Did wizards get nerfed?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

1,851 to 1,900 of 1,952 << first < prev | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I already stated some things in the new thread that is solely for how to benefit casters/Wizards. And here I have stated multiple time that a +1/+2 bonus item/rune would go a long way to make casters feel more useful.

But of course that was before I realized its useless, and no matter how casters feel people will have problems.

I can tell you that more abilities that cost 1 or 2 actions will probably make Wizards feel even worse without some fix to the action economy.

And no, waiting till level 16 to be able to use metamagic is not fun for a class who should have been able to apply them while preparing since level 1.

How many pages was it until one of you finally understood a +1 wont harm balance and make casters feel better? 34? 36?


So, items that give +1 to accuracy. And Spells and abilities that cost 1 action to do? That's great, Thanks for answering!
Do you think you could come up with ways of enjoying the class as it is now? Maybe forced multiclass, some specific feats to take, maybe a crucial spell to be taken always (True Strike)?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

no one should be forced to multiclass, and all archetypes should give the same relative power. I hate the stupid balance of martial archetypes only give expert, when a martial can get master from a spellcasting archetype: But that will never change from what I can see.

There is no way to properly enjoy those archetypes as they are now unless the entire party focuses around you. And that is horrible for everyone involved. Believe it or not people who want to play attack casters (even when they are spell attack casters) dont just want to steal all the attention.


Yeah, I get you. But you say then there isn't any form of enjoying the casters and archetypes as it is? No combination, no alternatives?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

not really, maybe going sorcerer for extra spells, but that only helps with "hey I am out of tries for the day". It doesn't make spell attack single target wizards more fun, the main problems of action economy and being able to hit without relying on spending even more spells still remains.


Temperans wrote:
not really, maybe going sorcerer for extra spells, but that only helps with "hey I am out of tries for the day". It doesn't make spell attack single target wizards more fun, the main problems of action economy and being able to hit without relying on spending even more spells still remains.

What could be a solution to that? Isn't that too ingrained in the core of the game?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hence this thread of wizards were nerfed too hard, thats been going on for 38 pages.


Temperans wrote:

no one should be forced to multiclass, and all archetypes should give the same relative power. I hate the stupid balance of martial archetypes only give expert, when a martial can get master from a spellcasting archetype: But that will never change from what I can see.

There is no way to properly enjoy those archetypes as they are now unless the entire party focuses around you. And that is horrible for everyone involved. Believe it or not people who want to play attack casters (even when they are spell attack casters) dont just want to steal all the attention.

this is actually an amazing point and I agree with you on this, even though I don't agree with much else. I haven't seen anyone point that out. Kudos.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
Hence this thread of wizards were nerfed too hard, thats been going on for 38 pages.

Yeah. Point made, my point is what can we do with what we have. How we turn this discussion, into something more than a rant, something constructive.

Some guys have given great advice and tricks on how to maximize what is available (Maybe you don't like it, but hey is there)
I Invite you to, maybe explore some possibilities, take up the challenge of making the wizard into something that you would play.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:

I already stated some things in the new thread that is solely for how to benefit casters/Wizards. And here I have stated multiple time that a +1/+2 bonus item/rune would go a long way to make casters feel more useful.

But of course that was before I realized its useless, and no matter how casters feel people will have problems.

I can tell you that more abilities that cost 1 or 2 actions will probably make Wizards feel even worse without some fix to the action economy.

And no, waiting till level 16 to be able to use metamagic is not fun for a class who should have been able to apply them while preparing since level 1.

How many pages was it until one of you finally understood a +1 wont harm balance and make casters feel better? 34? 36?

I'm going to be honest, I don't think PF2 will ever fit what you want.

You don't like how spellcasting is set up with the action economy as being based around 2 actions for a spell.
You don't like the fact that you no longer have to muck with "effective slots" vs "actual slots" for prepared metamagic, and the fact that you don't have to prepare known metamagics at the start of the day.
You don't like how different options are based around the action economy.

I really don't think there's any middle ground here. This is basically a "PF1 or bust".


3 people marked this as a favorite.

What are you talking about? The PF2 action economy is a great improvement to the Unchained rules, and turns are much better because of it. My problem is not the base action economy I understand why spells are 2 actions and can respect it.

The problem is that PF2 also introduced Variable action spells. Which if it had been properly implemented would had made spell casters much more fun to play with. Instead only like 3 maybe 10 of something like 100+ spells had that system.

My problem is that Spontaneous and Prepared casters had the trade of "Do I want to use metamagic when I want but take longer to cast" (spontaneous caster) or "Do I want to apply metamagic when I prepare, but save actions" (prepared caster). Paizo removed options with that decisions, as a feat to let you appy metamagic spontaneously would had been great for wizards. While Sorcerers could in theory gotten a feat tonlet then apply metamagic at the start of the day. Which again makes casters in general much more interesting.

My problem is that in a game were everyone else is zipping around the battlefield with their 3 actions and still able to attack. Casters are forced to stand still to even be able to hit. A portion of the debate was that a caster spending 3 actions, 2 spells and waiting ~3 turns gets something like twice the damage of a martial spending 2 actions and moving (without Sudden Charge which all of them get in some form). Which imidiately breaks when you realize "Hey the martial can continue hitting for 12-20 more turns, but the caster has like 2 high level spells left (and still a sizeable chance to miss)."

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

I believe I said this before. I want to like PF2 it has many great idea (improved action economy, improved magic item types, less number focused feats, skill feats not being connected to combat feats, etc.). But it also failed in so many ways (ex crafting, animal comapanions, familiars, Shield blocks vs shield hp, Alchemist, trap rangers, etc.).

Heck I am not even much of a Caster player prefering to make interesting Martials: But even when I played Casters I always go/went for what would fit the character first, even when everyone was yelling online "no dont multiclass you'll lose spell levels". For me its not about the power (unless thats the concept of the character), its about everything landing & fitting just in the right spot to make something unique.

I know that casters feel bad because they have the same problem I have had many times. I have focused so much on what a character "could potentially" do, that I forgot to check whether it could actually do it. And 7 times out of 10 those characters felt out right bad in actual play.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
Temperans wrote:

I already stated some things in the new thread that is solely for how to benefit casters/Wizards. And here I have stated multiple time that a +1/+2 bonus item/rune would go a long way to make casters feel more useful.

But of course that was before I realized its useless, and no matter how casters feel people will have problems.

I can tell you that more abilities that cost 1 or 2 actions will probably make Wizards feel even worse without some fix to the action economy.

And no, waiting till level 16 to be able to use metamagic is not fun for a class who should have been able to apply them while preparing since level 1.

How many pages was it until one of you finally understood a +1 wont harm balance and make casters feel better? 34? 36?

I'm going to be honest, I don't think PF2 will ever fit what you want.

You don't like how spellcasting is set up with the action economy as being based around 2 actions for a spell.
You don't like the fact that you no longer have to muck with "effective slots" vs "actual slots" for prepared metamagic, and the fact that you don't have to prepare known metamagics at the start of the day.
You don't like how different options are based around the action economy.

I really don't think there's any middle ground here. This is basically a "PF1 or bust".

This doesn't seem fair to me.

You don't like how spellcasting is set up with the action economy as being based around 2 actions for a spell.

This is one of the most common complaints about casters is 2e. They don't interact with the action economy almost at all and that's a problem. Spells need to be adjusted to have variable action costs so that casters have more tactical options.

You don't like the fact that you no longer have to muck with "effective slots" vs "actual slots" for prepared metamagic, and the fact that you don't have to prepare known metamagics at the start of the day.

You frame this as 'mucking about' but this entire thread is full of people saying that wizards are the kings of preparing ahead. You can;t have it both ways. Preparing ahead can't be 'mucking about' but also be the wizards strength.

You don't like how different options are based around the action economy.

This is directly related to the fact that wizards don't get to play with the action economy. Martial classes have so many ways to use their three actions with flourishes, presses, combined actions, finishers. The casters got nothing. Wizards are already pressed in their action economy, making them give up more actions doesn't help at all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
The only thing that you're convincing people of is that no matter what changes to the Wizards would be made, nothing short of returning them their Tier 1 Godlike status of PF1 would suffice.

The Problem is, that RPGs and D+D esp. have set it, that a Magic-user bending Reality into a pretzel and a fighter getting a +1 on attack rolls is in the same power Level.

Because he can attack all day as i have learned in this thread.

Wonder what we made wrong in our Groups, because that never happened to us.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Donovan Du Bois wrote:

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.

Actually, they DO have a "spotlight", or way to specialize their character: The choice of an Arcane School (or not). I feel what is needed is to allow the Arcane School to count as 1 proficiency step higher than usual. This is very similar to how the Fighter can specialize in a single weapon group. The Wizard would be Trained in most spells, but you are an Expert in your school. That way, if you are building a spell attack Wizard, choose Evocation school, and you become an Expert when casting Evocation spells while remaining Trained in all other schools. If you don't want to specialize in spell attacks, choose another school.

This +1 step specialization increase continues as they level up, so at 7th level they become Expert in most schools but Master in their specialty, and at 15th level they become a Master at most schools and are Legendary in their own school. At 19th level, only the Universalist can become Legendary in all schools of magic, while the specialists instead get 1 free Wizard feat, just as the Universalist got back at 1st level.

I really don't understand why Paizo didn't do something like this themselves. The Fighter shows they thought of giving different proficiency levels in certain areas, and I think the Wizard really needs it as they are supposed to be the "Masters of Magic" just as much as the Fighter is the "Master of Weapons." That +2 proficiency bonus would help a great deal with attack rolls, or making their target fail their saves vs their specialty.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
I'm going to be honest, I don't think PF2 will ever fit what you want.

Not sure that really helps and I think it's pretty offbase.

Quote:

You don't like how spellcasting is set up with the action economy as being based around 2 actions for a spell.

[...]
You don't like how different options are based around the action economy.

I mean these two right here are basically the same issue, that spellcasters don't interact very significantly with PF2's more robust system of action economy.

This is something that's completely solvable with new feats and new spells that do. It's just a matter of people who are interested in that conveying the idea to Paizo and waiting to see what material future books have, not a fundamental break with the system itself.

Really it kind of says the opposite of what you're suggesting it does: not that PF2 is mechanically dissatisfying, but that the mechanics are good and people want more ways to engage with those mechanics.

The metamagic issue is a bit more systemic, but I'm not sure it's really "get away from my RPG" systemic either.

Sovereign Court

Squiggit wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
I'm going to be honest, I don't think PF2 will ever fit what you want.

Not sure that really helps and I think it's pretty offbase.

Quote:

You don't like how spellcasting is set up with the action economy as being based around 2 actions for a spell.

[...]
You don't like how different options are based around the action economy.

I mean these two right here are basically the same issue, that spellcasters don't interact very significantly with PF2's more robust system of action economy.

This is something that's completely solvable with new feats and new spells that do. It's just a matter of people who are interested in that conveying the idea to Paizo and waiting to see what material future books have, not a fundamental break with the system itself.

Really it kind of says the opposite of what you're suggesting it does: not that PF2 is mechanically dissatisfying, but that the mechanics are good and people want more ways to engage with those mechanics.

Imagine if the casters had a choice:

1 action: the basic spell is cast.
2 actions: either add 1 metamagic or Heighten the spell once
3 actions Both Heighten and metamagic applied, or apply 2 metamagics, or Heighten twice.

This system would have given casters far, FAR more options, and I think far fewer complaints about not being able to use the action economy.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TSRodriguez wrote:
Cyouni wrote:


So let's get things straight here.

A 5th level wizard casting the 2nd-level Acid Arrow is equivalent to a ranged fighter. With True Strike, they nearly double the damage of that fighter.
A 5th level wizard casting the 3rd-level Fireball against 3 enemies of the same level + using Force Bolt/cantrips will output the same damage as the optimized dragon barbarian with a greatsword over two turns.
This is basically the worst level for a wizard to compare to a martial.

How strong do they have to be before you're satisfied?
How will that not outshine everyone else in the party (again)?

It's pointless, there is no learning purpose here, only ranting.

>If AOE spells are good; Nah, the attack spells are the bad ones. I dont want to use only AOE
>Use true strike; Nah, expending every slot on true strike is bad design.
>Actually the damage is not that inferior to the fighter, and in some situations, even higher; Nah, useless class, ruined and everyone has abilities and feats, while the wizards only have spells that miss.

It's incredible, frankly, how everything goes back in a circle in this thread.

Yes we don’t want to do only AoE. Yes using consistently True Strike is bad design. I hear the last one though. Still it feels less cool than before, but you can’t put number on it.

But I am guessing what you want me to say is: sorry to find the Wizard for the first time in 15 years boring? So yes I can not play Wizard or a lots of other casters, or I can also give my opinion on the dedicated post on the forums.

And I heard the math explanation from Cyouni, and it seems that indeed damages are better than what we felt like during our game. But I think it should be the case more constitently because your spell slots are not infinite like a Strike, even more with True Strike taxe to have got chance to hit. When you ressource is finite, it should always feels more impactful, than when it is not. That what he had in prior editions, because you were able to make almost always succeed what you specialized in. Now, for casters at least, not so much. Specially against bosses.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Druids are fine, Bards are good, I am sure we can fine a middle ground between God tier in PF1 and Wizard in PF2. I think 5E got it right, Concentration making it a very reliable way to limit the power creep while having strong effects.

And if you want solutions:
- Runes for Spell Attacks and DCs
- More Spells Slots
- More action variety for casters
- Better Divine Spell list.
- Strong and thematic and flavorful feats for the classes, like Bards Muse.
- More spells.
- The possibility to specialize in one field of magic, being your school, or god magic or whatever and have numerical bonuses in it, like the polymorph from the Druid. Maybe locking the other options in the same time, to really be specialized.
- Better focus spells.
- The possibility to grab Mastery profiency in weapons from somewhere, just like the Martials can do with a MC caster in spells. That is so unfair and gimp the Gish thing or the Warpriest.
- Better oroficiencies in other things than magic but relevant (lore skills, weapons and armors, special uses of magical items, knowledge feat that increase combat effectiveness like the ranger...)

I don’t know, maybe Warpriest could use their attack spell on melee? Maybe the Wizard can have a statut bonus in his school of predilection, and a malus in the other ones? Maybe the Sorcerer can use Charisma in his will save? Maybe the Wizard get free Lore skills? Maybe their is a Weapon Master archétype who give you Master profiency in only one weapon, not even a weapon type. Maybe you can make a boss reroll a save, or remove once a day the incapacitation trait with a metamagic feat? Maybe the Sorcerer have free slots for his bloodline spells? I don’t know, I think people at Paizo and here can be creative, and that we can figure out ways to increase the performance of casters whitout entering god altering reality territory.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Samurai wrote:

Imagine if the casters had a choice:

1 action: the basic spell is cast.
2 actions: either add 1 metamagic or Heighten the spell once
3 actions Both Heighten and metamagic applied, or apply 2 metamagics, or Heighten twice.

This system would have given casters far, FAR more options, and I think far fewer complaints about not being able to use the action economy.

Or casters could also have some low level class feats that "break" the action economy like martials often have, e.g. things like sudden charge, flurry of blows, hunted shot or skirmish strike.

Quickend casting is level 10, once per day and at -2 spell levels...

So how about feats that e.g. let you do a free recall knowledge check while casting a spell (Knowledgeable Spell)? Or a feat that lets you either cast shield or raise a shield while casting a spell (Shielded Casting)? Or a feat that lets you step while casting a spell (Skirmish Spell).

Just some ideas...


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Donovan Du Bois wrote:
You frame this as 'mucking about' but this entire thread is full of people saying that wizards are the kings of preparing ahead. You can;t have it both ways. Preparing ahead can't be 'mucking about' but also be the wizards strength.

PF1 metamagic is realistically a clunky mess. Like, try and explain it to a new person - the differences between prepared and spontaneous metamagic and cast times, the difference between actual slots and effective slots, and how all of that interacts with rods.

There's a reason I'm the only one in my playgroup, over quite a few years of playing, that has bothered to interact with it outside of rods and Magus Intensified Shocking Grasp. (And even that one was by the second most character building obsessed player.)

It's the same reason casting out of different level slots than the spell went the way of the dodo.

Samurai wrote:

Imagine if the casters had a choice:

1 action: the basic spell is cast.
2 actions: either add 1 metamagic or Heighten the spell once
3 actions Both Heighten and metamagic applied, or apply 2 metamagics, or Heighten twice.

This system would have given casters far, FAR more options, and I think far fewer complaints about not being able to use the action economy.

If casters had spells that were 1-action upgrading, I can guarantee this thread would be about how the 1-action version sucks and is a waste of slots and how people are being forced to use the 2-action version.

Either that or casters would be hilariously and utterly busted because whoops they can throw down three full power spells in a turn.

Squiggit wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
I'm going to be honest, I don't think PF2 will ever fit what you want.

Not sure that really helps and I think it's pretty offbase.

Quote:

You don't like how spellcasting is set up with the action economy as being based around 2 actions for a spell.

[...]
You don't like how different options are based around the action economy.

I mean these two right here are basically the same issue, that spellcasters don't interact very significantly with PF2's more robust system of action economy.

This is something that's completely solvable with new feats and new spells that do. It's just a matter of people who are interested in that conveying the idea to Paizo and waiting to see what material future books have, not a fundamental break with the system itself.

Really it kind of says the opposite of what you're suggesting it does: not that PF2 is mechanically dissatisfying, but that the mechanics are good and people want more ways to engage with those mechanics.

Well, the thing is we run into a few problems here.

1: If spells are less than two actions, then you can cast them multiple times in a turn.
2. Spells are consistently complained about not being powerful enough.
3. If you want some semblance of balance, you don't want multiple full-power spells being cast in the same round.
4. All the one-action spells have been consistently described as boring by the same people who have had the above problems.
5. Giving additional options that cost actions are considered to be falling under the same problem of not interacting with the action system.

You can't really reconcile all of those together.

Thus far:
If you have a 1-action spell, then it's called boring and weak, unless it's literally inspire courage.
If you have a 2-action spell, it can't interact with other parts of the system. And these have been called weak too because they don't end problems singlehandedly.
Technically no one's mentioned 3-action spells.
Of the variable action spells, I have seen precisely 0 people touting the effects of 1-action magic missile as an actual spell slot.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ubertron_X wrote:


Or casters could also have some low level class feats that "break" the action economy like martials often have, e.g. things like sudden charge, flurry of blows, hunted shot or skirmish strike.

Quickend casting is level 10, once per day and at -2 spell levels...

So how about feats that e.g. let you do a free recall knowledge check while casting a spell (Knowledgeable Spell)? Or a feat that lets you either cast shield or raise a shield while casting a spell (Shielded Casting)? Or a feat that lets you step while casting a spell (Skirmish Spell).

Just some ideas...

This seems like a much more interesting, fitting with the rest of the system, and "balanceable" way to go than taking feats/must have items to add static bonuses to ramp always on spell power up.

I know you were just spitballing but Skirmish Spell is rather stronger IMO (but would be ok at higher level), but the other two - and no doubt many more in this vein - seem like exactly the right idea for diversity of tactics/interest/action economy interaction, without being "must haves".


3 actions spells only would work with spell points.

The guys is right, nobody going to use a slot with s+#% 1 actions spell version.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
SteelGuts wrote:


And if you want solutions:
- Runes for Spell Attacks and DCs

I think Spell Attacks getting rune/item support is likely, but not so for DCs. Currently spell attacks lag behind while DCs encourage a variety of spell choice.

SteelGuts wrote:


- More Spells Slots

Spellcasters all around have plenty of spell slots. This is a change from PF1 to PF2 that I think was needed. Again, encourages more nuanced and careful play.

SteelGuts wrote:


- More action variety for casters

100% agreed and it was something we were told to expect in the APG.

SteelGuts wrote:


- Better Divine Spell list.

Hot damn, the divine spell list is GOOD. It just isn't good for blasting right now. Obviously more options will come, but seriously, the divine spell list is amazing what are you talking about.

SteelGuts wrote:


- Strong and thematic and flavorful feats for the classes, like Bards Muse.

Yes? I mean, yeah more feats are coming, but Bardic Muses feel unique to bards, much like Arcane Schools feel unique to wizards.

SteelGuts wrote:


- More spells.

Obviously we're getting more spells.

SteelGuts wrote:


- The possibility to specialize in one field of magic, being your school, or god magic or whatever and have numerical bonuses in it, like the polymorph from the Druid. Maybe locking the other options in the same time, to really be specialized.

Unless the devs have 180'd on their entire design philosophy, no, we're not getting hyper-specialization to return. It worked in PF1 which was built around specialization, but limits options in PF2.

SteelGuts wrote:


- Better focus spells.

I really like the focus spells? What's wrong with them?

SteelGuts wrote:


- The possibility to grab Mastery profiency in weapons from somewhere, just like the Martials can do with a MC caster in spells. That is so unfair and gimp the Gish thing or the Warpriest.

Almost assuredly getting this in the APG, again.

SteelGuts wrote:


- Better oroficiencies in other things than magic but relevant (lore skills, weapons and armors, special uses of magical items, knowledge feat that increase combat effectiveness like the ranger...)

I read this as... More interactive and interesting feats? Yeah, totally.


12 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

In what version of D&D were first level characters throwing around multiple spells a turn? The can and often do in PF2, it is just the case that the effects of 1 action spells feel underwhelming to people used to magic being more of an unbalancing force.

There have been some voices chanting that the wizard will always be terrible until their ability to completely dominate the game again, but that GMs will make sure things are fair by not letting casters control party tempo, as if the problem with adventure design has not always been having to plan encounters around maximum nova potential. These voices will never be satisfied with the fundamental changes PF2 made to magic, that both reliability and power have been put on a sliding scale at opposite ends from each other, and that action efficiency requires strategizing for almost every class (maybe not the fighter, maybe not so much the bard).

Multiclass proficiency issues are far more complicated then “MC casters get master/MC martial get expert unfair!”

PF2 does have an optics problem because, on paper, proficiency looks like a fairly balanced concept, but the reality is that not all proficiencies are equal. There are much fewer flat out proficiency gates than people thought their were going to be, but in practice this means that it is easy to have bad options, readily available to unsuspecting players. MC casters get very few high level spell slots a day. Spell slots that would be unusable offensively if proficiencies fell 2 slots behind most casters. Expert proficiency in a good magical weapon and a high secondary attribute is enough to have 1 decent attack with it every round of combat.

Lastly metamagic has never been in a better place than it is in PF2. It is useful and useable starting at level 1. It is simple and intuitive for new players to use, and doesn’t require relearning when switching between spell casters. Right now, we only have the most basic versions of metamagic feats available, but we will continue to get more. Seriously, at what level did people start using quickened spells effectively in PF1? It increased spell level by 4, so maybe 9th level but only on level 1 spells? I’d take PF2s version any day over that.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I keep seeing "Druid is fine" but I really don't get how a Storm Druid (Blaster Druid) is fine, if the Evoker Wizard is not?

They have mostly the same blast spells option,but Druid doesn't have True Strike.

Sure, Tempest Surge is a great Focus spell, but that's the only blast focus spell they got (versus 2 for Evokers) and it's not gonna compete with Martial on dammage?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Storm Druids are definitely better off focusing on save targeting blast spells than spell attack roll spells, although the Storm druid can be more of a "up in the muck" kind of caster with armor, a shield and more HP, so they can more easily take advantage of flanking with their spell attack roll spells than Wizards who are pretty squishy by default.

Some will say "this proves that spell attack roll spells are broken," But I just see it as more subtle niche protection: True strike is more of a wizard and arcane sorcerer thing than any other caster thing (because almost all occult spells target saves). But the roll of true strike is getting to be a pretty endless circle debate in this thread.


Donovan Du Bois wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
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.

Cyouni wrote:
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.

Cyouni wrote:

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...

the optimized barb/fighter/ranger were always the biggest campain wreckers. the only caster that was in that conversation in PF1 was the witch.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A lot of arguments ask for a rework of the system, and that is just impossible, it ain't gonna happen, and it's so pointless to discuss, and combative. Overly argumentative, rude opinions on the design don't go anywhere, but constructive comments always reach the designers.

But better feats, items for spell attack, a way to get master in weapons, more 1 action spells/Focus Spells, are all great suggestions and ideas.
I think we all agree the wizard is not quite there yet. But I'm glad I'm reading there is some way of making it work (For more players) in the near future.

@Ikarinokame; For me, it was the Gunslinger, Paladin, Swatchbuckler... And yes, the Witch (Not campaign wreckers, but they stole the spotlight from everyone else)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

First of all I am sorry if I seem rude to people or Paizo. I’ve got a very familiar English, and I lack nuance so it is not in the purpose to insult anyone.

Secondly, I think the answer of Ruzza or TSRodriguez show that we can meet some common ground on what the casters can become. Maybe it just need time for me to be in a state that I can enjoy more. And accept that I dislike the Divine list.

Finally I did not try the Storm Druid, we only saw a Polymorph one, but he felt really fine. He had a statut bonus I think on polymorphie? Companions seems balanced this time, so they are still decent choice, not broken. Familiar are meh but the whole plant things seems to have decent, useful, and thematic feats. Finally for Storm I like the Master of the Elements vibe, the versatility of the Primal list and the few shenanigans they can have with concealed and conditions like that. Plus shield block, good skills, good theme, and few nice feats. Yeah Druids seems fine. Bards are good, at least on paper got yet to have one. I dislike the new Clerics, but it seems to be on me, Sorcerers (depending on the bloodline) and Wizards however have the short end of the stick I think from a game design perspective.

One think I am afraid make people like me vocal on the subject is that it feel sometimes less like balance, and more like a punishment for being the OP classes for 20 years. But by being over cautious, I find the nerf bat to have hit too hard. At the price of fun.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
ikarinokami wrote:
the optimized barb/fighter/ranger were always the biggest campain wreckers. the only caster that was in that conversation in PF1 was the witch.

If you were looking for just pure damage ending encounters, yes.

If you were looking for pure campaign destruction potential, casters were always the ones to look at. Count the workarounds that they put into APs and modules that are basically playing a game of one-upmanship on casters. Look at the fact that Ultimate Intrigue had to have 11 pages of analysis devoted to "how to handle casters in an intrigue campaign to prevent them from instantly short-circuiting it".


2 people marked this as a favorite.
SteelGuts wrote:

First of all I am sorry if I seem rude to people or Paizo. I’ve got a very familiar English, and I lack nuance so it is not in the purpose to insult anyone.

Secondly, I think the answer of Ruzza or TSRodriguez show that we can meet some common ground on what the casters can become. Maybe it just need time for me to be in a state that I can enjoy more. And accept that I dislike the Divine list.

Finally I did not try the Storm Druid, we only saw a Polymorph one, but he felt really fine. He had a statut bonus I think on polymorphie? Companions seems balanced this time, so they are still decent choice, not broken. Familiar are meh but the whole plant things seems to have decent, useful, and thematic feats. Finally for Storm I like the Master of the Elements vibe, the versatility of the Primal list and the few shenanigans they can have with concealed and conditions like that. Plus shield block, good skills, good theme, and few nice feats. Yeah Druids seems fine. Bards are good, at least on paper got yet to have one. I dislike the new Clerics, but it seems to be on me, Sorcerers (depending on the bloodline) and Wizards however have the short end of the stick I think from a game design perspective.

One think I am afraid make people like me vocal on the subject is that it feel sometimes less like balance, and more like a punishment for being the OP classes for 20 years. But by being over cautious, I find the nerf bat to have hit too hard. At the price of fun.

I think that's fair. Part of it is that I suspect the more a class leans into casting, the more it'll force you to get used to the new magic paradigm. If you have some particular things to address, I'd encourage you to lay them out and we can talk about it.

The other thing that we definitely agree on is that we all want more feats and spell options, and sadly don't have a time machine to travel to the future where that's the case. I'm hoping APG does some good stuff on this front.

I do wish they'd smoothed out the proficiency gaps for casters, though. I recognize that it's based on where the resilient runes are coming in to play (or is it the other way around)

I recognize what you're saying in terms of how the optics feel bad on spell attacks, but I'm not sure of what the good solution would be. If they had weaker effects that necessitated you to have a spell attack item to hit full power, I don't think that'd be really satisfying either. Regardless, I suspect there's probably going to be an item eventually to focus on spell attacks, but it'll come with a tradeoff like "is a wand, so needs to be in hand to work".


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Listen to that.

Martials MC Spellcaster deserve Master in spellcasting cause otherwise spells wouldnt work; I wonder why that is? Its almost as if spellcasting needed and instead of making something they just gave better proficiency?And that is also part of the problem. Martial characters are balanced around Master and a +3 weapon (a +9 bonus), while Spellcasters are based solely around Legendary (a +8 bonus). Leaving the best Martial at +11 while the "master of magic" (not really cause all but 1 caster is legendary) is at +8: Meanwhile, the "master of spells" has the worst defenses in the entire game.

The game would had been considerably better for casters if they were balanced similarly to Martials. With Wizards (the caster with worst defenses) being able to get legendary in 1 school and other casters getting master. But everyone having access to runes to increase Spell attack or DC.

All spell attack casters have some problems. But classes other than Wizards were given ways to deal with it that arent "use true strike and waste another spell slot". Sorcerers get a thematic bonus to their bloodline. Clerics probably need more attack spells to bring them put of "heal bot", but Harm is plenty usable for both single and AoE targets and has lots of support. Druids blasters are closer to Wizard but they also get many ways to get close and not die because of it.

Also really a 5 ft step as part of casting is too much but a 30 ft dash and a strike as 1 action is fine (barbarians and monk can make that distance much longer)? Martials being able to interact with the system is good, but casters wanting more than 2 actions a turns is bad? How in the word are all the martial action boosters (with no usage limit) before level 10 good, but a caster has to wait till level 10 to save a single action 1/day? and that never gets better till level 16 when they finally can use metamagic without being a sitting baby duck.

Also yeah focus spells need to be better. Cause at the moment Wizard focus spells are mostly useless. Not to mention they get 2 with 0 choice, when all other casters are getting anywhere from 3 to 6 choices regardless of build path.

Arcane Schools specifically massively fail at their job. They are meant to represent you becoming specialized and better at 1 type of spell, but all you are getting is a bonus spell and 2 questionable focus spells. It honestly might be a worse scam than IRL college, which at least does make you better at the thing you studied.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:

Listen to that.

Point made man, please don't repeat everything over again, is so tiresome, we are all coming to terms finally, I think. we all want the game to be better, but if we keep repeating that almost everything is bad, or it fails and is comparable to a college scam... We go nowhere

>Movement plus spell could be pretty fun to do a Feat
>Specialist Wizard able to have more bonuses in their school sounds good but been able to stack bonuses should be treated with care.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

What wizard specialization means might even be a topic worthy of its own thread.

The idea of tying it to casting proficiency has received a lot homebrewing attention, but would have a lot of severe consequences as to "nerfing" wizards. Probably limiting specialists from casting spells from one other school would be much more reasonable.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Sorry, about repeating myself.

Its really hard avoiding to comment, I need to try harder to resist defending my point.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

A lot of people here say that the wizard is underpowered but after playing 5th I have to say that I find the wizard version of Ptf2 much more fun and versatile


Temperans wrote:

Listen to that.

Martials MC Spellcaster deserve Master in spellcasting cause otherwise spells wouldnt work; I wonder why that is? Its almost as if spellcasting needed and instead of making something they just gave better proficiency?And that is also part of the problem. Martial characters are balanced around Master and a +3 weapon (a +9 bonus), while Spellcasters are based solely around Legendary (a +8 bonus). Leaving the best Martial at +11 while the "master of magic" (not really cause all but 1 caster is legendary) is at +8: Meanwhile, the "master of spells" has the worst defenses in the entire game.

The game would had been considerably better for casters if they were balanced similarly to Martials. With Wizards (the caster with worst defenses) being able to get legendary in 1 school and other casters getting master. But everyone having access to runes to increase Spell attack or DC.

So let me actually address this.

Weapon proficiency is actually quite simple if you compare to PF1. Master is the standard for full-BAB characters, Expert is the standard for "doesn't use weapons", and Legendary is Fighter, replacing the things like weapon mastery they used to have.
Casting proficiency is based on Legendary. What happens if it's based on Master?

Wizard is Legendary in one school.
Casters are Master overall.
Magus and gish types are Expert--- wait.
Dabblers are Trained, just one step below things like Magus.

It looks fine at first glance, but does wonky things for the game's environment. You can't have Maguses or other gish classes at Master, because then they're as good as standard casters. But then they're only one step above Trained dabblers, and they would barely advance throughout their entire class's lifespan in one of their primary aspects. And then multiclassing that explodes, with multiclassing probably being at Trained, and multiclassing casters at Expert being equivalent to Magus.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
You can't have Maguses or other gish classes at Master, because then they're as good as standard casters. But then they're only one step above Trained dabblers, and they would barely advance throughout their entire class's lifespan in one of their primary aspects.

Isn't this kind of the same problem we have with weapons, though?

The 'sacrifices spellcasting power to be more martial' Warpriest and then 'probably never touched a weapon in their life' Wizard have the same proficiency scale, except for a narrow band of levels because the Warpriest gets their increase a little sooner. The only difference is which weapons, which the Wizard can solve with an ancestry feat or two if they aren't too picky.

There's only one step between classes that don't use weapons and classes that absolutely rely on weapons to function, which makes it very hard to design hybrid options for all the same reasons you're describing in your own post.

It feels to me like you're making a really good argument for every martial to get legendary, with the option to buy into master for nonspecialists and just giving the Fighter some other combat boon instead.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
You can't have Maguses or other gish classes at Master, because then they're as good as standard casters. But then they're only one step above Trained dabblers, and they would barely advance throughout their entire class's lifespan in one of their primary aspects.

Isn't this kind of the same problem we have with weapons, though?

The 'sacrifices spellcasting power to be more martial' Warpriest and then 'probably never touched a weapon in their life' Wizard have the same proficiency scale, except for a narrow band of levels because the Warpriest gets their increase a little sooner. The only difference is which weapons, which the Wizard can solve with an ancestry feat or two if they aren't too picky.

There's only one step between classes that don't use weapons and classes that absolutely rely on weapons to function, which makes it very hard to design hybrid options for all the same reasons you're describing in your own post.

It feels to me like you're making a really good argument for every martial to get legendary, with the option to buy into master for nonspecialists and just giving the Fighter some other combat boon instead.

I think that would also be a viable solution, realistically.

Warpriest's problem, to me, is really the name. If you look at what it really gets, it sacrifices spellcasting power for defenses (actual armour, master Fort + evasion) more than actual martial offensive capability. But because of the name, we hear 'Warpriest' and expect it to be similar to the PF1 Warpriest, but it really doesn't fulfill that niche.
The other thing it's missing is scaling proficiency with martial weapons, which I feel it needs. I don't think it needs master weapon proficiency, but keeping the martial weapons it gains at 3rd at only Trained is a problem.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

You only get Master in spellcasting via multiclass if you invest in it real heavily and hit 18th level. 18th level and above are more relevant now than in PF1, but I'm not sure it's worth quite this level of controversy...

Also, at the moment, from a math perspective, part of the reason spellcasters get to Legendary in spells is to make up for missing out on magic weapon enhancements. So yes, multiclass spellcasters hit Master, but multiclass martials get to take full advantage of magic weapons, which evens them out pretty well.

For comparison, a 20th level Ranger multiclassed to Druid with Wis 22 has Save DC 42 (vs. an average Save of +33 for moderate Saves, so they save on a 9, Saving 60% of the time), while a Bard Multiclassed to Champion focusing on weapons with Str 22, has an attack of +33 (vs. an AC of 45 for High AC, so they hit on a 12, 45% of the time).

That number is actually skewed more towards the Caster multiclassing Martial than the reverse. The odds are better.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Also, at the moment, from a math perspective, part of the reason spellcasters get to Legendary in spells is to make up for missing out on magic weapon enhancements.

Just wanted to comment on this since I've seen this argument before. Getting Legendary spellcasting at level 19 doesn't really make up for a lack of enhancements before then. Given that most at home campaigns tend to die out by the mid-teens in levels, getting a math fix at level 19 is kind of academic, as almost no caster will ever be around long enough to see it.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Also remember that the core math fix around caster's proficiency DC is actually their ability to target saving throws instead of just AC and (especially for wizards) the ability to target different saving throws based upon individual creature weakness which can vary by as much as 9 points at level one (with 3/6 more common) to 12 points at level 20 ( with the same 3/6 spread more common).

No other class has the power to choose the DC they are targeting with that kind of variance.

Now, it is easy to oversell this ability, especially if the player is adamant about refusing to make skill checks to determine these numbers, but it is absolutely another figure that plays into the balance of the class.

(Note: I realize this doesn't have to do with spell attack rolls, but blanket changes to spell casting proficiency affect both).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nerkios wrote:
A lot of people here say that the wizard is underpowered but after playing 5th I have to say that I find the wizard version of Ptf2 much more fun and versatile

I have to hard disagree here. 5e vancian-light spellcasting is so much fun. I absolutely love it to bits and pieces.


Donovan Du Bois wrote:
Nerkios wrote:
A lot of people here say that the wizard is underpowered but after playing 5th I have to say that I find the wizard version of Ptf2 much more fun and versatile
I have to hard disagree here. 5e vancian-light spellcasting is so much fun. I absolutely love it to bits and pieces.

But the wizard itself is not really that great,they only get one class feature (arcane recovery) and the subclasses are quite weak and don't do anything to help make each wizard feel unique, they give a couple small features, but that's about it.


Nerkios wrote:
Donovan Du Bois wrote:
Nerkios wrote:
A lot of people here say that the wizard is underpowered but after playing 5th I have to say that I find the wizard version of Ptf2 much more fun and versatile
I have to hard disagree here. 5e vancian-light spellcasting is so much fun. I absolutely love it to bits and pieces.
But the wizard itself is not really that great,they only get one class feature (arcane recovery) and the subclasses are quite weak and don't do anything to help make each wizard feel unique, they give a couple small features, but that's about it.

Wizard is not the most flavorful class in 5e, but they are all about the spells and 5e's version of casting feels so much better to use.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Being able to target saves is not a caster only thing many martial classes also target saves. Ex: Monk's Dragon Roar (Will Save), Barbarian's Dragon Rage Breath (Reflex Save), Barbarian's Thrash (Fortitude save), Monk's Mountain Quake (Fortitude save), Grapples, Shoves, etc.

Saves are not unique to Spellcasters, they just have higher access to it because there are more spells.

Even then Wizards having spells that target different saves doesn't mean a particular Wizard knows those spells. And even if they do know them, the are only so many spells that can be prepared. So again there is no way for the caster to know for sure at any point while preparing what he will face. Most GMs dont go around telling players what they will fight, and the recall knowledge rules are iffy on whether you can roll it without seeing the creature.

Then there are situations like PFS and random encounters where the casters dont even have hints about what they will fight and must deal with it with what ever it is they have.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

These all sound like... fine problems to have? Like, problems and hurdles for characters to overcome?

EDIT: "Aw, dang. I need to have a diverse spell list and try and gather some information before charging into combat."


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Donovan Du Bois wrote:
Nerkios wrote:
A lot of people here say that the wizard is underpowered but after playing 5th I have to say that I find the wizard version of Ptf2 much more fun and versatile
I have to hard disagree here. 5e vancian-light spellcasting is so much fun. I absolutely love it to bits and pieces.

Unsurprising that you enjoyed the system that made spontaneous casters far worse than prepared casters, as a wizard die-hard. in 5e a wizard can prepare more spells than a sorcerer even knows, and then doesn't have to even worry about how many slots he commits to each spell


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Temperans wrote:
…IRL college, which at least does make you better at the thing you studied.

That all too often turns out not to be the case.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Nearly two thousand posts in this thread, and most of 'em are just going around in circles. :-(

1,851 to 1,900 of 1,952 << first < prev | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Did wizards get nerfed? All Messageboards