Did wizards get nerfed?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 1,952 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Sure, Grease is still in, and actually useful on higher levels due to better DCs. But that's one spell.

As for buff spells, 1 minute is too short. If it was 2 minutes it would be much better. Sure, before we had spells with rounds/level, but they were much stronger. These spells are really not that strong, and having them last only a minute is simply too short.

Frankly, I would've preferred a 3 min as default duration, with 10 mins for what are 5 min spells now and 30 mins for 10 mins spells now.

NOTE: I do like some long-term spells were made properly long term, like Mage Armour and Ant Haul for example.

But they could've made sure others are useable if you have time to prebuff when a big fight is about to come. It would emphasize that you want that advantage, instead of just rushing forward to engage all the enemies you can.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Arakasius wrote:
However they did do extensive surveys of the full playtest every step of the way. (They’ve likely done surveys as well with PFS too) If the player base had told them quadratic wizards are what was favored then they’d have gone with that. But it didn’t which definitely leads me to think you’re quite the minority. I’m fairly sure bringing casters and martials more in line will be as successful in PF2 as it was in 5e.

<shrug> Completely possible. I will however point out that the developers went into the playtest with the exact same paradigm for casters which has now showed up in the released product. The changes to spells between playtest and core rules are more rounding around the edges, as far as I have seen. So I'm kinda iffy on the "they listened to all the surveys" thingy.

Arakasius wrote:
That’s the thing with Internet forums. Just because there is a few loud people going on about a pet peeve doesn’t mean the general audience feel that way. In the Paizo blogs/video where they went over feedback from the playtest some of the biggest points of contention here considered huge wins for the game.

I guess sales numbers (if we ever get them) will tell the true tale in the next few years.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

Pre-buffing not really being a thing isn't necessarily a bad thing.

When my Rise of the Runelords party went into the fight with Karzoug, it took over an hour real time for them to cast all their buffs, and they needed to have a sheet where they could write down every buff, the duration of said buffs, and the effects of said buffs.

It was incredibly boring, and as it was their first experience with true high-level play, once the combat was over, the party wizard was like, "I don't know if I ever want to play high-level Pathfinder again." When my players say that, it tells me that they may not have had fun. That's why we play this game - to have fun.

Did casters get a nerf? Yes they did. Is that a bad thing? Not necessarily. The changes will make high-level play feel less intimidating, which will make it less likely to put off new players.

I haven't decided if I like the new system yet or not. I intend to play it before making a decision one way or the other, just like trying a new food for the first time. It may not look appetizing, but you won't know if you like it if you don't try it.

Sovereign Court

I'll need to see more 2e combat, to check if it is too short.

I very rarely went past 5 or 6 rounds of combat in most encounters that I have been in PF1. Only one fight lasted 15 rounds, and it took forever.

I suspect that most fights in PF2 are probably around the same length as PF1.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
magnuskn wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:

I mean it isn't that telling. We are trying to convince like three people, one of whom seems to just hate the idea of pf2 in general. Its not like there is a vast majority of upset wizards.

Yeah, I'm sure a snapshot of two to three hours with four or five people discussing is indicative of all players, everywhere. :p

My point exactly. Diego was saying it must be bad if three people are complaining. My point is thats a pretty tiny amount of data.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Last time I looked at Archives of Nethys, a lot of spells didn't have heightening information posted correctly, missing it entirely. So for people without the book some spells might look less powerful and less flexible than they are in reality.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also, a minor gripe, but Metamagic thesis Wizard right now isn't that useful. We need more Metamagic feats to have more options.

And frankly, giving us an Extend Spell Metamagic feat seems like a low hanging fruit.

Another idea I had to help with spell durations would be to allow Wizards to extend the durations by concentrating, or spending an action to lengthen the spell.

For example: Maintain Spell (Metamagic): 1 action. Pick a spell you have cast, which has a duration of at least 1 minute and no more than 10 minutes, and whose target was friendly. Spell duration resets as if you had cast it this round. Spell will automatically end when it reaches 3 times its original duration, even if you extended it beyond that time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Malk_Content wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:

I mean it isn't that telling. We are trying to convince like three people, one of whom seems to just hate the idea of pf2 in general. Its not like there is a vast majority of upset wizards.

Yeah, I'm sure a snapshot of two to three hours with four or five people discussing is indicative of all players, everywhere. :p
My point exactly. Diego was saying it must be bad if three people are complaining. My point is thats a pretty tiny amount of data.

In the end it's just our opinion, anyway. The numbers will do the talking in a few months or years.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm new to the DNDlikes, but I'm very weirded out by the idea of spending multiple minutes or a hour of trying to accumulate a singularity of buffs for an encounter. That doesn't sound like anything like the fantasy fiction and sounds like a terryfing tempo breaker and time waster. I honestly thought some spells lasting entire minute or 5 or 10 minutes was pretty long, as its basically "one entire fight", "3-5 fights", "5-8 fights".
How was the content balanced with the big difference that running a snowball of prebuffs vs groups not doing it?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
WHW wrote:

I'm new to the DNDlikes, but I'm very weirded out by the idea of spending multiple minutes or a hour of trying to accumulate a singularity of buffs for an encounter. That doesn't sound like anything like the fantasy fiction and sounds like a terryfing tempo breaker and time waster. I honestly thought some spells lasting entire minute or 5 or 10 minutes was pretty long, as its basically "one entire fight", "3-5 fights", "5-8 fights".

How was the content balanced with the big difference that running a snowball of prebuffs vs groups not doing it?

GM counterprep mostly and house rules. ^^ I personally only allow three buffs from other people on your character, while you can buff yourself with your own spells and magic items as much as you like. Works pretty well to keep the crazyness at least to manageable levels.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Heroism - 10 minutes
Fly - 5 minutes
Resist Energy - 10 minutes
Stoneskin - 20 minutes
Gostly Weapon - 5 minutes
Enlarge - 5 minutes
Invisibility - 10 minutes
Spell Imunity - 24 hours
By the way, all of the above actually stack.

Invisibility (4th), Haste, Magic Weapon, Mirror Image, Blink, Blur - 1 minute.


Pathfinder LO Special Edition, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
NemoNoName wrote:

Also, a minor gripe, but Metamagic thesis Wizard right now isn't that useful. We need more Metamagic feats to have more options.

And frankly, giving us an Extend Spell Metamagic feat seems like a low hanging fruit.

Another idea I had to help with spell durations would be to allow Wizards to extend the durations by concentrating, or spending an action to lengthen the spell.

For example: Maintain Spell (Metamagic): 1 action. Pick a spell you have cast, which has a duration of at least 1 minute and no more than 10 minutes, and whose target was friendly. Spell duration resets as if you had cast it this round. Spell will automatically end when it reaches 3 times its original duration, even if you extended it beyond that time.

Sorcerers already have an Extend Metamagic. Not sure if they'll be bringing that into compatibility with Wizard Feats or not. If you really wanted to play a true Metamagic specialist though you could always pick up a Dedication to Sorcerer too to expand your spell list and give you some additional Metamagic options.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
WHW wrote:

I'm new to the DNDlikes, but I'm very weirded out by the idea of spending multiple minutes or a hour of trying to accumulate a singularity of buffs for an encounter. That doesn't sound like anything like the fantasy fiction and sounds like a terryfing tempo breaker and time waster. I honestly thought some spells lasting entire minute or 5 or 10 minutes was pretty long, as its basically "one entire fight", "3-5 fights", "5-8 fights".

How was the content balanced with the big difference that running a snowball of prebuffs vs groups not doing it?

They were going in fully rested - no spells cast yet. That's partially why it took so long. I do like magnuskn's house rule for dealing with that aspect of it though - I wish I'd thought of it sooner.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gloom wrote:
Sorcerers already have an Extend Metamagic. Not sure if they'll be bringing that into compatibility with Wizard Feats or not. If you really wanted to play a true Metamagic specialist though you could always pick up a Dedication to Sorcerer too to expand your spell list and give you some additional Metamagic options.

Sure, I'll jump into Sorcerers dedication just to get Extend Metamagic (which I'm pretty sure doesn't work with spells from Wizard anyway), just as soon as I'm finished getting my Fighter dedication so I can swing a battleaxe without hitting myself in the face.

(not to mention there's RP/personal reasons why I'm playing a Wizard and not a Sorcerer)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Arakasius wrote:

I don’t think it’s really as bad as some people here are exaggerating about.

1. Cantrips give casters a useful baseline they didn’t have before
2. Focus spells give a reusable pool during the day to do more powerful effects
3. Spells having some effect if the enemy saves doesn’t leave your class as binary where if they save their hold person you’ve wasted your turn but if they failed you won the fight
4. Blasting is a powerful option because of good base damage for spells and critically failing doubling damage. It does however shift caster blaster damage to more of an AOE role. There really isn’t a battering blast build yet.
5. Spells DCs all heightening even if you don’t heighten the spell makes low level spells much more useful at high levels.

The effects on enemy failing is still quite good and the critically fail effects are as strong or stronger than PF1. The one big change I think that has hurt wizards is the new critics success/fail system. Basically in PF1 nearly all monsters had a poor save. Giants with their reflex, wizards with their fort and rogues with their will. This meant you could build a specialist wizard who attacked certain types of saves and just used the appropriate ones each encounter to get basically auto successes. This doesn’t exist anymore since even the big dumb giant has an okay reflex save and is capable of succeeding. Now as math has shown up thread even in those cases the enemies need like an 11-12 to succeed. Before they were hosed on all but a natural 20.

I think that fact is the main caster difference in PF2 with save or suck spells. Utility spells and buff spells have taken a nerf as well, but I doubt you’ll find many people who agree that the party spending 3-4 turns prebuffing was a fun mechanism or even realistic at all within a fantasy world. The difference in power between a prebuffed party and a buffed party was just too big so them following a similar process to 5e makes sense.

I always found pre-buffing to be realistic and fun.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:

I mean it isn't that telling. We are trying to convince like three people, one of whom seems to just hate the idea of pf2 in general. Its not like there is a vast majority of upset wizards.

Yeah, I'm sure a snapshot of two to three hours with four or five people discussing is indicative of all players, everywhere. :p
My point exactly. Diego was saying it must be bad if three people are complaining. My point is thats a pretty tiny amount of data.

I never said that three people complaining meant it was bad. I've only spoken for myself in this thread, and I've said my initial impression is that I don't like the way casters feel.

I'm sure the math behind the decisions is valid, and aligns with the stated goals of more balanced gameplay between martials and casters. I agree with the need for the balancing, I just disagree with some of the steps they've taken to get there.

I gave the example of the druid I'm building. I would gladly give up spell slots to have at will wildshaping into one CR appropriate creature. I don't see that as game-breaking. Instead of that, we get pest form. I'm sure I can find some use for that, but it's not going to be in combat.

I also don't like that casters get very little interaction with the 3-action system. I think NemoNoName's suggestion of using an action to maintain spells is a great idea, and simple enough to implement. It would mean I get agency over the duration of my spells.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder LO Special Edition, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
NemoNoName wrote:
Gloom wrote:
Sorcerers already have an Extend Metamagic. Not sure if they'll be bringing that into compatibility with Wizard Feats or not. If you really wanted to play a true Metamagic specialist though you could always pick up a Dedication to Sorcerer too to expand your spell list and give you some additional Metamagic options.

Sure, I'll jump into Sorcerers dedication just to get Extend Metamagic (which I'm pretty sure doesn't work with spells from Wizard anyway), just as soon as I'm finished getting my Fighter dedication so I can swing a battleaxe without hitting myself in the face.

(not to mention there's RP/personal reasons why I'm playing a Wizard and not a Sorcerer)

Pretty sure it wouldn't be much of a stretch for a GM to let you pick up Extend as a Metamagic Feat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
NemoNoName wrote:


Sure, I'll jump into Sorcerers dedication just to get Extend Metamagic (which I'm pretty sure doesn't work with spells from Wizard anyway)...

Why wouldn't it? Limiting it to just wizard spells would really limit multiclassing spellcasters in a bad way.

I've got at least one sorcerer character who desperately needs the Conceal Spell feat she poached from wizard to work on her sorcerer spells.


Ravingdork wrote:

Why wouldn't it? Limiting it to just wizard spells would really limit multiclassing spellcasters in a bad way.

I've got at least one sorcerer character who desperately needs the Conceal Spell feat she poached from wizard to work on her sorcerer spells.

Don't know yet - probably a FAQ question. However, there is this in Archetype rules ( https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=167 ):

All spell slots you gain from spellcasting archetypes have restrictions depending on the archetype; for instance, the bard archetype grants you spell slots you can use only to cast occult spells from your bard repertoire, even if you are a sorcerer with occult spells in your sorcerer repertoire.

However, again, it is really not the point, because I will not be multiclassing into Sorcerer from my Wizard.


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

I don't see anything saying that metanagic feats only work for the class they were taken from. I wouldn't assume that, unless/until I come across a rule somewhere that does.

Liberty's Edge

magnuskn wrote:
<shrug> Completely possible. I will however point out that the developers went into the playtest with the exact same paradigm for casters which has now showed up in the released product. The changes to spells between playtest and core rules are more rounding around the edges, as far as I have seen. So I'm kinda iffy on the "they listened to all the surveys" thingy.

Well from what they've said, the survey response to their basic paradigm was quite positive. I know I filled out a survey saying in detail what I wanted to be different about casters, which included a variety of possible changes.

The apparent result is that people wanted spells powered up from the playtest primarily inasmuch as they wanted enemies to fail Saves more often and durations to last longer rather than change the core dynamic of how spells work from the playtest. Both those things happened.

magnuskn wrote:
I guess sales numbers (if we ever get them) will tell the true tale in the next few years.

Well, we'll get a certain rough idea of them eventually, I'm sure.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Interesting how it is possible to gain Master proficiency in spellcasting via Devotion feats (and those feats also give you other stuff), yet you may only* gain Expert Weapon Proficiency via Fighter devotion if your main class isn't giving it.

* there are also ancestry feats for ancestry weapons of specific races.


Ravingdork wrote:
NemoNoName wrote:


Sure, I'll jump into Sorcerers dedication just to get Extend Metamagic (which I'm pretty sure doesn't work with spells from Wizard anyway)...

Why wouldn't it? Limiting it to just wizard spells would really limit multiclassing spellcasters in a bad way.

I've got at least one sorcerer character who desperately needs the Conceal Spell feat she poached from wizard to work on her sorcerer spells.

Had you looked at going Bard for Melodius Spell instead? You'd have to wait until 8th level to take it, but instead of having to make both a Stealth and Deception check for a standard somatic/verbal spell, you'd only make a single Performance check. Although unless you also picked up Versatile Performance you wouldn't be getting much out of Performance, it would be a single skill vs. two, a single check vs. two, and completely keying off your Charisma.


Diego Hopkins wrote:
Arakasius wrote:
Yeah none of your casters are playing correctly. A martial in PF1 can do a lot of damage, but a caster (especially wizards) can end a fight with one spell or completely short circuit an entire dungeon or plot. Look we had enough of linear fighters, quadratic wizards. Maybe it’s time for something else.

I think there was a better way to do it than just nerf batting everything. There's not a good argument for cantrips being d4s. Set that at d6 and leave it. Move more spells to rituals to open those up to everyone, let wizards have rituals known for free/level, and decrease the ritual casting time to make them useful during adventuring. Or just move the whole spell list to ritual, and use the vancian casting slots for rituals held/ quick rituals. This way everyone gets access to the resource, but wizards can do it faster.

Sorcerer=kineticist.

Druid, keep cantrips and permanently sacrifice one of your highest level spell slots to gain at will wildshaping into a single animal of a CR equal to or less than your level. You can sacrifice additional slots as you gain them to gain access to additional forms. One form per slot. This is not game breaking, and lets you feel like a druid.

D4s when you are getting your primary stat bonus to it + getting increases more frequently is fine. It means they are going to be very consistent damage work horses. You lose a bit off the top end to gain a TON of damage over time with it being just that much more consistent.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:


Well from what they've said, the survey response to their basic paradigm was quite positive. I know I filled out a survey saying in detail what I wanted to be different about casters, which included a variety of possible changes.

The apparent result is that people wanted spells powered up from the playtest primarily inasmuch as they wanted enemies to fail Saves more often and durations to last longer rather than change the core dynamic of how spells work from the playtest. Both those things happened.

Well, it didn't work for me, but, again, I am just one dude GM'ing for some other dudes.

I really haven't seen the "durations to last longer" part, though, unless you mean how long spell effects on enemies last, which I haven't checked yet. Most buff spells have been nerfed in duration and effect as far as I've seen. Some spells last longer from the start but never scale after leveling past the point you outscale the congruent PF1E level (i.e. Mage Armor lasts 8 hours, but after level 8 you don't get the benefit you'd have in PF1E of it lasting even longer).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Xenocrat wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
NemoNoName wrote:


Sure, I'll jump into Sorcerers dedication just to get Extend Metamagic (which I'm pretty sure doesn't work with spells from Wizard anyway)...

Why wouldn't it? Limiting it to just wizard spells would really limit multiclassing spellcasters in a bad way.

I've got at least one sorcerer character who desperately needs the Conceal Spell feat she poached from wizard to work on her sorcerer spells.

Had you looked at going Bard for Melodius Spell instead? You'd have to wait until 8th level to take it, but instead of having to make both a Stealth and Deception check for a standard somatic/verbal spell, you'd only make a single Performance check. Although unless you also picked up Versatile Performance you wouldn't be getting much out of Performance, it would be a single skill vs. two, a single check vs. two, and completely keying off your Charisma.

Haha, yeah, I saw that. Doesn't work for my character though, as she is deceptive and discreet. There's nothing discreet about breaking into song or dance every time I want to cast a spell. :P

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
Well, it didn't work for me, but, again, I am just one dude GM'ing for some other dudes.

Sure, and even if 90% of people like something, there's always gonna be the 10%. But you're the one who brought up the idea of them not responding to surveys, which is what I was addressing.

magnuskn wrote:
I really haven't seen the "durations to last longer" part, though, unless you mean how long spell effects on enemies last, which I haven't checked yet. Most buff spells have been nerfed in duration and effect as far as I've seen. Some spells last longer from the start but never scale after leveling past the point you outscale the congruent PF1E level (i.e. Mage Armor lasts 8 hours, but after level 8 you don't get the benefit you'd have in PF1E of it lasting even longer).

As compared to the playtest (which is what I was talking about, since I was discussing playtest surveys) durations have extended. A lot of buff were only one minute in the playtest but are more like 10 minutes now. They may not have extended as much as you in particular (or even as much as I in particular) would like, but they have extended.


Ravingdork wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:


Had you looked at going Bard for Melodius Spell instead? You'd have to wait until 8th level to take it, but instead of having to make both a Stealth and Deception check for a standard somatic/verbal spell, you'd only make a single Performance check. Although unless you also picked up Versatile Performance you wouldn't be getting much out of Performance, it would be a single skill vs. two, a single check vs. two, and completely keying off your Charisma.
Haha, yeah, I saw that. Doesn't work for my character though, as she is deceptive and discreet. There's nothing discreet about breaking into song or dance every time I want to cast a spell. :P

Well deceptive could fall under acting or comedy performance options (acting is the uber performance because it's both visual and auditory and works with everything Bard related). Tell a dirty joke as cover for your spell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There was a suggestion from Mark Seifter that people who absolutely hated and absolutely loved the first playtest basically bowed out of the survey after the first one

If some of the reasons above were enough to put people off carrying on further then it would never have made it into the feedback - at least to a significant degree

And the developers could only really go on what has been fed back along with, of course, their initial intention

I think the people who absolutely hated the first part were:

- not a high enough proportion to worry them (presumed by me)

- not ever really going to switch to any version of 2E but were really after a PF1 "Fully Unchained" or the like (presumed by them?)

But have many here played the final released version of the game? And more accurately played a Wizard or seen one in action in the final version?


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel that one of the reason a number of vocal wizard partisans dropped out of the playtest right away is that even they recognize how past about level 12 full spellcasters are just absurdly more powerful than everybody else and this was in no way a thing that was going to make it into an edition that made clear its goal to make high level play fun, fast, and balanced.


12 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I feel that one of the reason a number of vocal wizard partisans dropped out of the playtest right away is that even they recognize how past about level 12 full spellcasters are just absurdly more powerful than everybody else and this was in no way a thing that was going to make it into an edition that made clear its goal to make high level play fun, fast, and balanced.

That's a lot of attributing motivations to other people, but if that is what makes you happier, be my guest. ^^


Pathfinder LO Special Edition, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Honestly, as a DM if someone wanted to learn a Metamagic feat that belonged under another class's feats I'd probably let them get it as a quest reward for studying under a master of that class that had the feat, after helping them out with some stuff.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I feel that one of the reason a number of vocal wizard partisans dropped out of the playtest right away is that even they recognize how past about level 12 full spellcasters are just absurdly more powerful than everybody else and this was in no way a thing that was going to make it into an edition that made clear its goal to make high level play fun, fast, and balanced.
That's a lot of attributing motivations to other people, but if that is what makes you happier, be my guest. ^^

Well there was an "I feel" there. So clearly an opinion.

Do you have a counter opinion as to why there might have been insufficient feedback decrying the power down of magic?

Or do you think there were loads of people who hated that wizards power didn't increase exponentially as higher level spells were unlocked and that they were all just ignored?

It sounds like you and your group played and hated the playtest. Out of interest (not being accusatory) - how far in did you get? Did you feedback on all 6 parts. Sorry if you have already said this, I am just interested in your position

(In my case I didn't play the playtest at all as I struggle significantly to get a group together to play our AP game)


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
NemoNoName wrote:
lordcirth wrote:
I'm really not seeing the problem (or the need for sarcasm). Wizards aren't good at stabbing by default. If you want your wizard to be good at stabbing, pick the easily available options that do that - Whether that's Weapon Proficency, Fighter Multiclass, etc.

Except I don't want to be good at stabbing, I just want my Wizard to be as average with a weapon of my choice as they are with a stick or pointy thing.

That is, I want to be good at stabbing things with my choice of object as I am at stabbing things with a stabby object chosen by Gary Gygax.

I am already paying a price of a feat. Yet that is not good enough. And for RP reasons (if nothing else) I don't want Fighter dedication.

Or they should remove Weapon Proficiency feats from the game and say "you have Fighter dedication for that".

What "RP reasons" prevent you taking the Fighter Dedication? It doesn't require any deity, alignment, anathema, etc.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Diego Hopkins wrote:

I think the fact that you have to convince players who enjoy casting to make the switch is telling. I'm having a hard time being excited about it, and I want this edition to succeed. I want Paizo to be around in ten years.

For martial players, this system is awesome. I've enjoyed building barbarians and fighters. They feel powerful, and the 3 action system is quite enjoyable for them.

Casters don't get to interact with the 3 action system if they are casting, which is kinda their thing. (There are 3 spells that take advantage of it.)

So now the argument to recruit people who want to play casters is: your friends get to do cool things, but your overall power is nerfed, most of your utility builds are invalid because spell duration /power are nerfed, and you can't use the shiny new action economy if you do your thing. It's not as bad as it looks, though. If you take a few minutes and do some math you'll see.

That's horrible PR.

And then there's the fact that I enjoy playing a God-Wizard. I like the story of starting as a lowly apprentice and ending up the immortal master of my own demi-plane. The initial feeling I get from this edition is that apparently I was having fun wrong.

When you say there are only 3 spells, are you referring to spells like Heal and Magic Missile that have variable action costs? Those are cool, but I would consider picking between the 1,2, and 3 action spells at your disposal to be "playing with the 3 action system" just as much.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Dracorage wrote:
If you look at some lower level spells like web, stinking cloud, summon monster one could come to the point that wizard got nerfed. But is that true? Or is it like they got capped at their top-most abilities (read: spells) but got more options at the "bottom" like battle-useful cantrips, including shield?

I've given Wizard, Sorcerer & Druid a look through and gave one of the new adventure paths a read through. I wouldn't say Wizards were nerfed so much as magic in general was balanced to allow melee classes to still feel heroic at higher levels.

Wizards are sitting pretty well and, in my opinion, the new spell system, offers a durability they didn't have before. Spell heightening and being able to add additional components to adjust the potency of spells makes things more interactive. Example: you can full out magic missile or you can deal less damage and move for strategy/survival.

wizards sit relatively in the same place, it's just that balancing has evened the scales.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
sherlock1701 wrote:


I always found pre-buffing to be realistic...

Name me one fantasy novel where they do this. Heck I’ve read my share of forgotten realms books (as well as the original Dragonlance) and even there they didn’t. I’m sure Raistlin would be really badass if he buffed Caramon with multiple spells before every battle. Prebuffing is a joke and I’m glad it’s been curtailed.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
lordcirth wrote:
What "RP reasons" prevent you taking the Fighter Dedication? It doesn't require any deity, alignment, anathema, etc.

Because I'm not building a fighter-wizard, I'm building a wizard that wants to carry around a scythe and not a staff. Not better use it any better than they use a staff, just the same.

Frankly, the weapon proficiency feat system is a mess. They need 2 General feats just to get Trained in a martial weapon, and then they're stuck and cannot get to Expert, even though they get Expert with weapons they never use.

Alternatively, they can choose to sacrifice the 2 precious Class Feats to a Fighter dedication, even though they are not pretending to be a Fighter, just to get the same proficiency they have with, again, weapons they never use. Not to mention they'd probably have to sacrifice 3 feats to these silly rules, since they would probably want another dedication for actual RP reasons.

It's a wonderful system for customising your character.

Hell, I have a cool mini with a spear and would like my Wizard to use that spear, but I guess it's not happening.

ADDON: As discussed in another thread, there is a double standard on proficiencies. Martial classes can get Master proficiency in spell attacks/DCs, and that via feats which give spells themselves; however, even Fighter Dedication can only get you Expert proficiency in weapons.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
Some spells last longer from the start but never scale after leveling past the point you outscale the congruent PF1E level (i.e. Mage Armor lasts 8 hours, but after level 8 you don't get the benefit you'd have in PF1E of it lasting even longer).

Have you even read the finished product?

Mage armor
Duration until the next time you make your daily preparations

Where are you getting 8 hours from?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I mean have you tried using a scythe? They are difficult to use as a TOOL let alone a weapon.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

This is going to be an incredibly hot take for some of the PF1 diehards here but...

I have a lot more fun with my PF2 wizard than my PF1 wizard. With cantrips, focus and auto-scaling DCs my longevity feels better. At low levels I'm spending less time firing a crossbow because cantrips are more relevant... but at the same time weapon training means that if I do pick up a weapon it's a lot more relevant, especially early and mid game.

We're objectively less powerful than PF1, but I'm not sure that's a bad thing even as someone who likes optimization: I win buttons are never very interesting anyways and in PF2 there's a lot more freedom to explore my character's capabilities because I don't have to constantly worry about pushing the envelop too far and breaking open a campaign.

It's not all perfect, there are a number of spells that feel needlessly weak, I think cantrips could be a little bit stronger, there are quite a few spells that feel needlessly weak, the weapon proficiency rules are needlessly restrictive and arbitrary (not a big deal for a wizard but still dumb) and I don't think their new scaling system does blasting many flavors, but it's still good and even though those are criticisms of PF2, a lot of them are still improvements over PF1.

Arakasius wrote:
Name me one fantasy novel where they do this

I saw a scene from an anime once where the main character spends a full minute casting spells on himself if that counts, but I think that was kind of D&D inspired anyways.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
NemoNoName wrote:
lordcirth wrote:
What "RP reasons" prevent you taking the Fighter Dedication? It doesn't require any deity, alignment, anathema, etc.

Because I'm not building a fighter-wizard, I'm building a wizard that wants to carry around a scythe and not a staff. Not better use it any better than they use a staff, just the same.

Frankly, the weapon proficiency feat system is a mess. They need 2 General feats just to get Trained in a martial weapon, and then they're stuck and cannot get to Expert, even though they get Expert with weapons they never use.

Funny, that sounds quite like a fighter-wizard you're describing, what with wanting to use several martial weapons quite capably.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
I mean have you tried using a scythe? They are difficult to use as a TOOL let alone a weapon.

To be fair, a war scythe (which should be the weapon in question) is quite different from the tool version.

But even the weapon version requires practice to use.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
GentleGiant wrote:
Funny, that sounds quite like a fighter-wizard you're describing, what with wanting to use several martial weapons quite capably.

He only mentioned one weapon, though?

He kind of has a point, weapon proficiency rules are strange. It's easier to grab expert in an advanced weapon than it is expert in a martial or simple weapon that's not part of the wizard's default proficiencies.

Off topic, but it's even goofier for rogues, who can never bump martial weapons up to their highest level of proficiency but can grab ancestral advanced weapons pretty easily.


Squiggit wrote:
GentleGiant wrote:
Funny, that sounds quite like a fighter-wizard you're describing, what with wanting to use several martial weapons quite capably.
He only mentioned one weapon, though?

Well, he keeps switching weapons, so I used plural.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Wizards are nerfed. Fighter > Wizard. Better chance at inflicting more damage, harder to kill, and the wizard doesn't make up for it with a bunch of variety. Fighter with one weapon > Wizard with 5 cantrips, focus spell and, let's say, 10 1st level spells. At 5th level, if the wizard had a spell called "make me as good as an optimized 5th level fighter," that cost him every spell slot for 24 hours, he'd be wise to prepare it every morning (excluding down time). If you want to kill off a balanced party of adventurers (Wizard, Fighter, Rogue, Cleric), put them up against a party of Fighter, Fighter, Rogue, Cleric. These metrics are how you measure whether wizards have been nerfed.

I ran a few encounters between a combination of wizards and fighters. Generally, if you replace a wizard with a fighter, odds of success go up. I wouldn't have a problem with fighter > wizard if fighter + wizard > fighter + fighter, but that is not the case. Maybe it changes some time after 5th level, but it doesn't seem obvious to me that it will. Fireball can be useful, of course, but you are almost always better just swinging your magic greatsword as a fighter (and there are better fighter builds to boot).

Anyone who tries to argue wizards are just as good as fighters hasn't done the comparison.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

totoro, I have some questions about your data.

Did you compare a Wizard to a rapier-wielding fighter? What about an archer fighter? Two-weapon fighter? Sword and board fighter? Axe fighter? There are more fighter options than swinging a magic greatsword.

How did the actual DPS compare? Was it just one or two points, did combat last longer with the Wizard vs Fighter, or was the disparity much greater?

What monsters did you use in your test? Did you just do straight PC to PC classes? If so, how does a hypothetical balanced party stack up against a party of goblins at level 1? What about ogres at level 3?

Did you optimize the Wizard as well as you did the Fighter?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
totoro wrote:
Anyone who tries to argue wizards are just as good as fighters hasn't done the comparison.

It looks like Casters are the low-level mook-killers now. Rules like Incapacitation and Sustain, Save-every-round, etc. are all working to make spells limited to lower level foes or easily disrupted. The higher dmg on some spells I believe just paces higher PF2 monster HP.

I suppose that would be fine but the nature of PF is that *every* class murders low-level mooks (beat AC by 10 crits, multi-attack MAP vs. low AC, etc.) So it's not really a fun niche to be relegated to IMO.

It looks like HL fighters can average like 60+ dmg/hit, based on other threads, which is like Disintegrate *if* opponent fails save, for 2 actions and a 7th lvl slot.

Anyway, bears testing out, it may be the arcane casters are best in a utility role, buffing the martials in combat and staying out of the way.


Phntm888 wrote:

totoro, I have some questions about your data.

Did you compare a Wizard to a rapier-wielding fighter? What about an archer fighter? Two-weapon fighter? Sword and board fighter? Axe fighter? There are more fighter options than swinging a magic greatsword.

How did the actual DPS compare? Was it just one or two points, did combat last longer with the Wizard vs Fighter, or was the disparity much greater?

What monsters did you use in your test? Did you just do straight PC to PC classes? If so, how does a hypothetical balanced party stack up against a party of goblins at level 1? What about ogres at level 3?

Did you optimize the Wizard as well as you did the Fighter?

Admittedly, I did some hand-waving, but I stand by my observation despite the limited sample size.

I came up with an interesting 1st Level spell that could serve to balance the scales a bit:

Attack Like a Fighter: The wizard loses the ability to use any abilities granted for being a wizard until their next preparation, but until then can act like they have two mundane martial weapons of their choice (and an off-hand weapon with twin strike or shield with shield block if they have a free hand), a mundane suit of armor of their choice, relevant Armor training, Expert weapon training, and an 18 STR, but INT drops to 8. Better than every cantrip? check. Better than color spray? check. Better than shocking grasp? check. Better than burning hands? check. Better than magic armor? check. Better than magic missile? [pauses, checks numbers] check. You can heighten the spell to match whatever a fighter might be like at a given level. If you are going to be more effective casting this spell every morning, there is something wrong.

You're best off multi-classing as a wizard to pick up the utility spells that let you breathe underwater (or charm if you really thing it is all that good).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GentleGiant wrote:


Funny, that sounds quite like a fighter-wizard you're describing, what with wanting to use several martial weapons quite capably.

I switched the weapon as an attempt to make it generic and not get comments about how hard it is to use a scythe, because it is not about a weapon, it is about choice.

Sadly, while my prophetical powers were good, my indirection failed.

I don't want multiple weapons. I would like a feat that says: pick a simple or martial common weapon you are not proficient with. Replace one weapon available on your class list with this weapon. For all purposes, it counts as being on your list of proficiencies, and the other weapon does not.

101 to 150 of 1,952 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Did wizards get nerfed? All Messageboards