| 1 person 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.
This happened to me recently, and the party was like level 8. Getting rid of this stuff does weaken the party, but it improves the fun a lot.
|
At first level I could get 4 spells (2 for existing, 1 for 18 Int, and 1 for school.)Am I missing something obvious here? My copy of the 1e CRB says a wizard's baseline spells per day is 1, which would mean 3 slots at 18 int, not 4.
School specialization add a slot for each spell level. Universalist are the only ones who didn't get the specialization slot bonus.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
If you actually look at Wizard Class feats... They aren't that precious. Half of the levels feel really bare and have nothing for certain builds. You might as well multiclass on them.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have to say the reason I avoided arcane casters in PF1 was in part- once you are out of spell slots, you are a bad crossbowman (or woman, etc.) Between "cantrips scale respectably" and you can rely on your focus powers 1-3 times per fight, I don't mind that spell slots are individually weaker.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to say the reason I avoided arcane casters in PF1 was in part- once you are out of spell slots, you are a bad crossbowman (or woman, etc.) Between "cantrips scale respectably" and you can rely on your focus powers 1-3 times per fight, I don't mind that spell slots are individually weaker.
And this brings us back to my original post.
I think you can say yes to my question part B. On his superb spells of 1e the wizard got nerfed. But he received good substitutes, meaningful cantrips (which are perhaps a misnomer now) and more versatility with focus spells and arcane thesis.
I hope, I can convince my player. :)
I have to say the reason I avoided arcane casters in PF1 was in part- once you are out of spell slots, you are a bad crossbowman (or woman, etc.) Between "cantrips scale respectably" and you can rely on your focus powers 1-3 times per fight, I don't mind that spell slots are individually weaker.
A clarification, wizards can only get a pool of 2 focus without multiclassing, although with 1/day recovery options available both as a class feat and a familiar option you can indeed get that 3rd (or 4th) focus spell in a given fight.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Consider if a wizard was able to cast a 1st level spell at will how much it would impact their power. It would make combat more boring because the wizard would always fire three magic missiles, but most other 1st level spells would have nominal impact. Magic missile at will would let the wizard consistently inflict 10.5 damage per round with all actions. A fighter can match that with one hit with a greatsword for 10.5 damage. (I'm just going to use greatsword as a baseline--you could do less damage but get other benefits with something else.) When you add in crits, the fighter will do better against low AC creatures and the wizard will do better against creatures that are hard to hit. It's a wash, but only if the wizard can cast magic missile at will.
Acid arrow works similarly compared to a fighter with power attack. That is, it is not clear a wizard who can cast acid arrow at will is any better than a power-attacking fighter. Wizard can do 17 damage on a hit (with 3.5 persistent) and can even double the non-persistent damage on a crit for 30.5 (with 3.5 persistent), but crit 10% less than a fighter. A power-attacking fighter does, probably not coincidentally, 17 damage as well (34 on a crit). Persistent damage is a nice benefit, but the fighter hits and crits more, which makes it close to a wash, assuming the wizard can cast acid arrow at will.
At fifth level, fireball is what makes a wizard stand out. Even vampiric touch could be spammed without making it obviously better than a fighter (21 damage and 10 temp hp for 1 minute, but it's basic fortitude and the fighter at this point gets another +2 to hit). At this point, I think the advantage tips slightly in favor of the wizard, but only if the wizard can cast a third level spell at will.
Consistent with every version of D&D and pathfinder, the wizard's 4th level spells don't provide a devastating attack spell, just a bunch of pretty cool utility spells. You could let a wizard cast a 4th level spell at will and it wouldn't make them obviously better than a fighter. Compare, e.g., phantasmal killer damage and effect. Weapon specialization also pushes average damage for a fighter beyond what a wizard can accomplish with any spell (though AoE spells can still have situational advantages).
My thesis: wizards are designed to go nova in order to match the abilities of martial classes and there are only a handful of spells at each level that actually allow them to do so. So a wizard is really a swiss army knife and should push for short work days. It isn't quite as frustrating to me when I think of it like this. My presumption was if you have cast a spell in your highest spell slot, you are better than a fighter for that round and if you cast a spell in a lower spell slot, you are not. It doesn't really work like that.
It's minimally expensive to get that 3rd focus point since
If you have multiple abilities that give you a focus pool, each one adds 1 Focus Point to your pool.
So it's a 2 feat investment into, say sorcerer or cleric for a low level domain or bloodline power.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's minimally expensive to get that 3rd focus point since
If you have multiple abilities that give you a focus pool, each one adds 1 Focus Point to your pool.So it's a 2 feat investment into, say sorcerer or cleric for a low level domain or bloodline power.
Yes, but you can't get a feat to always recover 3 focus on a Refocus activity, so that's two feats to buy 1 focus per day, vs one feat on the Arcane bond ability or familiar to get 1/day recovery.
If you actually look at Wizard Class feats... They aren't that precious. Half of the levels feel really bare and have nothing for certain builds. You might as well multiclass on them.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.
In addition, all martial classes have are combat feats and master+ proficiency with weapons and armor. If either proficiency was easily available through MC, then casters would be massively more powerful than martial characters because attacks with weapons are at will. Whereas having adequate spell DCs alone are not that big a deal, and even a very dedicated multiclass caster doesn't get that many spells per day.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing that is great about this edition, which was not as prominent in PF1 and which is lacking a lot in 5e, is how easy it is to buff classes on the future.
Classes are extremely modular and have a very light "chassis". Which means nobody is stuck with weak abilities as long as better ones exist. You could just publish stronger Wizard feats or stronger Arcane spells to improve them whenever, and Paizo is known for spamming splatbooks. There could later be strong class archetypes (How PF1 fixed things) and such.
I think the current Wizard is decent and fun to play, just different, but time will tell how they perform in play and whenever that happens, there will be many avenues to improve them. Not as much like 5E ranger that got a bunch of unofficial reprints and fan content because it was stuck sucking.
What you can't do is Nerf classes without erratas (Which we almost never see), so there is a strong possibility of power creep as time passes. Whoever is the strongest class right now (Fighter?) is likely to become the baseline to flatten the power curve down the line.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing that is great about this edition, which was not as prominent in PF1 and which is lacking a lot in 5e, is how easy it is to buff classes on the future.
Classes are extremely modular and have a very light "chassis". Which means nobody is stuck with weak abilities as long as better ones exist. You could just publish stronger Wizard feats or stronger Arcane spells to improve them whenever, and Paizo is known for spamming splatbooks. There could later be strong class archetypes (How PF1 fixed things) and such.
I think the current Wizard is decent and fun to play, just different, but time will tell how they perform in play and whenever that happens, there will be many avenues to improve them. Not as much like 5E ranger that got a bunch of unofficial reprints and fan content because it was stuck sucking.What you can't do is Nerf classes without erratas (Which we almost never see), so there is a strong possibility of power creep as time passes. Whoever is the strongest class right now (Fighter?) is likely to become the baseline to flatten the power curve down the line.
I have no side in this argument but I disagree with what you are saying here. Publishing more to fix problems is a terrible thing. Half the people won't even know the options and you are also admitting to their being lots a "trap" options.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Half the people won't even know the options and you are also admitting to their being lots a "trap" options.
I think it's a little absurd to try to interpret them saying that they can tweak things with new feats as the feats that exist right now all being traps. That's not at all the point.
What made 4E D&D wizards great was the condition infliction and controller (moving foes around) aspects.
Imho, Paizo missed an opportunity to make spells do this.
In addition, I think the fantasy roleplaying game has evolved from "memorization" as a ruleset. The most famous wizard of them all (not you, Harry), Gandalf, didn't spend hours poring over some spellbook, and wasn't limited to what he had prepared.
Paizo had the opportunity to fix this too. The 3.5E Spirit Shaman picked from spells available for the day (communing with spirit), and then could cast any of those using any or all of the spell slots. Each morning when you prepare, you select those available that day. Then you could use ANY, and repeat them.
I played an aberration sorcerer in playtest, and was horrified that my very limited resources (often were save negates) weren't on par with a martial who could do essentially the same thing, any number of times.
Wizard was my favorite class in 1st AD&D - 3.5E; I haven't played one in 1E PF, and don't imagine myself playing one in 2E. I did however, play an arcanist, which I think, though broken in some respects, represents what a wizard should be. I wish they had just ported arcanist as the new wizard, into PF 2E, and rebalanced it.
There was no lack of voices here in the forum regarding Arcanist casting. But sadly, a lot of people were purists and advocating for a system that for the majority of players doesn't actually do what it's said the system do.
Most people with prepared casters will just find a selection of spells and stick with the the majority of the time. They're easier to understand, they have broad uses or offer good damage and/or utility (such as invisibility and flying). For a player that's willing to keep searching options, like me, it still creates a huge bottleneck of spells, because either the spell is very good and you're going to prepare it, or the spell is not good enough and you move on to better options, there's also the highly situational and reactive spells, that the system actively punishes since you can only be proactive with your choices (since you rarely know exactly what lies ahead with time to properly prepare, if you have many of these options, your GM is a saint).
Arcanist casting should've been the new wizard. The new sorcerer could've used even more changes to justify its existence, the change in spell list was already very welcome, having more differences in casting (using DnD5e metamagic) would further create differences. Just because Wizards have arcanist casting, doesn't make sorcerers obsolete, significant changes must be also made in the other to compensate the huge change in wizards.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Half the people won't even know the options and you are also admitting to their being lots a "trap" options.I think it's a little absurd to try to interpret them saying that they can tweak things with new feats as the feats that exist right now all being traps. That's not at all the point.
Plus, with the cost of retraining being "the opportunity cost of not being able to do something else with downtime" the risk of "I took a bad feat instead of a good one" is minimal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have no side in this argument but I disagree with what you are saying here. Publishing more to fix problems is a terrible thing. Half the people won't even know the options and you are also admitting to their being lots a "trap" options.One thing that is great about this edition, which was not as prominent in PF1 and which is lacking a lot in 5e, is how easy it is to buff classes on the future.
Classes are extremely modular and have a very light "chassis". Which means nobody is stuck with weak abilities as long as better ones exist. You could just publish stronger Wizard feats or stronger Arcane spells to improve them whenever, and Paizo is known for spamming splatbooks. There could later be strong class archetypes (How PF1 fixed things) and such.
I think the current Wizard is decent and fun to play, just different, but time will tell how they perform in play and whenever that happens, there will be many avenues to improve them. Not as much like 5E ranger that got a bunch of unofficial reprints and fan content because it was stuck sucking.What you can't do is Nerf classes without erratas (Which we almost never see), so there is a strong possibility of power creep as time passes. Whoever is the strongest class right now (Fighter?) is likely to become the baseline to flatten the power curve down the line.
Genie's out of the bottle with PF2. If you don't like the current balance you either gotta: 1- house rule. 2- wait for splat. 3- play a different game. That is, of course, if one is actually interested in playing and enjoying PF2.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
The game was remade for PFS players, not the home game GMs who had a handle on things. It was rebalanced to make it harder to abuse, so a lot will seem nerfed. Fortunately, PF 1 will remain as an advanced version.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tangential to the conversation but I've been snooping the spells and some options that jump out as really bad are the 'hit with a spell attack vs AC and then target gets a save (usually Fort)'. Eg. Ray of Enfeeble or Disintegrate.
Unlike PF1 you are trying to hit full AC here not touch. Then defeat the best save in the game. Then, the effects even if both those gates are crossed don't look impressive enough to justify the <20% (my guesstimate) chance to pull it off.
Like for Enfeeble, you'd be lucky to just hit and get Enfeebled 1 on the target for 1 min., which is worse than Bane which can hit multiple foes and no attack roll required.
It almost seems like they balanced these spells *assuming* a hit (like in PF1), whereas that is far from given vs. full AC. Just some thoughts, I haven't played it out yet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have no side in this argument but I disagree with what you are saying here. Publishing more to fix problems is a terrible thing. Half the people won't even know the options and you are also admitting to their being lots a "trap" options.One thing that is great about this edition, which was not as prominent in PF1 and which is lacking a lot in 5e, is how easy it is to buff classes on the future.
Classes are extremely modular and have a very light "chassis". Which means nobody is stuck with weak abilities as long as better ones exist. You could just publish stronger Wizard feats or stronger Arcane spells to improve them whenever, and Paizo is known for spamming splatbooks. There could later be strong class archetypes (How PF1 fixed things) and such.
I think the current Wizard is decent and fun to play, just different, but time will tell how they perform in play and whenever that happens, there will be many avenues to improve them. Not as much like 5E ranger that got a bunch of unofficial reprints and fan content because it was stuck sucking.What you can't do is Nerf classes without erratas (Which we almost never see), so there is a strong possibility of power creep as time passes. Whoever is the strongest class right now (Fighter?) is likely to become the baseline to flatten the power curve down the line.
A lot of weaknesses are caused by a simple lack of options; for example, Wizards inherently do less damage than Sorcerers when using instantaneous spells because Dangerous Sorcery exists. If/when Wizards eventually get a class feat that synergizes with evocations that'll get balanced out.
Like, you have to realize that there is only so much text you're allowed to have in one book.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like, you have to realize that there is only so much text you're allowed to have in one book.
I mean, if nothing else the calculus of "this is a good place to take an archetype, since none of these feats are must-haves" (a thing I have considered multiple times reading classes) is absolutely going to change.
We are absolutely going to end up in a state where there are more feats we want than can fit on a single character.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I want to see is more spells like Heal/Harm where the number of actions change the spell. That alone would make the actual casters way more fun.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tangential to the conversation but I've been snooping the spells and some options that jump out as really bad are the 'hit with a spell attack vs AC and then target gets a save (usually Fort)'. Eg. Ray of Enfeeble or Disintegrate.
Unlike PF1 you are trying to hit full AC here not touch. Then defeat the best save in the game. Then, the effects even if both those gates are crossed don't look impressive enough to justify the <20% (my guesstimate) chance to pull it off.
Like for Enfeeble, you'd be lucky to just hit and get Enfeebled 1 on the target for 1 min., which is worse than Bane which can hit multiple foes and no attack roll required.
It almost seems like they balanced these spells *assuming* a hit (like in PF1), whereas that is far from given vs. full AC. Just some thoughts, I haven't played it out yet.
Disintegrate is actually really strong, because the assumption is you're casting True Strike first on a hopefully debuffed target (flat-footed for -2 circumstance to AC is easy, another -1 or -2 status penalty isn't hard), and if you crit you bump up the success level on the save (which is hopefully suffering at least a -1 or -2 status penalty). So on a crit hit a successful save is turned into a failure, and a failure is turned into a critical failure (and double damage). You can whiff, but the potential is there for mega damage if you take the time to maximize it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Disintegrate is actually really strong, because the assumption is you're casting True Strike first on a hopefully debuffed target (flat-footed for -2 circumstance to AC is easy, another -1 or -2 status penalty isn't hard), and if you crit you bump up the success level on the save (which is hopefully suffering at least a -1 or -2 status penalty). So on a crit hit a successful save is turned into a failure, and a failure is turned into a critical failure (and double damage). You can whiff, but the potential is there for mega damage if you take the time to maximize it.
I guess maybe they balanced these spells assuming True Strike (lvl1 slot), Disintegrate is worth it but not Ray of Enfeeble.
But good suggestion on the TS+Dis, that is good gravy (although I wish TS still gave +20 for the crits!) I wonder how that compares dmg-wise to Fighter offense at that level with similar buffing (i.e. a lvl 1 slot).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Crossbows... do not do more damage than cantrips, even at exactly level 1. Ray of Frost, for the weakest example I could think of, will have a +1 to hit and do 2 more damage on average (and 4 more damage if you roll a 1) than a crossbow. The crossbow doesn't even have an action advantage because you need to reload it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well in PF1 your touch attacks were made with your attack roll, which was much lower than a full BAB martial.
In PF2 you have to hit the full AC but you roll with spell attack, which is based on your spell profiency,...
Good point, but Touch ACs were SO low (14 or lower often, at high levels) that it was usually an auto-hit IME. I haven't run the numbers but I don't think (purely head-simming) the improvement in Wizard 'BAB' vs. PF1 makes up for going against PF2 ACs in the 30-40s.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, wizards got nerfed. This is fine because the 3.5 Wizard ranks towards the top of classes in any RPG that really needed a nerf.Don't play wizards much huh? Lowest hit points, little to no armor, worst saving throws, no useful weapon skills, no skills for that matter, and every GM aiming for thew wizard first. Far from needing a nerf they need some boosting to be on par with other classes. A low level wizard should be able to at least come close to damage and defense when compared to a cleric or fighter of similar level. At 2nd level a 1ed wizard does around 1d8 in a round IF they use a crossbow, a 2nd level fighter has a d10-d12 plus several bonuses from stat and feats. Once we get into the mid range and up the wizard is only powerful IF the martial characters DON'T run up and stand toe to toe with the enemy, making it a choice of doing nothing or blasting your own party in the bargain.
The fact that you're even discussing damage numbers shows that you didn't play very many wizards, or at least didn't do it very well. Wizards don't get to the point of being straight up better than every other class until roughly 4th level spells, but even a first level wizard is ending encounters without even considering enemy health bars with Color Spray.
Wait I just noticed on second glance you said Wizards have the worst saving throws I'm cackling
Pour one out for the poor Rogues/Swashbucklers
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, wizards got nerfed. This is fine because the 3.5 Wizard ranks towards the top of classes in any RPG that really needed a nerf.Don't play wizards much huh? Lowest hit points, little to no armor, worst saving throws, no useful weapon skills, no skills for that matter, and every GM aiming for thew wizard first. Far from needing a nerf they need some boosting to be on par with other classes. A low level wizard should be able to at least come close to damage and defense when compared to a cleric or fighter of similar level. At 2nd level a 1ed wizard does around 1d8 in a round IF they use a crossbow, a 2nd level fighter has a d10-d12 plus several bonuses from stat and feats. Once we get into the mid range and up the wizard is only powerful IF the martial characters DON'T run up and stand toe to toe with the enemy, making it a choice of doing nothing or blasting your own party in the bargain.
This is interesting to me because I've seen such variance on how GMs run Wizards (how they do/don't gun for them, grapple/disrupt spells, hold them accountable to rules, threaten vs. spellbooks, control scribing time, etc.) So I've seen Wizards be insanely powerful when 'left to their own devices' at some tables, and back-benchers next to the martials when pinned down (using RAW) by GMs that have the time/inclination. Across all 3.x/PF and different groups and years of gaming. Now, I'm talking Core here.
What I will say is IME CoDZilla was definitely nuts. Wizards had more weaknesses. Druids walking in with a Huge Companion Spinosaur as good as the fighter, plus spells almost as good as the Wiz, plus Wildshape into whatever convenient animal/elemental form or just turn into a flea to get anywhere ... tough to GM that ;)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A decided nerf. The playtest gave such hope, TK Projectile offering a d10 combat spell, electric arc a d6, chill touch a d 8, and all scaling comparable to other classes in capability. In the release this has all bewn castrated, d4 and d6 instead, and only one scale to 2 dice. Basicly it's back to twidling our thumbs unless the martial type pause long enough to cast a 3rd level or higher spell. back to begging the gm to start at 3rd again, sigh....
Cantrips add your ability modifier to the damage so it doesn't suck as much to roll a 1 how many times must this be explained
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have no side in this argument but I disagree with what you are saying here. Publishing more to fix problems is a terrible thing. Half the people won't even know the options and you are also admitting to their being lots a "trap" options.One thing that is great about this edition, which was not as prominent in PF1 and which is lacking a lot in 5e, is how easy it is to buff classes on the future.
Classes are extremely modular and have a very light "chassis". Which means nobody is stuck with weak abilities as long as better ones exist. You could just publish stronger Wizard feats or stronger Arcane spells to improve them whenever, and Paizo is known for spamming splatbooks. There could later be strong class archetypes (How PF1 fixed things) and such.
I think the current Wizard is decent and fun to play, just different, but time will tell how they perform in play and whenever that happens, there will be many avenues to improve them. Not as much like 5E ranger that got a bunch of unofficial reprints and fan content because it was stuck sucking.What you can't do is Nerf classes without erratas (Which we almost never see), so there is a strong possibility of power creep as time passes. Whoever is the strongest class right now (Fighter?) is likely to become the baseline to flatten the power curve down the line.
A lot of weaknesses are caused by a simple lack of options; for example, Wizards inherently do less damage than Sorcerers when using instantaneous spells because Dangerous Sorcery exists. If/when Wizards eventually get a class feat that synergizes with evocations that'll get balanced out.
Like, you have to realize that there is only so much text you're allowed to have in one book.
Well in PF1 your touch attacks were made with your attack roll, which was much lower than a full BAB martial.
In PF2 you have to hit the full AC but you roll with spell attack, which is based on your spell profiency,...
I see this comparison a lot and it's a bad one. Touch AC was much lower than normal AC, and even with lower to-hits on a half BAB class you could generally land a touch spell more often.
This was a very good thing for the game, especially in the case touch spells that also allowed a save. Nothing worse than whiffing a ranged touch spell completely and it going to waste.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
I always found pre-buffing to be realistic...
In the Black Company novels, every powerful wizard is protected at all times by many-layered defensive spells that are presumably cast ahead of time off-screen.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A decided nerf. The playtest gave such hope, TK Projectile offering a d10 combat spell, electric arc a d6, chill touch a d 8, and all scaling comparable to other classes in capability. In the release this has all bewn castrated, d4 and d6 instead, and only one scale to 2 dice. Basicly it's back to twidling our thumbs unless the martial type pause long enough to cast a 3rd level or higher spell. back to begging the gm to start at 3rd again, sigh....
Erm, the "Heightened (+1)" means that for every level you add one damage die and cantrips automatically autolevel
"A cantrip is always automatically heightened to half your level rounded up—this is usually equal to the highest level of spell you can cast as a wizard. For example, as a 1st-level wizard, your cantrips are 1st-level spells, and as a 5th-level wizard, your cantrips are 3rd-level spells. "| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Saying that Wizards share the title of worst saves with Rogues shows a fundamental misunderstanding of PF1's meta. Only having a good reflex save is the worst by an enormous margin as failing a Reflex save generally means that you just took damage. Only the most horrifically min-maxed Fireballs will outright kill you on a failed save, otherwise a poor Reflex can be managed through other means.
The same cannot be said for Fortitude, which will often incapacitate you entirely or cause severe long term problems in the form of a poison or disease. A bad Will save is even worse - many of the most damning save-or-dies rely on Will, even the ones that don't make a lick of sense (I hate Glitterdust I hate it so much it should have always been a Reflex save).
Like I really have to wonder what you were doing in all of those years of playing Wizards that you don't even understand how scary will saves are for the average martial. It's not like Wizards even have to force saves to be this potent, just casting Haste on two people will account for as much damage or more as either one of them on their own. Wizards were nuts in PF1.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good riddance to overpowered magic. It's still the best for raw ability later on, but at least the days of caster supremacy are mitigated. Magic needed to be nerfed hard so that everyone else could have stuff to actually do, and thankfully it's a lot better now. Long may 2E reign in that regard.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since everybody wants to go off-topic why not:
My favorite divine spell is Crusade of 2e. This spell is so silly...I'm having a good laugh just picturing a BBEG showing up early in the campaign and you always have that one guy who wants to be a hero...then BBEG cast Crusade...fun begins.
I mean... they did both of those things. Spells lost narrative power and skills gained them. Anyone who's athletic enough can leap like Superman and Rogues can be so stealthy that detection magic doesn't work on them, only someone who's equally as good at Perception can see them.