Did wizards get nerfed?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

151 to 200 of 1,952 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.
lordcirth wrote:
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.

I am referring to magic missile, heal, and harm. I like the way these spells interact with the new action system, and I wish the default for spells was to behave in this way.

Magic missile is the only of those spells on the arcane list, so I can pick one spell. That's not really playing with the 3 action system.

I'm also not a fan of cantrips requiring two actions. I don't think it's game breaking to allow two cantrips in a round. This is especially in view of crossbow rangers being able to attack twice in a round doing 2d8 (hunter's edge precision)+ 1d10 +2(crossbow ace) (Again, I am loving building martials in this system. They are powerful.)

One of the things that I do really like is that they system is very modular. I can house rule single action cantrips, and it doesn't really break anything else. I can make the modification I want to wild shaping fairly easily (-1 spell slot to wildshape into a CR 1 wolf.) A significant amount of attention and consideration was given to the modular design, and it shows.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I remember magic jar being used once by player in oneshot. He soloed whole dungeon with it and declared to never use it again :p


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Lanathar wrote:
Well there was an "I feel" there. So clearly an opinion.

Yes, it is an opinion. It is an opinion which based on attributing motivations to others. Naming it "opinion" does nothing to resolve the issues with attributing motivations.

Quote:

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

I don't think it is fair to try to lump everything into one issue here.

Paizo has agreed that there was an implicit "preaching to the choir" (my words) aspect to the playtest. The input was strongly self-selection biased toward people who liked most or all of what they initially saw.

I responded to the very early survey, but I stopped almost right away. I was heavily engaged in the message boards and following on facebook. I was told point blank that issues that were significant to me were off the table for change. So there was no point in me continuing to participate.

I don't have any problem with changing the power of martials vs. casters. But I think the "balance above all else" approach was not a good one.

So just because I don't like *this* solution doesn't mean I'm opposed to solutions. And just because some people did not think this was a problem needing to be changed does not mean that you can lump everyone who felt left out of having a voice in the playtest in one group.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I do kinda find it weird when argument is essentially "Well, yeah, casters should be stronger, they have magic" and "a game doesn't need to be balanced". Like, sure that makes sense, but it also makes sense to do what D&D's first two editions did and give wizards higher exp tracker so that it takes them much longer to reach max level to compensate them being op :p And that wasn't much fun either same way wizards being over powered isn't that fun to lot of people.

(I don't actually have strong opinion on wizard power level either way, I agree that they can be used very easily purposely to break the game which I consider a bad thing game balance wise, but I don't have strong opinion on whether game has to be "good and balanced" to be fun)


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't think a game has to be balanced to be fun, but I believe a good game is both balanced and fun. Balance is one of the jobs of the game designers.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

It seems weird to use a statement like "fighters have more HP and AC and higher damage per swing!" as a balance argument, because all of those things were true in 1e too and did jack all to make fighters good.

BryonD wrote:
But I think the "balance above all else" approach was not a good one.

Good thing that's not a real thing then, right?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BryonD wrote:
Lanathar wrote:
Well there was an "I feel" there. So clearly an opinion.

Yes, it is an opinion. It is an opinion which based on attributing motivations to others. Naming it "opinion" does nothing to resolve the issues with attributing motivations.

Quote:

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

I don't think it is fair to try to lump everything into one issue here.

Paizo has agreed that there was an implicit "preaching to the choir" (my words) aspect to the playtest. The input was strongly self-selection biased toward people who liked most or all of what they initially saw.

I responded to the very early survey, but I stopped almost right away. I was heavily engaged in the message boards and following on facebook. I was told point blank that issues that were significant to me were off the table for change. So there was no point in me continuing to participate.

I don't have any problem with changing the power of martials vs. casters. But I think the "balance above all else" approach was not a good one.

So just because I don't like *this* solution doesn't mean I'm opposed to solutions. And just because some people did not think this was a problem needing to be changed does not mean that you can lump everyone who felt left out of having a voice in the playtest in one group.

I think you have misread my post. I wasn’t (intending on) lumping things together - I was asking people what their experiences were and trying to establish if they were all in one group or not. Trying to understand whether these points ever made it to the designers. And whether the people complaining most loudly ever intended to switch.

In your case, out of interest, what parts where you told were categorically not going to change? What points were so fundamental that you participated eagerly in the playtest at the start but then left before they could make any real changes ?

And since those things didn’t change does that mean you do not intend to play 2E?

*

And as an aside (albeit related) I am taking the lack of responses To mean that no one who is complaining has in fact actually played a pathfinder 2E game as a wizard so this is all complete theory

Sure shorter durations are undeniable but elemental spells but there are loads more variables . It may look like it is harder for things to fail against saves but most spells seem like they always do at least something. And the saving throw situation entirely depends on how encounters end up balanced. But I will admit I am just theorising

There is just a lot of annoyance based on no actual evidence

(And I am not counting the post from a while back where someone seemed to run pitched combats of parties against themselves - that is not Pathfinder and never has been)


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Like the fundamental issue that needed to be addressed was the ability of spells to completely make skills obsolete with alarming frequency. It had nothing to do with damage; indeed blaster wizards are almost certainly better off in PF2 than in PF1.

What needed addressing was the ability of a wizard, with planning, time to prepare, and access to a bunch of scrolls, to completely circumvent whole plots which would have been meaty were someone not present who had a silver bullet spell. Since that's the sort of thing that makes the GM's job fundamentally harder depending on party composition.

Like the reason balance is a good goal here, is that it means the GM's job is not harder or easier depending on what characters people have decided to play, and that a player with a heavily optimized top tier class and a player who just took thematic options can both feel useful.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Quite honestly, if I were playing a caster of *any* stripe, I'd find it very hard to see a good reason to change. But I suppose some people would like getting all their good stuff nerfed.
As someone who likes casters,yup I'm happy. My friends get to join in the fun, check. I can cast relevant spells all day, check. I don't have to spend most of my character options pumping dc,check! Oh no I don't single handidly shut down encounters? Think I can live with that.

I agree! I primarily play casters and in 1E I often give my character an RP reason to pull their punches or hold back and there are spells I skip entirely because I'm not the only one playing and I want my group to all feel heroic and have fun.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Like the fundamental issue that needed to be addressed was the ability of spells to completely make skills obsolete with alarming frequency. It had nothing to do with damage; indeed blaster wizards are almost certainly better off in PF2 than in PF1.

What needed addressing was the ability of a wizard, with planning, time to prepare, and access to a bunch of scrolls, to completely circumvent whole plots which would have been meaty were someone not present who had a silver bullet spell. Since that's the sort of thing that makes the GM's job fundamentally harder depending on party composition.

Like the reason balance is a good goal here, is that it means the GM's job is not harder or easier depending on what characters people have decided to play, and that a player with a heavily optimized top tier class and a player who just took thematic options can both feel useful.

I know you mentioned spells that circumvent skills but would you consider something like "Empowered Touch of Idiocy" using a rod and spectral hand on an enemy spellcaster to fit your definition?

As had that his in my last PF1 game it would have basically ended the combat in one round with no save. And we are close to auto hit on touch attacks in many cases even for an arcane caster

And it is putting me off putting loads of prep into the Witch they are fighting tomorrow because it could just end in one round, no save. That kind of nonsense needed stamping down on in my view.

But clearly others disagree. It is creative and well done to the player but it is not actually fun (well not for me as the GM and probably not the other players as well). There is already a similar situation with Slumber hex where it is kind of an unsaid agreement as it won't be round one of a combat as things could quickly get boring

Sorry. That was a rant and has made me perhaps realise why I disagree so strongly with the people who are unhappy with the casting nerfing...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
swoosh wrote:

It seems weird to use a statement like "fighters have more HP and AC and higher damage per swing!" as a balance argument, because all of those things were true in 1e too and did jack all to make fighters good.

I don't think anyone said that. It is important to note that fighters do more damage than blaster wizards per swing, per encounter, and per day. Just a quick comparison of 1st level spells to what a fighter can do shows unequivocally that except for some very niche cases you are much better off being a fighter at 1st level. I have yet to see anyone come up with a realistic scenario where a wizard is superior to a fighter at 1st level and we've been playing around with this for a little while now. (There was a niche case of a glass cannon with a really high AC that could be taken down with magic missile, but that was so niche as to be silly.) So it really doesn't matter to me if PF2 wizards are better than PF1 wizards 1st level; they still suck. However, it does matter that fighters have more HP and AC and higher damage per swing (and per encounter and per day).

Having noted fighters are superior in practically every scenario at 1st level, I started to compare them at 5th level. Wizards do not seem to ever get better, even with fireball. I've really only modeled it up to 5th level so far.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
totoro wrote:
swoosh wrote:

It seems weird to use a statement like "fighters have more HP and AC and higher damage per swing!" as a balance argument, because all of those things were true in 1e too and did jack all to make fighters good.

I don't think anyone said that. It is important to note that fighters do more damage than blaster wizards per swing, per encounter, and per day. Just a quick comparison of 1st level spells to what a fighter can do shows unequivocally that except for some very niche cases you are much better off being a fighter at 1st level. I have yet to see anyone come up with a realistic scenario where a wizard is superior to a fighter at 1st level and we've been playing around with this for a little while now. (There was a niche case of a glass cannon with a really high AC that could be taken down with magic missile, but that was so niche as to be silly.) So it really doesn't matter to me if PF2 wizards are better than PF1 wizards 1st level; they still suck. However, it does matter that fighters have more HP and AC and higher damage per swing (and per encounter and per day).

Having noted fighters are superior in practically every scenario at 1st level, I started to compare them at 5th level. Wizards do not seem to ever get better, even with fireball. I've really only modeled it up to 5th level so far.

How much damage do bows do now? Can they still add strength?

Because surely a wizard is better from range?

Or does that go away once fighters pick twin shot?

What about in circumstances where there is element vulnerability so the wizard does extra? I guess those are the niche ones you mentioned?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Glass Cannon Podcast in the Paizocon with Jason Bulmahn, the Sorcerer literaly one hitted the hydra with a single a 4th fireball causing 98 damage.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Lanathar wrote:

How much damage do bows do now? Can they still add strength?

Because surely a wizard is better from range?

Or does that go away once fighters pick twin shot?

What about in circumstances where there is element vulnerability so the wizard does extra? I guess those are the niche ones you mentioned?

Composite bows get half strength, but the new rules make thrown weapons more viable. (Bows also have a volley trait that makes them hit less at close range.)

A wizard is not better at a range if the fighter has the option of a bow for long range and a javelin at short range. This is true at 1st level without any special feats, but gets decidedly worse for the wizard if the fighter chooses any decent ranged feats. Point blank shot removes the volley penalty for bows, but, even better, lets you do +2 damage with other weapons. An 18 STR fighter with a javelin and point blank shot will do more damage than a wizard with a cantrip and matches first level spells, though magic missile has the advantage of no to hit roll and would average the same damage and the fighter has the advantage of a quiver of javelins.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kyrone wrote:
Glass Cannon Podcast in the Paizocon with Jason Bulmahn, the Sorcerer literaly one hitted the hydra with a single a 4th fireball causing 98 damage.

That's an instance, not a scenario. Fighter does better on average without expending any resources.

Glass Cannon Podcast in Silent Tide: Sorcerer does 2 damage with burning hands.


totoro wrote:
swoosh wrote:

It seems weird to use a statement like "fighters have more HP and AC and higher damage per swing!" as a balance argument, because all of those things were true in 1e too and did jack all to make fighters good.

I don't think anyone said that. It is important to note that fighters do more damage than blaster wizards per swing, per encounter, and per day. Just a quick comparison of 1st level spells to what a fighter can do shows unequivocally that except for some very niche cases you are much better off being a fighter at 1st level. I have yet to see anyone come up with a realistic scenario where a wizard is superior to a fighter at 1st level and we've been playing around with this for a little while now. (There was a niche case of a glass cannon with a really high AC that could be taken down with magic missile, but that was so niche as to be silly.) So it really doesn't matter to me if PF2 wizards are better than PF1 wizards 1st level; they still suck. However, it does matter that fighters have more HP and AC and higher damage per swing (and per encounter and per day).

Having noted fighters are superior in practically every scenario at 1st level, I started to compare them at 5th level. Wizards do not seem to ever get better, even with fireball. I've really only modeled it up to 5th level so far.

1st level spells:

Charm
Color Spray
Command
Fear
Sleep
If you only compare on damage output, then you're making an unfair comparison. A wizard can do much more than just pure damage. All of the above spells can incapacitate the fighter to one degree or another.
Also, one on one combat between two PC-type characters is pretty damn rare, so you're basing your assessment on theory crafting, not on actual game play.


Hang about, if we are talking about damage only then Fighters always did more in the early levels than WIzards

A PF1 Fighter with 18 strength and a greatsword did 2d6+6 without power attack compared to a 1d4+1 magic missile of 1d4 burning hands

So they have moved that much closer

But your points seem to include (if I am correct):

- Spells like sleep and color spray are now less powerful so don't balance out the lower levels

- Higher level spells aren't powerful enough to overtake?

And someone else earlier was suggesting:

- Battlefield controls are powered down/gone and buffs are shorter

Which is what leaves us in the damage vs. damage discussion? Am I on the right lines?

Because I think I might have lost the initial premise and parameters here as it was pages back


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lanathar wrote:
Well there was an "I feel" there. So clearly an opinion.

Pretty clearly, still attributing opinions to other people based on how you feel about them.

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

There was sufficient feedback, however since, as some people have rightfully pointed out, it was apparently more on the forums than in the surveys, so it wasn't heeded. Also, in my personal opinion, the devs already went into the development process with a certain mindset and very probably weren't going to change anything bigger than tweaking some minor numbers on the spell nerfs. Which is exactly what happened in the end.

Lanathar wrote:
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?

There clearly were a significant number of people on the forum who thought that way, but, if we take the word that the surveys told another story, not enough. Also, what I said about my opinion on the devs design intentions.

Lanathar wrote:
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

No, we only played the first part and then things began to fall apart as we got a better understanding of the math. Also, I got demotivated a lot to push for more playtesting by the general abrasive mood on the forums during the playtest. In the end I made the call to stay with PF1E after consulting with my players.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
In the end I made the call to stay with PF1E after consulting with my players.

One could wonder why you're posting in the Second Edition part of the forum if you've already decided not to play it?

Seems like you're more interested in stirring up trouble (by posting hyperbolic claims about the new edition) and accusing the developers of being disingenuous than providing constructive feedback (positive or negative).
It seems quite clear that you're not interested in Second Edition (as you've also just admitted), so I think it's best to just ignore your grumblings.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
Lanathar wrote:
Well there was an "I feel" there. So clearly an opinion.

Pretty clearly, still attributing opinions to other people based on how you feel about them.

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

There was sufficient feedback, however since, as some people have rightfully pointed out, it was apparently more on the forums than in the surveys, so it wasn't heeded. Also, in my personal opinion, the devs already went into the development process with a certain mindset and very probably weren't going to change anything bigger than tweaking some minor numbers on the spell nerfs. Which is exactly what happened in the end.

Lanathar wrote:
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?

There clearly were a significant number of people on the forum who thought that way, but, if we take the word that the surveys told another story, not enough. Also, what I said about my opinion on the devs design intentions.

Lanathar wrote:
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
No, we only played the first part and then things began to fall apart as we got a better understanding of the math. Also, I got demotivated a lot to push for more playtesting by the general abrasive mood on the forums during the playtest. In the end I made the call to stay with PF1E after consulting with my players.

How are you not attributing feeling and opinions onto the designers? You literally just complained about someone doing that to you and my attempt to back them up. What am I missing ?

(Someone is going to have to explain to me why forming an opinion even if it involves assumptions about others is wrong when no one claimed anything is fact. Perhaps I am not processing it as it is late where I am and it has been a long week and I have forgotten how that original part started )

Also it is a massive assumption to assume about forum feedback.. The designers definitely read the forums. That is what they are on record as saying. You are free not to believe them and it sounds like you don’t . But they always knew some people would never want to move

As politely as possible can I ask you intentions in the 2E board if you never intend on playing it to even try and see if you are right or wrong? I am obviously not saying you can’t post here as I have no right to do that but I am just wondering why ?

I should note I am speaking as someone who likes the sound of the changes but hasn’t played. But I was optimistic about 4th edition and hated it after one session. So shows what I know and perhaps my opinion will change after I play this . But I do intend to actually play


3 people marked this as a favorite.
GentleGiant wrote:
totoro wrote:
swoosh wrote:

It seems weird to use a statement like "fighters have more HP and AC and higher damage per swing!" as a balance argument, because all of those things were true in 1e too and did jack all to make fighters good.

I don't think anyone said that. It is important to note that fighters do more damage than blaster wizards per swing, per encounter, and per day. Just a quick comparison of 1st level spells to what a fighter can do shows unequivocally that except for some very niche cases you are much better off being a fighter at 1st level. I have yet to see anyone come up with a realistic scenario where a wizard is superior to a fighter at 1st level and we've been playing around with this for a little while now. (There was a niche case of a glass cannon with a really high AC that could be taken down with magic missile, but that was so niche as to be silly.) So it really doesn't matter to me if PF2 wizards are better than PF1 wizards 1st level; they still suck. However, it does matter that fighters have more HP and AC and higher damage per swing (and per encounter and per day).

Having noted fighters are superior in practically every scenario at 1st level, I started to compare them at 5th level. Wizards do not seem to ever get better, even with fireball. I've really only modeled it up to 5th level so far.

1st level spells:

Charm
Color Spray
Command
Fear
Sleep
If you only compare on damage output, then you're making an unfair comparison. A wizard can do much more than just pure damage. All of the above spells can incapacitate the fighter to one degree or another.
Also, one on one combat between two PC-type characters is pretty damn rare, so you're basing your assessment on theory crafting, not on actual game play.

I am basing my assessment on combat playtesting for the purpose of determining whether a fighter + wizard is better than a fighter + fighter and the results are it is better to just play a bunch of fighters.

Charm practically never works except against mooks. It is an out-of-combat spell. Color spray is even worse. It never does anything other than dazzle against a decent opponent, and dazzle is far worse than what I fighter could dish out, plus it isn't even useful outside of combat. Command takes a first level spell and two actions for the chance of taking away an action (and maybe wasting an action to pick up a weapon again), but doesn't work half the time. Fear gives a relatively minor debuff for 1 round or maybe 2. Sleep doesn't work against a decent threat. These are not the spells you're looking for.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
totoro wrote:

It is important to note that fighters do more damage than blaster wizards per swing, per encounter, and per day. Just a quick comparison of 1st level spells to what a fighter can do shows unequivocally that except for some very niche cases you are much better off being a fighter at 1st level. I have yet to see anyone come up with a realistic scenario where a wizard is superior to a fighter at 1st level and we've been playing around with this for a little while now. (There was a niche case of a glass cannon with a really high AC that could be taken down with magic missile, but that was so niche as to be silly.) So it really doesn't matter to me if PF2 wizards are better than PF1 wizards 1st level; they still suck. However, it does matter that fighters have more HP and AC and higher damage per swing (and per encounter and per day).

Having noted fighters are superior in practically every scenario at 1st level, I started to compare them at 5th level. Wizards do not seem to ever get better, even with fireball. I've really only modeled it up to 5th level so far.

I'm going to do some math of my own here. A party of 4 Level 5 PCs means your median Severe encounter is 4 level 4 monsters. The Hobgoblin Archer seems like a generic sort of enemy for level 4:

HP 50, AC 23, Fort +10, Ref +12, Will +8

Level 5 Evocation Wizard with 18 Int:
Feat 4: Linked Focus
Spell DC 10 + 4 Int + trained 7 = DC 21

He casts Fireball as 2 actions for 6d6 fire damage, with all 4 enemies in the area. Average of 6d6 is 21, with a basic reflex save. The Hobgoblin will succeed on a natural 9.

Therefore:
nat 1: 1 * 42
2-8: 7 * 21
9-18: 10 * 10.5
19-20: 2 * 0

((1 * 42) + (7*21) + (10*10.5)) / 20 * 4
= 58.8 average damage per fireball.

Then the wizard, with his remaining action, picks a target and fires a 3rd level Force Bolt for an autohit 2d4+2 ~= 7 damage.

Damage on turn 1: 65.8 damage. 32.9% of the total enemy HP.

Turn 2: Drain Arcane Focus, casting Fireball again on any enemies that are still alive and he can hit without (literal, heh) friendly-fire. Maybe this is all 4, probably less. Hard to quantify. Then, using the focus point he just regained from Linked Focus, he fires another autohit ~7 damage Force Bolt.

Fighter has Weapon Mastery with Bows, and 18 dex, 14 strength.
+1 Striking Composite Shortbow (deadly d10, propulsive)
half str mod from propulsive for +1 damage, and +1 from potency.
Point Blank Shot (Stance) grants +2 circ to damage on opponents within 60ft

Normal damage is therefore 2d6+2 ~= 9
Point Blank Shot is 2d6+4 ~= 11

and crits deal (2d6+2)*2 + 1d10 ~= 23.5
Point Blank Shot crits are (2d6+4)*2 ~= 27.50

to-hit = master 11 + 4 dex + 1 potency = +16 to hit.

Turn 1, with Double Shot, being generous and saying he's already got the bow drawn:
Action 1: Point Blank Shot (Stance)
Actions 2,3: Double Shot, both at -2 = +14 to hit.
So, he hits on a natural 9, crits on nat 19-20.

1-8: 8 * 0
9-18: 10 * 11
19-20: 2 * 27.5 # Seriously nice crits!

((10*11) + (2*27.5)) / 20 * 2
= 16.5 damage on turn 1.

On turn 2, he doesn't need to enter the stance, so as a 3rd action he could make a normal strike at -10 MAP, but he'd need a natural 17 to hit, so he's probably got better things to do:

1-16: 15 * 0
17-19: 3 * 11
20: 1 * 27.5

((3*11) + (1*27.5)) / 20 * 2
= 6.05 extra damage.

16.5 + 6.05 = 22.55 damage / round once he draws his bow and enters his stance.

22.55 damage / round for the fighter, at best, vs 65.8 damage for the wizard.
...

If I have made a mistake somewhere, please point it out.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Your mistake was not realizing that wizard players got so used to optimizing the s%#+ out of Fireball so that a 20 ft radius spread competes in damage on singular targets that they'd throw a tantrum when it returns to "AOE spell" status.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Your mistake was not realizing that wizard players got so used to optimizing the s~++ out of Fireball so that a 20 ft radius spread competes in damage on singular targets that they'd throw a tantrum when it returns to "AOE spell" status.

Indeed, a lot of the grumblings seem to stem from not being able to do the same with the Second Edition core book as you could with PF1 core book + XYZ books (and the sometimes silly feats and combinations between them).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
lordcirth wrote:
totoro wrote:

It is important to note that fighters do more damage than blaster wizards per swing, per encounter, and per day. Just a quick comparison of 1st level spells to what a fighter can do shows unequivocally that except for some very niche cases you are much better off being a fighter at 1st level. I have yet to see anyone come up with a realistic scenario where a wizard is superior to a fighter at 1st level and we've been playing around with this for a little while now. (There was a niche case of a glass cannon with a really high AC that could be taken down with magic missile, but that was so niche as to be silly.) So it really doesn't matter to me if PF2 wizards are better than PF1 wizards 1st level; they still suck. However, it does matter that fighters have more HP and AC and higher damage per swing (and per encounter and per day).

Having noted fighters are superior in practically every scenario at 1st level, I started to compare them at 5th level. Wizards do not seem to ever get better, even with fireball. I've really only modeled it up to 5th level so far.

I'm going to do some math of my own here. A party of 4 Level 5 PCs means your median encounter is 4 level 4 monsters. The Hobgoblin Archer seems like a generic sort of enemy for level 4:

HP 50, AC 23, Fort +10, Ref +12, Will +8

Level 5 Evocation Wizard with 18 Int:
Feat 4: Linked Focus
Spell DC 10 + 4 Int + trained 7 = DC 21

He casts Fireball as 2 actions for 6d6 fire damage, with all 4 enemies in the area. Average of 6d6 is 21, with a basic reflex save. The Hobgoblin will succeed on a natural 9.

Therefore:
nat 1: 1 * 42
2-8: 7 * 21
9-18: 10 * 10.5
19-20: 2 * 0

((1 * 42) + (7*21) + (10*10.5)) / 20 * 4
= 58.8 average damage per fireball.

Then the wizard, with his remaining action, picks a target and fires a 3rd level Force Bolt for an autohit 2d4+2 ~= 7 damage.

Damage on turn 1: 65.8 damage. 32.9% of the total enemy HP.

Turn 2: Drain Arcane Focus, casting Fireball again on any enemies that are...

No. You're right. I did say "any scenario," so touche. I was just playing around with the wizard having the opportunity to drop the fireball on four fighters before engaging with his three fighter allies. Looks pretty good if you get the drop on someone like that. If you don't the wizard is a waste of space. You could have made the wizard look a little better by bunching 20 hobgoblins up together for 5x damage, though. Then use up all the wizard's spell slots to mop up this encounter and call it a day. [tips hat]


2 people marked this as a favorite.
GentleGiant wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Your mistake was not realizing that wizard players got so used to optimizing the s~++ out of Fireball so that a 20 ft radius spread competes in damage on singular targets that they'd throw a tantrum when it returns to "AOE spell" status.
Indeed, a lot of the grumblings seem to stem from not being able to do the same with the Second Edition core book as you could with PF1 core book + XYZ books (and the sometimes silly feats and combinations between them).

That's not my grumble. I am going to use PF2 for my next campaign, so I'm kicking the tires. I don't like the wizard nerf because my players are experienced, so they are going to know when one class is dramatically weaker than another. The roleplayer of our group is going to choose what suits his fancy and I don't want him to be mechanically inferior just because he feels like playing a wizard. I can already guess what the powergamer is going to pick and it ain't wizard; my guess is straight fighter, sword & board. The other classes don't seem as problematic as the wizard, which I find funny because I remember reading in surveys wizards were considered the most boring and second most powerful class. It just isn't true.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
totoro wrote:
GentleGiant wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Your mistake was not realizing that wizard players got so used to optimizing the s~++ out of Fireball so that a 20 ft radius spread competes in damage on singular targets that they'd throw a tantrum when it returns to "AOE spell" status.
Indeed, a lot of the grumblings seem to stem from not being able to do the same with the Second Edition core book as you could with PF1 core book + XYZ books (and the sometimes silly feats and combinations between them).
That's not my grumble.

Never said it was yours specifically. There are others who have voiced their (negative) opinions in this thread.

totoro wrote:
I am going to use PF2 for my next campaign, so I'm kicking the tires. I don't like the wizard nerf because my players are experienced, so they are going to know when one class is dramatically weaker than another. The roleplayer of our group is going to choose what suits his fancy and I don't want him to be mechanically inferior just because he feels like playing a wizard. I can already guess what the powergamer is going to pick and it ain't wizard; my guess is straight fighter, sword & board. The other classes don't seem as problematic as the wizard, which I find funny because I remember reading in surveys wizards were considered the most boring and second most powerful class. It just isn't true.

You keep claiming this ultimate truth... based on some highly unlikely theory crafting that you keep referencing, but haven't actually showed (and it would still be theory crafting, not how the various classes would actually play in an average game).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
GentleGiant wrote:
totoro wrote:
GentleGiant wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Your mistake was not realizing that wizard players got so used to optimizing the s~++ out of Fireball so that a 20 ft radius spread competes in damage on singular targets that they'd throw a tantrum when it returns to "AOE spell" status.
Indeed, a lot of the grumblings seem to stem from not being able to do the same with the Second Edition core book as you could with PF1 core book + XYZ books (and the sometimes silly feats and combinations between them).
That's not my grumble.

Never said it was yours specifically. There are others who have voiced their (negative) opinions in this thread.

totoro wrote:
I am going to use PF2 for my next campaign, so I'm kicking the tires. I don't like the wizard nerf because my players are experienced, so they are going to know when one class is dramatically weaker than another. The roleplayer of our group is going to choose what suits his fancy and I don't want him to be mechanically inferior just because he feels like playing a wizard. I can already guess what the powergamer is going to pick and it ain't wizard; my guess is straight fighter, sword & board. The other classes don't seem as problematic as the wizard, which I find funny because I remember reading in surveys wizards were considered the most boring and second most powerful class. It just isn't true.
You keep claiming this ultimate truth... based on some highly unlikely theory crafting that you keep referencing, but haven't actually showed (and it would still be theory crafting, not how the various classes would actually play in an average game).

Actually, it is trivially easy to do the math at 1st level and it becomes increasingly difficult at higher levels because the goalposts move as you change the encounter. Do you really need me to write down the numbers? Just read the spells and compare the results to what a fighter can do. 10% chance for charm to work, blah, blah, blah. Pull out your map, drop a couple minis on it, and roll some dice if you prefer experimentation over math.


totoro wrote:
Actually, it is trivially easy to do the math at 1st level[…]10% chance for charm to work

Orc Warrior, pretty typical level 1 enemy in a lot of adventures, has a will of +4.

How are you getting a -2 int wizard?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
swoosh wrote:
totoro wrote:
Actually, it is trivially easy to do the math at 1st level[…]10% chance for charm to work

Orc Warrior, pretty typical level 1 enemy in a lot of adventures, has a will of +4.

How are you getting a 2 int wizard?

I don't understand your question. I'm comparing a Fighter with a WIS 12 to a Wizard with INT 18. Fighter fails if he rolls a 1 or 2.

Don't forget about incapacitation.


totoro wrote:
swoosh wrote:
totoro wrote:
Actually, it is trivially easy to do the math at 1st level[…]10% chance for charm to work

Orc Warrior, pretty typical level 1 enemy in a lot of adventures, has a will of +4.

How are you getting a 2 int wizard?

I don't understand your question. I'm comparing a Fighter with a WIS 12 to a Wizard with INT 18. Fighter fails if he rolls a 1 or 2.

Don't forget about incapacitation.

Incapacitation applies to creatures more than twice the spell's level, or third level or above in this case.


FowlJ wrote:
totoro wrote:
swoosh wrote:
totoro wrote:
Actually, it is trivially easy to do the math at 1st level[…]10% chance for charm to work

Orc Warrior, pretty typical level 1 enemy in a lot of adventures, has a will of +4.

How are you getting a 2 int wizard?

I don't understand your question. I'm comparing a Fighter with a WIS 12 to a Wizard with INT 18. Fighter fails if he rolls a 1 or 2.

Don't forget about incapacitation.

Incapacitation applies to creatures more than twice the spell's level, or third level or above in this case.

Cool. That makes it better.

I suppose that might be why people were asking for my math. Sorry.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
totoro wrote:
Actually, it is trivially easy to do the math

This post didn't age well.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
swoosh wrote:
totoro wrote:
Actually, it is trivially easy to do the math
This post didn't age well.

Like a moldy cheese in the sun.

Still, charm is a situational spell at best, and cannot be used in combat.

Sleep can be negated by kicking the sleeper.

The others are still of dubious value and all take a 1st level spell slot.

My error doesn't change the fact wizards are weak, you just get a bit better effect for a few of the spells listed here.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
totoro wrote:


Looks pretty good if you get the drop on someone like that. If you don't the wizard is a waste of space.

I guess if fireball isn't an option, our wizard will have to settle for a single-target solution, like automatically hitting with 6d4+6 worth of magic missiles for an average of 21 Force damage - one point less than the shortbow fighter. A single 3rd level spell slot + drain arcane focus to do it again if need be. It's a pretty good spell for cleanup.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Issues and arguing aside, I think totoro really has a point about PF2 not really doing blasters any favors. This might change down the road, PF1 blasting was best when you had some splatdiving you could do too, but as it stands right now it doesn't feel super great.

Yeah, wizards can do things other than blast, but sometimes you just wanna be the dude who hurls lightning bolts and lasers at people and I'm not sure PF2 does a great job accommodating that yet.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
lordcirth wrote:
totoro wrote:


Looks pretty good if you get the drop on someone like that. If you don't the wizard is a waste of space.
[\QUOTE]

I guess if fireball isn't an option, our wizard will have to settle for a single-target solution, like automatically hitting with 6d4+6 worth of magic missiles for an average of 21 Force damage - one point less than the shortbow fighter. A single 3rd level spell slot + drain arcane focus to do it again if need be. It's a pretty good spell for cleanup.

You're comparing a wizard burning his highest-level slots to a fighter with a shortbow and hero points? I'm more interested in who wins the combat, not whether a wizard can keep up with a fighter for a short period of time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Elemental Tempest focus spell of Evoker easily let you blast stuff, cast the lvl 4 fireball with that focus spell then you deal 8d6 + 4d6.

It's only one action and give you a extra 1d6 per spell level that triggered it and because it's a focus spell you can use it twice every battle.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kyrone wrote:

Elemental Tempest focus spell of Evoker easily let you blast stuff, cast the lvl 4 fireball with that focus spell then you deal 8d6 + 4d6.

It's only one action and give you a extra 1d6 per spell level that triggered it and because it's a focus spell you can use it twice every battle.

Perhaps it was a design goal to force wizards to spend resources (feats) to be able to compete effectively with their best spells. I don't think fireball is as easy to use in play as it is in theory, but every now and then you can drop a good fireball. When it's buffed, the damage starts to look respectable, especially if you can spread it around.


totoro wrote:
swoosh wrote:

I like how whenever anyone brings up something else wizards can do he just categorically denies their relevance, completely arbitrarily. Non damage spells don't count! Because reasons. Utility doesn't count! Because reasons.

I guess it's a pretty good way to make sure you're never wrong, at least.

My god. You guys are funny. Gentle giant brought up a list of spells that he said were difficult to quantify, which I quantified. I will try to use small words:

Charm: Fighter with WIS 12 fails 10% of the time. If the wizard gets violent, the spell ends.

Color Spray: 10% chance of stun 1, blind for a round and dazzle for a minute.

Command: 10% chance to blow a turn doing as you command (e.g., run).

Fear: 10% chance to flee for 1 round and Frightened 3.

Sleep: 10% chance to fall asleep.

Seriously, guys. Stop being so lazy and crack the book. Even when I feel like I'm spoonfeeding the answer you act like it's incomprehensible.

Wizard 18 int

Spell DC: 10 + 4 + 3 = 17

Fighter 12 wis Will save: 3 + 1 = 4
Fails on 12 or less (crit fail on 2 or less)

Charm: Failure The target's attitude becomes friendly toward you. If it was friendly, it becomes helpful. It can't use hostile actions against you = combat over.

Color Spray: Failure The creature is stunned 1, blinded for 1 round, and dazzled for 1 minute = move away and attack from a distance, easily defeating the fighter.
Critical Failure The creature is stunned for 1 round and blinded for 1 minute = move away and attack from a distance, easily defeating the fighter.

Command: Failure For the first action on its next turn, the creature must use a single action to do as you command = Run Away command and move away from fighter, attack from distance for basically 2 rounds.
Critical Failure The target must use all its actions on its next turn to obey your command = Run Away command and move away from fighter, attack from distance for basically 2 rounds.

Fear: Critical Failure The target is frightened 3 and fleeing for 1 round = move away and attack from distance. Granted, this is the only one that's really conditional on a Critical Failure.

Sleep: Failure The creature falls unconscious. If it's still unconscious after 1 minute, it wakes up automatically = Walk away or line up for a Crit to the skull.
Critical Failure The creature falls unconscious. If it's still unconscious after 1 hour, it wakes up automatically = Walk away or line up for a Crit to the skull.

All of these are still kind of silly, as this isn't "Arena Death Fights: Second Edition", but a cooperative roleplaying game.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

I think it's good in a cooperative roleplaying game when it is largely impossible for a lone character to singlehandedly dispatch a major obstacle.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
GentleGiant wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Your mistake was not realizing that wizard players got so used to optimizing the s~++ out of Fireball so that a 20 ft radius spread competes in damage on singular targets that they'd throw a tantrum when it returns to "AOE spell" status.
Indeed, a lot of the grumblings seem to stem from not being able to do the same with the Second Edition core book as you could with PF1 core book + XYZ books (and the sometimes silly feats and combinations between them).

"A lot" of grumblings from former fans is not a good sign.

Telling them they are wrong won't make them go back to being fans.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
BryonD wrote:
GentleGiant wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Your mistake was not realizing that wizard players got so used to optimizing the s~++ out of Fireball so that a 20 ft radius spread competes in damage on singular targets that they'd throw a tantrum when it returns to "AOE spell" status.
Indeed, a lot of the grumblings seem to stem from not being able to do the same with the Second Edition core book as you could with PF1 core book + XYZ books (and the sometimes silly feats and combinations between them).

"A lot" of grumblings from former fans is not a good sign.

Telling them they are wrong won't make them go back to being fans.

Grumbling about a false comparison isn't productive either and just seems like it's grumbling for the sake of grumbling instead of an honest look at the rules.

Also, as the peeps at Paizo say themselves, if you want to continue to play PF1, great!
If you want to give PF2 a try, great!


GentleGiant wrote:
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.

<weapon_nerd_sidetrack> That should be the one talked about, but it's not. The scythe is described as having the blade mounted at a right angle and the protruding handles. Most likely because that's what everyone thinks of and wants when they think scythe, they want The Grim Reaper, not Polish peasant revolts. Although, I have seen one indication of the tool version being used as a weapon. Paulus Hector Mair's book from the 1540s: Opus Amplissimum de Arte Athletica (mouthful of a name, beautiful book that I take every chance to bring up. I want a translation as a coffee table book). It's mostly a compilation of combat techniques taken from earlier texts. But there is a section on peasant weapons that as far as I know is unique to his book. Along with two-handed flails (the Hussites loved these), a big knobby 'peasant staff' and sickles, It does have a few techniques for the tool style scythe. I'm really curious about the context here. Was it from some tradition of peasant dueling, or just a exercise in showing off? Not sure. But on the battlefield, yeah scythes were remounted in-line with a straight pole, but someone, somewhere possibly used unaltered scythes as weapons.</weapon_nerd_sidetrack>

151 to 200 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