spells, because of course they aren't. But a caster player running out of spells because they can't be bothered to pace themselves because 'gods beware' other people get to play their characters too have nobody to fault but themselves.
Why do you have this idea that a caster having spells stops everyone else from playing their characters? Casters can cast spells WHILE other party members do things.
Spells are at a premium because of their devastating potential. Sure, that potential doesn't always get realised, but non-casters do not have that potential to begin with. So maybe learn to pace yourself and cast a damn cantrip if they rest of the party don't need you to waste spell slots on fights that are already in the mop-up phase.
Non-casters have abilities! Good ones! Effective ones! Utility ones! You are pretending that non-casters just don't have abilities or powers when they all do.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, scarcity of resources is a thing, but it is not nearly as much of a thing as some people wish you would believe. Casters, check your privileges...Have you ever played a 2e caster? Just like for a month or so worth of sessions? Running out of spell slots is a regular occurrence, and spell slots are ALL YOU HAVE.
I ran a group of 5, which had three casters (Druid, Divine Sorc, Cleric) through 10 encounters and they didn't run out of spell slots until the last fight.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not all day. Please tell me which Wizard cantrip does a 60' party buff.
None. But if you do a targeted debuff and everyone then attacks that enemy, well, that's mathematically very similar. It's not a cantrip, but then I never said it was. I said they had things to do that were good and useful.
And sometimes you really do need some damage, especially area effect stuff, and a Wizard is a lot better at bringing a splash of that than a Bard is.
And the Bard *still* gets the entire occult spell list to pick from.
True, but depending on build, they have either one or two less spells per level than the Wizard and the Occult list, while good, is just not as impressive as the Arcane one.
I honestly don't see how Wizards came out even with other spell casters, regardless of build type. A blaster wizard came out the worst in the new edition, which is the primary source of my frustration with my most recent character, however, I don't see a way for any of the casters to compete with a dedicated support/CC Bard. Which is fine if that was the niche for Bard, but it appears to *also* be the design niche for Wizard and right now a wizard is pretty far behind.
A Wizard focusing on 'support' does it very differently from a Bard, mostly focusing on Save-or-Suck effects and making good use of occasional area effect blasts to handle minions. It's just a very different thing.
Is it as good as a Bard? That's an interesting question that probably depends a lot on party composition and how often you can stop and rest (the Bard has a bit more staying power), but it's got some definite neat spell advantages, especially at higher levels, and can fine tune spell selection to particular enemies to a much greater degree.
I think Mabtik has a point. There's no fallback mechanic the Wizard has that can compete with the power of something like Dirge or Inspire Courage.
Obviously that's kind of the point, full casters get an extra spell slot per level and partial casters get better class features, but those extra class features often translate into much more robust fallback mechanics, which gives them much better longevity and leaves them a lot less likely to feel like they're dead in the water if they guessed wrong about what the GM was going to throw at them.
Being Prepared instead of Spontaneous is also still a real advantage that Wizards possess, but yes, Bard is a bit more straightforward in its goodness. Hell, it debatably even is better than Wizard...but that says more about Bard (which is one of the top two or three classes in the game), than it does about Wizard, IMO.
It's an old point, but you shouldn't be picking the "Spell Substitution Thesis" on a Blaster Wizard. "Spell Blending" is where it's at, since it will allow you to fire a good 2 more good level blasts that day, while removing some low level ones you may be stuck with from Evocation School.
Also, I am of the opinion that Wizard and Sorc (Not Druid, Bard or Warpriest) are expected to cast 1 spell every single round of combat in normal circumstances (In the back, not being slowed/stunned). Many are likely to be cantrips, specially at low levels, but spells is almost all they're gonna offer mid-fight from levels 1-20 (Wizard will also do some recall knowledge).
I think non-blasters are okay if they play smart and choose the right spells (Need some you are expecting to get saved). It's just blasters that are really disappointing, specially with Spell Attacks. They also sucked in PF1, by the way (without crazy builds later on), so I'm amazed that this playstyle got nerfed.
Personally I liked the playtest "spell damage buff" patch. I'm amazed it didn't make it to the final release. I'll do good to remember that for every "Wizard Sucks because isn't autowinning fights", there's one "Wizard deserves to suck as punishment for the sins of their ancestors".
That and the designers being scared that a party of 5 wizards could quickly kill a same level creature if they all spammed magic missile for 2 turns (I believe it was Mark Seifter explaining why blasts had to do low damage). I think such weird party composition should probably be allowed to do that twice per day (Then they run out of the best slots).
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cantrips are worse than the basic attacks and abilities of every other class in the game, I don't think they need to rival the damage a fighter does, but they simply are not good.
Electric Arc actually does really solid damage if you've got two enemies to target with it. Like, legitimately solid even compared to martial characters damage.
This is admittedly less true of other cantrips, but it's worth noting, especially since not all casters have Electric Arc but Wizards do.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cantrips are worse than the basic attacks and abilities of every other class in the game, I don't think they need to rival the damage a fighter does, but they simply are not good.Electric Arc actually does really solid damage if you've got two enemies to target with it. Like, legitimately solid even compared to martial characters damage.
This is admittedly less true of other cantrips, but it's worth noting, especially since not all casters have Electric Arc but Wizards do.
Electric Arc is by far the best blasting cantrip, and I like it a lot. If all cantrips were up to that power level and versatility, I think Wizard would be in a much better place.
I like produce flame and Ray of Frost
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In listening to folks, I think there are a number of spell school abilities that probably feel like they could have been cantrip abilities, if they were restricted to once per round, and that they are not generally on par with what other casters get from their focus spells.
Cleric focus spells are all over the place in terms of power balance, but you get a choice of 4 of them and even choosing not to get one if you pick an alternative build that gives you quite a bit in replacement of them.
Bards get the best focus powers in game (for full casters)
Druids focus powers are not, across the board, all that great and tied to a specific builds, but they do enable those builds to function pretty thematically.
Wizard focus powers are tricky because, in PF1, they were pretty much throw away powers that gave you something to do at low levels until you had enough spells to make them irrelevant. (except for the diviner because massive insight bonuses at higher levels were pretty awesome).
IN PF2, some of them are still great (I will die on the hill that diviners and Abjurers have top tier, bard level 1st level focus powers, the diviner because you will be using it every 10 minutes of the day, in and out of combat, and the abjurer because status bonuses to Defense that don't take concentration are epic. the illusionist have an incredible focus power as well because every enemy has to contend with it and either burn an action or deal with difficult terrain, possibly for the whole battle, so it is a power that can keep on giving. Necromancy is pretty decent but limited to single target. Enchanter is good, but it is a single round only effect, same with Universalist. Conjurer is good, but only if you are casting from your spell slots, which might not be every combat. Can their be a summoning cantrip? probably not. Evoker's focus spell looks underwhelming, but automatic damage shouldn't be written off as completely useless.
There are a lot of wizard builds where your focus power is left as a relatively minor part of what your character can do as opposed to something that you will be using all the time, and you don't really get much choice in your focus powers yet because you probably pick your school for bigger reasons than focus power (wanting to focus on spell slot spells).
I think everyone agrees that having more options presented for wizard focus spells is something that we are all looking forward to.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Being Prepared instead of Spontaneous is also still a real advantage that Wizards possess.
I'm still not entirely convinced about how true that is this edition. Especially for a wizard who's limited on the number of spells they get for free compared to a Druid or Cleric (at odd levels, a Wizard will know just as many top level spells as a bard and fewer than a sorcerer, for instance).
With such a greater emphasis being placed on casting spells with the appropriate targeting this edition, the ability to just have several of them ready and able to be used in any amount that's necessary is a massive boon compared to the guess and hope mechanics of prepared casters.
That's not to say there aren't advantages to the prepared caster, free heightening and the ability to (with money and downtime) get a broader compliment of spells are both really nice, but I think this thread has done a great job highlighting just how high value moment-to-moment versatility is this edition and I think that makes it a lot less clear cut which mechanic is better.
That said I think for this example the casting mechanics are besides the point. Both Wizards and Sorcerers (and playtest Witches) have the same issue regarding the depth of their chassis and fallback mechanics compared to the Bard, Druid and Cleric.
Cantrips are worse than the basic attacks and abilities of every other class in the game, I don't think they need to rival the damage a fighter does, but they simply are not good.Electric Arc actually does really solid damage if you've got two enemies to target with it. Like, legitimately solid even compared to martial characters damage.
This is admittedly less true of other cantrips, but it's worth noting, especially since not all casters have Electric Arc but Wizards do.
Electric Arc is basically a level 1 spell in the cantrip slot, so it auto-heightens. I'd actually argue that it's too good. If there were another cantrip like it that targetted fort saves instead, casters would be extremely strong. As is, though, electric arc is just situationally powerful.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cantrips are worse than the basic attacks and abilities of every other class in the game, I don't think they need to rival the damage a fighter does, but they simply are not good.
You mean, the basic attacks of a non-martial class are not as good as the basic attacks of the dedicated damage-dealers? Next you tell me it gets dark at night... :p
Or more to the point: You have offered no justification whatsoever for why they should be in the first place.
Why do you have this idea that a caster having spells stops everyone else from playing their characters? Casters can cast spells WHILE other party members do things.
Because you come off as someone who sulks because he does not get to end all encounters, every day, with his awesome spell power.
Can't you accept that other classes can end encounters with THEIR class features too? And that no, the Wizard is not required to 'carry' the party through the day with their spells.
Non-casters have abilities! Good ones! Effective ones! Utility ones! You are pretending that non-casters just don't have abilities or powers when they all do.
Casters have abilities outside of spells! Good ones! Effective ones! Utility ones! You are pretending that casters just don't have abilities or powers once out of spell slots when they all do.
There, fixed that for you. :p
Wizards dont get so much versatility that they can do everything.
Its literally impossible for a Wizard to both have utility and still keep up with damage. Specially with the fact single target spell attack spells have ~50% chance of not doing anything, and requiring you to have even less utility if you want to actually hit more than 50%.
You cant use Shocking Grasp, and True Strike, and get 30ft range. You know what that means? The class with the worst defenses needs to be right next to the enemy, casting a spell and unable to move. You heard right, the guy who can die the easiest needs to spend all their actions to hit on average for the same damage as the Fighter.
Invisibility and Fly are both short duration spells, so thats even more wasted spell slots if you are using them every combat. And again how many spells do you think a Wizard has? Because at 5th level the max is 8 (11 for specialist). Not to mention they cant even cast fly till 7th level (2 4th lv spell slots) for a new max of 11 (15 for specialist).
So 4 encounter a day if 4 rds each, thats 16 rounds usually divided by 10 or more minutes. So Invisivility and Fly would both have ended on average, meaning you need at least 4 of each. Invisibility ends when you attack unless you prepare no fly spells. And notice you are spending your highest level spell slot to get fly and invisivility. So what is damage? Well assuming you are using Shocking Grasp (which as stated above requires you stand next to the enemy or have a large chance to miss) you get at most 3 uses.
Just to recap an Evocation Wizard spending enough spell at 7th level for Invisibility an Fly for 4 encounters, "because its apparently worth not being useful for them", has this spells prepared more or less:
1st - True Strike x3, Magic Missile.
2nd - Invisibility x3. Hydraulic Push.
3rd - Shocking Grasp x4.
4th - Fly x2. Shocking Grasp.So that wizard has thats 6 spell attacks each costing 2 actions, 5 utility spells (3 disappearing when you make an attack), and 3 True...
I'd definitely consider grabbing one spectral hand instead of Hydraulic push at level 2. Plus 4 shocking grasps at level 3 is a bit much because you still have your bond. You probably want 1 fireball or lightning bolt.