| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Blaster does not equal spell attack roll. You have to be belligerently unaware of the strategies of PF2 to think it is a good idea to be a caster and ONLY pick spells that target AC with a spell attack roll.
Spells that move enemies around or restrict movement become a lot more powerful if you have some kind of battlefield control spell or circumstance on the table. Flight is a terrible spell in a 10 ft hallway with a 10ft ceiling.
All spells have circumstantial advantages and disadvantages . Spell attack roll spells are great spells to cast against enemies with low ACs and when you have a spare 1st level Truestrie and an action to cast it with. If making it your general thing is your plan, you also probably need to memorizing spectral hand to take advantage of the additional circumstance bonus to hit from flanking. That one lasts for a minute though so it is your desired pre-buff/first round but only when you have enough distance between yourself and the enemy to make it worth it.
Spells will always be determined by the circumstances you cast them in. If your party is consistently, (more than 50%) of the time finding yourself in circumstances where you have no idea what the battlefield will look like (narrow corridors vs open) or what types of enemies you will be facing when you go to select spells, Wizards are going to start looking pretty bad to you.
However, that is more than like a playstyle choice of your party* And wizards definitely suffer when the rest of the party is inflexible about adjusting its play style to accommodate the wizard's flexibility into their strategies.
*PFS does present a unique situation that I am not that familiar with and I am willing to concede that the blaster caster wizard might not a good PFS2 class, because of its dependency on foreknowledge and party support.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Blaster does not equal spell attack roll. You have to be belligerently unaware of the strategies of PF2 to think it is a good idea to be a caster and ONLY pick spells that target AC with a spell attack roll.
Spells that move enemies around or restrict movement become a lot more powerful if you have some kind of battlefield control spell or circumstance on the table. Flight is a terrible spell in a 10 ft hallway with a 10ft ceiling.
All spells have circumstantial advantages and disadvantages . Spell attack roll spells are great spells to cast against enemies with low ACs and when you have a spare 1st level Truestrie and an action to cast it with. If making it your general thing is your plan, you also probably need to memorizing spectral hand to take advantage of the additional circumstance bonus to hit from flanking. That one lasts for a minute though so it is your desired pre-buff/first round but only when you have enough distance between yourself and the enemy to make it worth it.
Spells will always be determined by the circumstances you cast them in. If your party is consistently, (more than 50%) of the time finding yourself in circumstances where you have no idea what the battlefield will look like (narrow corridors vs open) or what types of enemies you will be facing when you go to select spells, Wizards are going to start looking pretty bad to you.
However, that is more than like a playstyle choice of your party* And wizards definitely suffer when the rest of the party is inflexible about adjusting its play style to accommodate the wizard's flexibility into their strategies.
*PFS does present a unique situation that I am not that familiar with and I am willing to concede that the blaster caster wizard might not a good PFS2 class, because of its dependency on foreknowledge and party support.
Your party shouldn't have to adjust their playstyle around your one character. I can't think of another class that requires the party to work around them instead of just working within the party (with the notable exception of Alchemist, the other poorly implemented class of 2e)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So is the big argument against wizards that:
there are some spells that require a lot of set up to be used optimally, and if you don't optimize those spells, their odds of success will frustrate you into hating the class?
If so it is important to remember that the default wizard academy spell book, "Structure and Interpretation of Arcane Magic," includes on 2 spell attack roll cantrips and no first level spell attack roll 1st level spells out of 15 total spells. The wizards of Golarion know that spell attack roll spells are incredibly circumstantial and dangerous to waste limited resources on.
This issue is not one that sits at the heart of the wizard's class identity. It might still be frustrating for some people, but it has in game solutions to make better that actually work to make it a lot better.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your party shouldn't have to adjust their playstyle around your one character. I can't think of another class that requires the party to work around them instead of...Blaster does not equal spell attack roll. You have to be belligerently unaware of the strategies of PF2 to think it is a good idea to be a caster and ONLY pick spells that target AC with a spell attack roll.
Spells that move enemies around or restrict movement become a lot more powerful if you have some kind of battlefield control spell or circumstance on the table. Flight is a terrible spell in a 10 ft hallway with a 10ft ceiling.
All spells have circumstantial advantages and disadvantages . Spell attack roll spells are great spells to cast against enemies with low ACs and when you have a spare 1st level Truestrie and an action to cast it with. If making it your general thing is your plan, you also probably need to memorizing spectral hand to take advantage of the additional circumstance bonus to hit from flanking. That one lasts for a minute though so it is your desired pre-buff/first round but only when you have enough distance between yourself and the enemy to make it worth it.
Spells will always be determined by the circumstances you cast them in. If your party is consistently, (more than 50%) of the time finding yourself in circumstances where you have no idea what the battlefield will look like (narrow corridors vs open) or what types of enemies you will be facing when you go to select spells, Wizards are going to start looking pretty bad to you.
However, that is more than like a playstyle choice of your party* And wizards definitely suffer when the rest of the party is inflexible about adjusting its play style to accommodate the wizard's flexibility into their strategies.
*PFS does present a unique situation that I am not that familiar with and I am willing to concede that the blaster caster wizard might not a good PFS2 class, because of its dependency on foreknowledge and party support.
The big lie here is that many classes require the party to work around them, it has just been long standing tradition for how to do so and the tactics for it are almost considered default.
It is very easy to build a character that demands other players support them: Glass cannon melee strikers for obvious example. A bard in a party of bebuffing casters is not a real great fit either, even though 90% of parties would love to have one. Sniper rogues really struggle in parties of heavy armor wearing charge machines that love to announce the party's presence and then block up lines of fire.
Your Party should be adjusting its playstyle around every character in the party. Everyone should be willing to make some changes to their original character idea to make sure that everyone is going to have fun when you play or else be prepared to have fun struggling to beat encounters that other parties regularly dominate. Which can also be a lot of fun, but only if everyone is on board with it.
"I chose to play a character that needs a fair bit of party support to work, without getting that support and now I am not having fun," is a player problem. The blaster wizard is not the only character that can fall into this trap, but it can fall into this trap. Paladins have been falling into it for a very long time, as have rogues who want to steal things and travel with paladins, Any number of clerics and Druids have also found themselves here. Not to mention Horse riding cavaliers in dungeon crawls, or pirate captains in a desert wilderness exploration campaign.
Blaster wizards are very good in certain kinds of parities and certain kinds of campaigns.
Are rangers broken because snare setting rangers require quite a few specific circumstances to work well?
Are Monks broken because I can build a Dex 10, Con 10 monk without mountain stance and think I will get by moving into combat on my first turn and standing next to my enemies instead of adopting a mobile strike strategy?
The game is full of character builds that need to be aware of the strategies that make them work best and the other characters that support them best.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe this is an issue of expectations on a class? Each person will naturally have expectations on the "default" strategies available for each class. Ideally, classes line up at least somewhat with these expectations - otherwise the game becomes very difficult for new players. For example, players expect to be able to build a sword-wielding fighter. If this was difficult or impossible people would complain that fighters were bad.
There are plenty of niche-er builds that are harder to make work, which is fine since they're not expected to be "core" by most people. Snare rangers would be an example of this I suppose.
Is the problem that blaster wizards are expected to be a part of the game, but that while they have their advantages they're somewhat hard to make work?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But save targeting blasters are very good. The default wizard spell book is a blaster focused spell list. Shocking grasp was always a niche spell to utilize well for a wizard.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Should a Wizard who decided to be a blaster should make as much dammage as a Figther? Yes. He will be limited by spellslot anyway, but for these few spells, he should hit AT LEAST as good as a Fighter, maybe even more.
Did the casters were overnerfed? Yes. As soon as the monster is lvl+2, they are useless, un less they buff (which feels, and I insist on feeling and not rulewise) weaker than before, or cast Fear. Or whatever the two others goods spells are.
Were save or suck too powerfull before? Yes, after some times, maybe in certain builds. Are they more fun now? It depends on perception, but I and a lots of other players prefer to hit 7 times out of 10, and do nothing the rest of the time, than doing your max potential 2 out of ten times.
Was there really a martial/caster disparency? Yes of course, in terms of raw power on the game world. But almost all casters in PF1 were buffbot who transformed the Figthers and Rogues in murder machines. Si being OP when you allow the other to become god, seems good for me in a team game. And I would like to remember what the first levels of Wizard felt like, dying on a rat.
Now martials are even better than before, and cooler, and stronger and more versatile. And casters... range from weak, too (in my opinion) less fun than before. Magic Missile? Boring. Guidance? Meeeh. Incapacitation? Come on!
Now on each casters. Druids are fine, because they are thematic, pets and polymorph spells are decent, and the primal list is good. Bard are very strong, because +1 is strong in this system. Clerics are... healbots, because we don’t like evil gods. But at least they are good healbot, even if the spell list if so so bad (PF1: Divine Favor, 5E:Guiding Bolt, PF2: Heal, yeeeah!)
Sorcerers are trash. So many bloodlines are underwhelming. But at least some of them are almost decent, and they got the opportunity to grasp the fantasy of their characters.
Wizard are jut awful. Way worse than Alchemists. They are not the master of magic, they are not the Scholars of old lore with 2 skills, and you wonder in that kind of universe how so many of them became that influent when they have to cast True Strike of make a strong opponent critically fail is save. Damn Geb and Nex and Jatembe feel like jokes now. The schools and specialities are not defined enough, their proficiencies are too low, the spells are meh and they can have a useless familiar who functions like a pearl of power.
Nah casters need a buff. Too much nerf. We are starting a new homebrew campaign and none of my players want to play a caster anymore -_- Damn we miss 6th caster buffer.
And yes I like PF2, but I hate that the nerf staff hit so hard. Because for me it is the definition of more balance less fun.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your party shouldn't have to adjust their playstyle around your one character. I can't think of another class that requires the party to work around them instead of just working within the party (with the notable exception of Alchemist, the other poorly implemented class of 2e)
I've been playing in a long campaign since September, and I can think of eleven other core classes that require the party to work with them. My current character in the campaign is a rogue, who relies on flanking partners, protective reactions, healing, debuffing, and buffing to succeed in fights. And while our fireballing sorcerer (without the damage increasing feat) wants to fireball, I work with him (read: change into the enemy so they would prefer to hit me instead of him) so that he can shot off fireballs. Everything my character can do is enabled by my party, which adjusts its tactics to fit in each characters' styles.
Its not the same thing. True Strike in PF1 wasnt needed to land spells vs regular opponents, it was a way to deal with Super High AC/Touch AC targets, or help vs concealment. In the grand scheme of things, casters didnt need it or lose power just for having it in the list and only grabbed it to guarantee a hot vs the big bad.PF2 took that niche of "if you really want to hit use this" and made it a requirement. Just look at how many people are saying you need that spell, and a few are implying you are playing wrong for not having it.
So as always it comes down to perception and fun. PF1 True Strike was nice and fun because you knew it wasnt necessary vs normal opponents, but it could be useful if something that is hard to hit shows up. PF2 True Strike is mandatory if you want any decent use of spells even versus regular opponents.
True strike still isn't mandatory in PF2e. In fact, our sorcerer's favorite cantrip is Produce Flame, and he has never, not a single, solitary time, used true strike. While he does miss on occasion, he uses Produce Flame when he has the greatest possible damage output: when he has the bards buff, an enemy is flat-footed, and especially when we know that a creature has a weakness to fire. True strike is great though when you want assurance; its a tool best saved for when you need it, just like every other wizard spell.
In the build I posted earlier, I only included True Strike because I didn't want to add anything outside of spells. Honestly, those low-level slots would be used with spell blending to make a very bursty, highest-possible damage dealing machine.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your Party should be adjusting its playstyle around every character in the party. Everyone should be willing to make some changes to their original character idea to make sure that everyone is going to have fun when you play or else be prepared to have fun struggling to beat encounters that other parties regularly dominate. Which can also be a lot of fun, but only if everyone is on board with it.
This is more true in PF2 than ever before, and it's incredibly rewarding when you do it. I'm playing a Champion that's built primarily to support the rest of the party. Liberating Step to take advantage of the tiger monk's enhanced steps, trips to ensure the thief can almost always get sneak attack, and demoralize to help the spellcasters land their spells.
In PFS this obviously isn't as feasible, though.
|
|
I just think that irrespective of where you think casters vs martials sit, that arcane sorcerer is just better than wizard. The level 4 class feat that allows you to toolbox a spell each day and the level 12 feat that allows you to snipe what you want from another list, plus the interaction of charisma casters with innate spells just gets rid of the vast majority of wizards perks.
I'd like Wizards to be able to approach the samage Sorcs are able to deal with their optimized blasts. With Elemental Bloodline and Dangerous Sorcery, they can get +2 per spell level damage to a selection of blast spells, so a lvl7 Fire Sorc throwing Fireball can deal 8d6+8. It's obviously not as great as PF1 adding +1 per dice, but it is really nice! Evoker Wizards had something similar in PF1 (they still sucked), but now it's gone and it's really missing.
We really gotta wait for some proper feats and magic items to come out that will allow the Wizard to shine in the blaster role. The +X to spell attack rolls would be very welcome too, in addition to the above! So they can hit on Monster Benchmarks like everyone else. Something like an Empowered metamagic that increases damage by spending the action could also go a long way if you're already well positioned.
Don't think this "dealing damage" should be a Sorc niche protection. These 2 classes have been popular for a good while being able to do a lot of the same.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just think that irrespective of where you think casters vs martials sit, that arcane sorcerer is just better than wizard. The level 4 class feat that allows you to toolbox a spell each day and the level 12 feat that allows you to snipe what you want from another list, plus the interaction of charisma casters with innate spells just gets rid of the vast majority of wizards perks.
Well and extra spell of the highest level is a big buff to the wizard. I also like their theses more than arcane blood magic. But other than that their obviously similar.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
if situations are necessary for you to perform like others, that means that you will normally perform below others.
So, which wizard builds work without star alignments or without a party focusing on a poorly performing character?
A only know one, buff and debuffer.
Ps. The situations the privilege martials are far more common.
Buffer and Debuffer are 2 separate caster builds. They are also so broad that several very different builds fit into them. It would be like saying the fighter is limited because it really only irks for striker and tank builds. Debuffer fighters take too much strategizing to play so they must inherently be terrible. Battlefield control wizards are still a very powerful thing, AND:
Wizards don’t have to choose to be only one thing. There are blasting, buffing, battlefield control and debuffing options on the evocation spell list, the illusion spell list, and The conjugation spell list. All the spell lists have their strengths but wizards don’t have to be limited to just one thing. It is as bad as assuming that the only thing a cleric can do is cast heal spells.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Spell versatility is how wizards can blast better than sorcerers, but you will literally never see that it a white room so I won’t even try to argue it here.
Anyone looking to have an enthusiastic wizard join your party, just let me know. The arcane caster has been taken in every group I have joined thus far, making me really question how universal this knowledge that wizards are terrible must be.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, since people are comparing damage of spells and weapon attacks you can try using this helpful tool
It has a lot of spells and things like true strike too. And printable graphs to share your findings.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Did the casters were overnerfed? Yes. As soon as the monster is lvl+2, they are useless, un less they buff (which feels, and I insist on feeling and not rulewise) weaker than before, or cast Fear. Or whatever the two others goods spells are.
Bull.
I literally demonstrated that as a level 5 wizard against an enemy of level+2, a 2nd level slot deals more damage than a ranged fighter.
With true strike/hero point, it approaches double damage.
So I'm going to continue to call utterly incorrect statements like this out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean the worst case scenario damage is that the fighter rolls only 1s on damage for an average of 3 damage/shot, but you don't see me taking that as proof.
And as always it only matters if it hits, and a ~54% chance even with true strike makes that highly suspect of happening often enough to feel good.
64% chance. On an enemy two levels higher.
PS: Any non-fighter hitting with a Strike is at 60% on the first swing, 35% on the second.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Acid Arrow is one of the few good single target spells because its damage is increases the longer the persistent damage lasts (Flat DC 15).
The damage range at 2nd level is 3-24 + 1-6*number of failed checks.
The worst case scenario (if it even hits) is that persistent damage lasts 1 round. And the damage with True Strike/Hero Points is 13.5+3.5; With your percentages thats 11.855 damage, 2 points higher that the Fighter using Shortbow.
And as always it only matters if it hits, and a ~54% chance even with true strike makes that highly suspect of happening often enough to feel good.
The save based spells are also good if you find a low save; especially versus even leveled enemies. It shouldn't be hard to find a creature with a low Will save, for example.
Phantasmal Killer really wrecks a low will save creature. I think it's one of the best solutions to a ranger type enemy. At 7, the wizard has a save DC of 25. A low save at that level is 12. That's a crit fail on 3 results, a fail on 9 results, a pass on 7 results, and a crit pass on 1 result. A pass does an average of 14 damage and frightened 1. Failure does 28 and F2. Crit Fail does 42 and F4. That's an average damage of 23.8 and an average frightened value of 1.85. With the frightened value getting up to an average of about 2, that means you are going to buff yourself on your next attack a lot of the time. The rest of the team will be able to mess up a frightened 2 enemy. The instant death on an enemy with a high fort save of 18 means they fail that save on 6/20 rolls in the 3/20 times they crit fail the first save meaning that enemy just dies 4.5% of the time. It takes 5 of those attacks to bring down a high hitpoint enemy of that level without even taking the frightened into effect.
Yeah saved based spells specially non single targets arent that much of a problem mechanics wise. Effect on a succeful save does help those casters stay useful.
I think you've made some good points. True Strike being mandatory would be okay if there were an easy way to get more castings of it that didn't take up the primary weapon slot of your caster, the staff choice. As is, it feels like you have to use the space you would use for options to get mandatory stuff, something they've tried to do away with in second edition. That feels even worse as a primal caster because you feel priced into being human to get access to true strike through a racial feat.
Electric Arc also feels awkward. Clerics and bards feel priced into taking options in order to get it because it's so much more efficient than the other cantrips.
A lot of the early game caster progression feels wrong; proficiency should have bumped at the same time as the martials instead of creating this valley that makes people dislike their class choice. 1-4 isn't great already with the traditional low level caster problem of not enough spells. Following that up with 2 levels that are just as bad for a different reason was a poor choice.
Level 7 and up feels great to me, though, and I think they got that balance right.
Edit: Of Note, I haven't played through the second bigger proficiency valley at 13-14. I don't think that will be as big of a deal due to having such a large spell list to play around it, but it might be worse than I expect.
Did the casters were overnerfed? Yes. As soon as the monster is lvl+2, they are useless, un less they buff (which feels, and I insist on feeling and not rulewise) weaker than before, or cast Fear. Or whatever the two others goods spells are.Bull.
I literally demonstrated that as a level 5 wizard against an enemy of level+2, a 2nd level slot deals more damage than a ranged fighter.
With true strike/hero point, it approaches double damage.
So I'm going to continue to call utterly incorrect statements like this out.
I was more referring to save or suck spell than attack one. As for attack, I am sorry I miss your demonstration if you disprove my point I will trust your math. But save or suck essentially suck against 2+.
However I do not consider than True Strike ou a Fortune point should be even a factor in this equation. True Strike should not be a necessary buff to do anything. In fact the way people tell True Strike like remind me a lot of tax feat in PF1, but this time a spell tax.
Finally I want to as you guys this: I think it is fair to assume that a lots of players here play DND or a version of since a good time now. 15 years for me and my group. Beyond the maths, when the guy who is a go to caster from BG2 to 5E say my Wizard feel boring, And that this comment is heard in other post or people, people who have a long history to play caster, from rpg to video games, maybe we can give a pause and consider what they re saying? Because a lots of people thinks the Wizard, as of right now, is boring, weak, underspecialized and does not answer well to the thematic of his class.
That is something worth considering, even if you disagree.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Wizard has been boring ever since other casters were a thing, so since always.
Of course people are listening, there’s a difference between listening and agreeing though. You’ve [general] played wizards a lot in different systems, that’s irrelevant in making people agree with you.
Numbers are a different matter and people are discussing those plenty, with the consensus thus far with them being at the median.
Certainly not useless.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
While that can certainly be true, I feel obliged to make the counterpoint that this is the first edition in which "full casters > everyone else" is not in effect. (Barring 4e, because output was incredibly similar between classes.) That is true of BG2, is true of 3.5, is true of PF1, and is true of 5e.
That alone will make a wizard feel weaker and "boring". Going from being able to singlehandedly end encounters by yourself and resolve problems solo to actually needing to work with a party is definitely weaker. Similarly, a caster will have lost the quadratic wizard syndrome in moving to PF2, meaning their absurd resources as they get higher and higher in level is no longer a thing.
I am not going to deny that, but I think that's a lot better for the game.
The fact that save or suck is less effective against higher level foes means that you don't have to worry about hordes of low level casters destroying the party through sheer "whoops you failed a save and are now out of the fight".
The fact that rocket tag/save-or-die is significantly reduced means that you no longer have to push the boundaries of what needs to be done to ensure you don't die. (I'm also a person who failed a save vs ghoul fever and got CdGed, and failed a save against Destruction on a 6 and was out of the final fight of the campaign on turn 2. And I'm the optimizer of the group.)
The fact that the sheer utter utility of the full caster has been reined in means that a full caster can't just sneeze and accidentally wreck the plot, or that a GM has to jump through a ton of hoops to ensure that doesn't happen.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That alone will make a wizard feel weaker and "boring". Going from being able to singlehandedly end encounters by yourself and resolve problems solo to actually needing to work with a party is definitely weaker. Similarly, a caster will have lost the quadratic wizard syndrome in moving to PF2, meaning their absurd resources as they get higher and higher in level is no longer a thing.I am not going to deny that, but I think that's a lot better for the game.
Yeah, I super agree. Obviously the wizard and a lot of the casters are quite weaker this edition, but not "Useless" or "Irrelevant" nor Ineffective in combat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Non-fighter martial struggle mightily against high AC level +2 enemies on their own too. The blaster wizard probably does not need to compare to the fighter with raw unassisted accuracy, especially since it does get some very special advantages: the ability to use true strike when it needs too ( like targeting a boss with a spell attack roll) or targeting a low save and probably having the knowledge skill to figure that out.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
While that can certainly be true, I feel obliged to make the counterpoint that this is the first edition in which "full casters > everyone else" is not in effect. (Barring 4e, because output was incredibly similar between classes.) That is true of BG2, is true of 3.5, is true of PF1, and is true of 5e.
As someone who played 5e as a rogue, 5e felt very balanced to me.
That alone will make a wizard feel weaker and "boring". Going from being able to singlehandedly end encounters by yourself and resolve problems solo to actually needing to work with a party is definitely weaker. Similarly, a caster will have lost the quadratic wizard syndrome in moving to PF2, meaning their absurd resources as they get higher and higher in level is no longer a thing.
I think you are misunderstanding what people are saying. I've played a 2e ranger and I've played a 2e wizard. As a ranger I always have something powerful and impactful to do on every turn of combat, and I have a few tricks up my sleeve. As I wizard, most of my turns in combat feel wasted, and my tricks fail me half the time.
When people say that wizard is boring, they don't mean it feels boring compared to 1e wizard, they mean it feels boring compared to other 2e classes.
I am not going to deny that, but I think that's a lot better for the game. The fact that save or suck is less effective against higher level foes means that you don't have to worry about hordes of low level casters destroying the party through sheer "whoops you failed a save and are now out of the fight".
The fact that rocket tag/save-or-die is significantly reduced means that you no longer have to push the boundaries of what needs to be done to ensure you don't die. (I'm also a person who failed a save vs ghoul fever and got CdGed, and failed a save against Destruction on a 6 and was out of the final fight of the campaign on turn 2. And I'm the optimizer of the group.)
I've played ALOT of 3.5/Pathfinder in my day, both behind the GM screen and as a player. Never have I ever had ANY of these problems. A wizard has never derailed my campaign, or one turned my boss. My players have never complained about wizards being overpowered. In our last long term campaign, our goblin ranger was the most effective member of the party by far, and the party had a wizard and a arcanist.
The fact that the sheer utter utility of the full caster has been reined in means that a full caster can't just sneeze and accidentally wreck the plot, or that a GM has to jump through a ton of hoops to ensure that doesn't happen.
This has never happened in any game I have ever played in my 14 years of playing RPGs. I don't know if this happens to other people on a regular basis, but this has never happened to me ever.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was more referring to save or suck spell than attack one. As for attack, I am sorry I miss your demonstration if you disprove my point I will trust your math. But save or suck essentially suck against 2+.
If you are tagetting the weak save, you will get the low save of most monsters. A monster 2 levels over your caster, which I'll be referring to as a boss, often needs from a 9 to an 11 to pass their save. That means, if you play well, you will get the failure or crit fail effect versus a good number of bosses 50% of the time. Versus most of the other bosses that only have a moderate save as their lowest, you go down to getting the failure or crit fail effect 35% of the time.
Add to that that the success effect is typically good enough versus bosses, and save or suck spells are going to be very good versus bosses.
The only exception to that is spells with incapacitation; don't cast those versus bosses.
** spoiler omitted **...
You make some good points here, but please remember that dealing damage is not the Wizard's main function. It simply is not meant to be a blaster class, and therefore is not designed as one.
When people complain about not being effective enough, don't get tunnel vision and just look at attack spells. These are NOT what a Wizard is about. Wizards are the guys that have magical solutions for magical problems.
However, their SAVE BASED spells, the one attacking saves, THOSE are the ones that can stand to hit more often. Because effectively only ever seeing a crit effect on a roll of 1 on the side of the enemy gets old fast. This is where they need some help, because those are the effects that only casters can do and where they rightfully should shine.
But attack spells aren't it. Damage is not their thing to have.
Okay, now you are just being wilfully obtuse. :(
All these things, Wizards have for themselves, and ONLY for themselves.
But the things you accuse martials of having outside of 'hit things with other things' are things EVERY class has, INCLUDING Wizards. And what's sauce for the goose...
I don't know what you arn't understanding about this, but other classes have feats that wizards can't have. These feats are good, some of them even mimic the effects of spells, and most can be done an infinite number of times per day.
Martial classes have abilities, they have utility, and it's utility that wizards don't have access to. Wizards don't just own all of the utility in the game, and you can't just keep saying "Wizards have utility so they don't get to be decent at combat."
We are talking about class feats here presumably?
All right, I'll bite. List 3.
Still waiting...
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Preparing the right spell to target the lowest save is not 50% chance, its usually much lower, or you risk watering down your spells with a bunch of things that arent effective (hoping one of them sticks). Also save spells are better than spell attack spell due to effect on success, which mean spell attack do feel inferior just comparing within the same class.
Save or Suck =/= single target damage spells. Most save or suck didnt and still don't any damage what so ever (with exception of things like Power Word Kill). So punishing spell attack because of save or suck is just miss guided (at best).
If you are going to read the rant, first know that all I want is for everyone to have fun. I dont want people to be left out, sidelined, and/or made to feel as if they are better of doing anything else because the system is forcing it. It doesn't matter if its a martial, caster, or an animal if thats what the player wants to do.
In PF1 I wanted martials (specially Fighters) to get all the power and special abilities they could because I wanted them to shine. I cannot in good conscience stand while caster (specially Wizards) are given the same treatment, when the devs spent so much time talking about making things balanced and fun.
Since I am getting too heated, I will try my best too stop posting while I cool off.
** spoiler omitted **...
TLDR: Wizards are not overnerfed. They fit in just fine with an adventuring group no matter which role they play as long as everyone in the party adjusts to the members within the party and come up with tactics that capitalize on their strengths and mitigate their weaknesses.
I only think trying to focus on a lot of things is difficult for wizards at lower levels, especially since there isn't a fortitude cantrip right now. But early levels can use spell slots to cover the bases of all weaknesses if used in conjunction with cantrips. Also, using knowledge checks and looking at creatures can most likely yield the most viable spell to use. I also agree that save spells are generally better, but in situations as I've described earlier (in which AC drops a great deal) as well as when you have prepared cantrips that are a creature's weakness, attack spells are definitely worth their slots.
I also agree that save or suck is not the same as single target damage. I just don't agree that single-target spells are only attack spells. From what I remember using, flaming sphere is single target, causes damage, and is against reflex. Better yet, it is sustainable, granting its damage every round with one additional action, allowing for another spell to cause damage (or otherwise) on subsequent turns.
I also think that everyone should have fun. I also think that playing wizards is also fun. More so, I don't think the different playstyles are any less fun for the wizard. I love blasting, and I love debuffing. In fact, my favorite way to play, so far, is filling up my top slots with blasting spells and using lower ones to debilitate enemies.
Now here's my problem with focusing so much on single target damage: if the wizard is getting the same damage (or even better as some have suggested) as martial characters, what is the point in playing a martial? Every edition I've played has had at least one player who went the blasting route and not the God-mode route (though that was unpleasant in different ways), and those blasting characters when I played martial made me feel as though my character was obsolete. Spells granted greater damage and some times more accuracy while also allowing casters to remain at a distance. Conversely, the martials had to run up to get in the most damage possible. Sure, there's the argument that caster slots are limited, but then again, there are still cantrips, and worse still, at least in every game I've experienced, the adventuring day's pace is controlled by the spellcasters' spell slots, so while a melee martial could hypothetically (discounting incoming damage, movement, being unlucky enough to need pulling out a weapon, etc.) swing all day, there would be a negligible number of times when the spellcasters are not throwing out their fighter-equaled spell attacks.
And worse, why should wizards be able to daily be the best at damage while being able to take up a completely different role the following day. Playing in a party when one class can not only completely fill another's role but overshadow it (even if limited by a number of spell slots) in my experience is not fun for those other players. My experience in every other system (I did not get to play 4e) showed that spellcasters, and wizards in particular, can do just that. Not automatically being the end-all be-all of damage at least limits that role (though I haven't seen that become the case in PF2e yet). Proposing that wizards should not only have all the features that currently make them balanced in a party but also require that they be buffed to also be premier damage dealers would result in the system forcing players to choose wizards to optimize damage and survivability.
And as I've said before True Strike is not mandatory. It's just insurance. If martial characters had that kind of insurance, most would build it into their characters as well.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now here's my problem with focusing so much on single target damage: if the wizard is getting the same damage (or even better as some have suggested) as martial characters, what is the point in playing a martial? Every edition I've played has had at least one player who went the blasting route and not the God-mode route (though that was unpleasant in different ways), and those blasting characters when I played martial made me feel as though my character was obsolete. Spells granted greater damage and some times more accuracy while also allowing casters to remain at a distance. Conversely, the martials had to run up to get in the most damage possible. Sure, there's the argument that caster slots are limited, but then again, there are still cantrips, and worse still, at least in every game I've experienced, the adventuring day's pace is controlled by the spellcasters' spell slots, so while a melee martial could hypothetically (discounting incoming damage, movement, being unlucky enough to need pulling out a weapon, etc.) swing all day, there would be a negligible number of times when the spellcasters are not throwing out their fighter-equaled spell attacks.
And worse, why should wizards be able to daily be the best at damage while being able to take up a completely different role the following day. Playing in a party when one class can not only completely fill another's role but overshadow it (even if limited by a number of spell slots) in my experience is not fun for those other players. My experience in every other system (I did not get to play 4e) showed that spellcasters, and wizards in particular, can do just that. Not automatically being the end-all be-all of damage at least limits that role (though I haven't seen that become the case in PF2e yet). Proposing that wizards should not only have all the features that currently make them balanced in a party but also require that they be buffed to also be premier damage dealers would result in the system forcing players to choose wizards to optimize damage and survivability.
Bolded my main gripe in this 4 decades old quarrel.
Anyway, like they say, it's a team game; and spotlight stealing is criminally toxic in a team game, especially if one side can only truly shine in only one of many aspects of the gameplay.
Of course, a martial player giving up their spotlight voluntarily in a private session may be fine if done with mutual consent, but you should never ever expect as such in a random Organized Play.
Having read this thread for quite some time now I think much of it boils down to expectations for your selected class vs chances to connect an attack that includes a to-hit roll.
When people say "I want to play a Fighter - a master of arms - and hit stuff" expectation meets reality do to the inherent to-hit bonus on top of a potential magical to-hit bonus. And even when we deviate from our only legendary weapons master, most other non-spellcasting classes are ahead of the wizard for many levels (and all other casters while we are on this) when it comes to to-hit rolls, especially when considering magic weapons on top of profession progression. And even if they fail to connect this round non-casters can simply try again next round.
What apparently seems to put a lot of people off is that you can not as easily say "I want to play a Wizard - a master of magic - and hit stuff" and have your expectations met unless you specifically set this up, either by teamplay, debuffing or assistant magic like True Strike. Losing spells / actions / turns while using spells making use of spell attack rolls combined with a "lower" success chance is what makes them feel bad and what makes AoE spells or "effects even on save" spells great. And this can even make you feel bad when not actually using up the spell, e.g. by using cantrips like Ray of Frost, Splash of Acid or Produce Flame.
Granted level 5 is harsh for Wizards (and all spellcasters), especially as it has been pointed out that Wizards seem to reach full efficiency around level 7, however I can't see our party Wizard use anything apart from Electric Arc (not considering resistances or weaknesses of course), even on single targets because missing his +11 attack vs an average AC21 enemy approx. 45% of the time and thus effectively skipping 2/3 of his turn every second turn is not acceptable*.
*Yes, you could rightly ask yourselves why he is not using better, higher level spells instead of cantrips, however as your pool of spells at low level is quite small the use of cantrips is still very prominent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bolded my main gripe in this 4 decades old quarrel.
Anyway, like they say, it's a team game; and spotlight stealing is criminally toxic in a team game, especially if one side can only truly shine in only one of many aspects of the gameplay.
Of course, a martial player giving up their spotlight voluntarily in a private session may be fine if done with mutual consent, but you should never ever expect as such in a random Organized Play.
Okay, let's talk about 'spotlight'. Wizards don't have any right now.
Wizards clearly are not a 'face' class, they do not excel in social situations. Wizards clearly are not a skill character, they do not have the skills needed to defeat most skill challenges. Wizards clearly are not a combat character, they do not shine in combat right now.
Where is the Wizards 'spotlight'? Once in every 4-6 hour session when one of their spells matches the current challenge and lets them skip it? That's the LEAST fun thing I can imagine, and why a lot of people are trying to explain that Wizards are boring right now.
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, let's talk about 'spotlight'. Wizards don't have any right now.
Wizards clearly are not a 'face' class, they do not excel in social situations. Wizards clearly are not a skill character, they do not have the skills needed to defeat most skill challenges. Wizards clearly are not a combat character, they do not shine in combat right now.
In most parties, Wizards are the smart character. They will have, and be able to use successfully, all the Int-based skills (Arcana, Occultism, and Society, most often) whenever those come up. They are a wealth of information on several diverse and important topics. That's not nothing, and an important skill role.
And they are indeed a combat character in some ways (as are all PF2 characters in different ways). They excel at both minion sweeping, and potentially at debuffing single large threats. Trust me when I say that both those are memorable and exciting things when done right.
They also, if focusing on blasting even a bit, shine when using their spells specifically against those who have a Weakness to them (which they are likely to know about due to the Int stuff above). And if they build for it, they can also eventually grab Clever Counterspell and very effectively shut down a lot of enemy casting.
Where is the Wizards 'spotlight'? Once in every 4-6 hour session when one of their spells matches the current challenge and lets them skip it? That's the LEAST fun thing I can imagine, and why a lot of people are trying to explain that Wizards are boring right now.
And then there's this: In terms of non-combat challenges, if you grab the Spell Substitution Thesis and invest in your spell book, you can solve literally every single problem there's a spell to solve as long as you have 10 minutes. You're some combination of MacGuyver and the oft-touted Schroedinger's Wizard in a way basically no other Class can readily duplicate. You just spend 10 minutes and have whatever spell is necessary to solve X. That's great.
..
.
Now some of those are specific to certain builds, or at least really aided by certain build choices, but they remain ways for a Wizard to quite easily take the spotlight.
Accidental Double Post
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
]We are talking about class feats here presumably?
All right, I'll bite. List 3.
Still waiting...
Sorry to keep you waiting. I know you only asked for three, but I really wanted to go all out on this one boss.
(Incomplete) Martial Utility Feat List!
Fast Movement: Movement speed boost.
Dragon's Rage Breath: Lets you hit elemental weaknesses.
Spirits' Interference: Gives all ranged attack rolls against you a flat miss chance.
Renewed Vigor: Temporary healing.
Dragon's Rage Wings: Gives Barbarians a fly speed and prevents all fall damage. (Guess we need to nerf Barbar, they have access to Feather Fall and Fly!)
Spirit's Wrath: This is a ranged spell attack and you can choose the damage type.
Dragon Transformation: Barbars get dragon form too! Except they can do it as many times per day as they damn well please!
Quaking Stomp: They can cast earthquake too? Once per 10 minuets!?
Assisting Shot: Aid actions at range? Easier than you think!
Revealing Stab: Fighter's can't be invisible, but they can end invisibility.
Reflexive Shield: Saving throw buffs? You got it!
Blind-Fight: Fighter's can't be invisible, but they can IGNORE invisibility.
Shield Warden: Shielding allies? Ten four good buddy!
Felling Strike: Fighter's can't fly, but they can end flight.
Certain Strike: Ohh, failure effects for basic attacks.
Debilitating Shot: We got slows!
Mirror Shield: We got ... spell reflection? It's a good thing spell attacks arn't likely to critically fail right?
Incredible Ricochet: It's not true strike, but it's kinda true strike.
Determination: Cleansing spell effects once per day, just fighter things.
Wild Empathy: Talking to animals, didn't this used to be a spell?
Scout's Warning: Initiative bonuses for everyone.
Blind-Fight: Ranger's can't be invisible, but they can IGNORE invisibility.
Camouflage: It's not invisibility, but it's kind of invisibility.
Warden's Step: Everybody sneak!
Lightning Snares: This is the creation spell for snares.
Second Sting: Ohh, failure effects for basic attacks.
Sense the Unseen: Rangers can ignore the sneak skill too.
Warden's Guidance: EVERYBODY ignores invisibility!
Targeting Shot: Rangers ignore cover now too?
Shadow Hunter: Rangers DO get invisibility!
Quaking Stomp: Rangers can cast earthquake too.
This is an incomplete list of course, but there's plenty of utility there, and at least three of them actually just give you the effects of a spell.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Monks have dancing leaf, water step, wind jump, abundant step. All these can be extremely useful outside of combat.
Barbarians get raging athlete and dragon wings.
Rangers get wild stride, favored terrain which improves their wild stride among other things, camouflage.
Fighters, well they actually don't seem to have much for out of combat utility, I'll concede this one.
Champions don't have much, getting a horse adds a bit of utility, and they can take a feat to be more resistant to disease. But one major thing they have is celestial form at level 18, which gives you a forever fly speed and a few other bonuses I can't remember. No hour limits, or requirements to land at the end of your turn, just a fly speed.
Martials get abilities that help them with martial things. Casters and wizards get things that help them with their magic and spells.
Not sure what people are surprised or upset about. This is precisely the way it was meant to be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In most parties, Wizards are the smart character. They will have, and be able to use successfully, all the Int-based skills (Arcana, Occultism, and Society, most often) whenever those come up. They are a wealth of information on several diverse and important topics. That's not nothing, and an important skill role.
Rolling recall knowledge isn't a fun or exciting thing to do, it takes my actions and I'm the only one who even cares. It's important maybe, if your party gives a damn, but that doesn't make it fun in any way. Cleaning your bathroom is important. Not that it matters anyway, the bard is better at this than you.
And they are indeed a combat character in some ways (as are all PF2 characters in different ways). They excel at both minion sweeping, and potentially at debuffing single large threats. Trust me when I say that both those are memorable and exciting things when done right.
Trust me when I say they are done right about once a session because my spell are limited and miss half the time.
They also, if focusing on blasting even a bit, shine when using their spells specifically against those who have a Weakness to them (which they are likely to know about due to the Int stuff above). And if they build for it, they can also eventually grab Clever Counterspell and very effectively shut down a lot of enemy casting.
Yay! I can spend my money to buy a ton of spells so that I can use my limited resources to counterspell. Enemy casters will of course always have more spells than you, and counterspell doesn't even work every time, but this is so much fun.
And then there's this: In terms of non-combat challenges, if you grab the Spell Substitution Thesis and invest in your spell book, you can solve literally every single problem there's a spell to solve as long as you have 10 minutes. You're some combination of MacGuyver and the oft-touted Schroedinger's Wizard in a way basically no other Class can readily duplicate. You just spend 10 minutes and have whatever spell is...
If we remove spell substitution, fly, and invisibility from the game will you let wizards be fun? The potential that a wizard can solve a non combat challenge is not a guarantee they will solve every non combat challenge. Like I said, I get to solve a problem maybe once or twice in a 4-6 hour session. And I have spell substation!
You seem to forget that 10 minuets is enough time to just let the normal skill characters solve the freaking challenge without you.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, let's talk about 'spotlight'. Wizards don't have any right now.No class does. That’s a good thing.
That's bull.
Fighters, Rangers, and Barbars all shine in combat. Rogues, Rangers, and Bards all shine in skill challenges. Sorcerers and Bards both get to shine bright in social challenges.
Classes get spotlights in 2e.