Did wizards get nerfed?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 575 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

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?


1 person 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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

all magic got "normalized"


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

All magic got nerfed into the ground. If that works for you, good. If not, PF1E will always love you.

The Exchange

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think we're going to have to wait to see a real comparison of spell dcs vs monster saves and the proliferation of weaknesses to determine if that's true. I mean the level 1 classic burning hands now does 2d6 damage per level with no cap instead of 1d4 per level - maxed out at 5d4. It's probably better as a signature spell for a spontaneous caster but a wizard with some foreknowledge can prep it in the right slot.


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

Erm, yeah. You got to prepare Burning Hands in a fourth level slot to get 8d6, though. At which point you gotta ask yourself "wouldn't it be more useful to have another Fly in this slot or at least a 8d6 Fireball?". The real kicker is that to get it to for example 14d6, you gotta cast it as a level 7 spell, at which point it is competing with reality altering spells like Magnificent Mansion or Prismatic Spray.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
Erm, yeah. You got to prepare Burning Hands in a fourth level slot to get 8d6, though. At which point you gotta ask yourself "wouldn't it be more useful to have another Fly in this slot or at least a 8d6 Fireball?". The real kicker is that to get it to for example 14d6, you gotta cast it as a level 7 spell, at which point it is competing with reality altering spells like Magnificent Mansion or Prismatic Spray.

Your save DC scales independently though. So your level 1 2d6 burning hands is likely to actually do 2d6 damage against most opponents and has the chance to do double against mooks rather than in PF1 where sure it scaled to 5d4 damage but as a level 1 spell the save never kept up so it might as well have been 5d4/2.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
magnuskn wrote:
Erm, yeah. You got to prepare Burning Hands in a fourth level slot to get 8d6, though. At which point you gotta ask yourself "wouldn't it be more useful to have another Fly in this slot or at least a 8d6 Fireball?". The real kicker is that to get it to for example 14d6, you gotta cast it as a level 7 spell, at which point it is competing with reality altering spells like Magnificent Mansion or Prismatic Spray.

I see what you are getting at, but that is countered at least some what with Spell saves being consistent across levels and higher then they were in PF1e. Also the spell to hit rolls look to be better and all come with the chance to crit for double damage.


17 people marked this as a favorite.
ikarinokami wrote:
all magic got "normalized"

This is a good description; it was less a nerf and more pushing them back into the bell curve of the powerscale, a process that also buffed martials and similar.


15 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I think that low (1-3) level Wizards are standing stronger than PF1 by a long shot. Damaging cantrips that are actually worth your time are a HUGE bonus. Who even cares about PF1's 1d3 damage cantrips, really? You're better off shooting a crossbow at that point...........

I think Wizards will be fine. My experience with the playtest showed that spellcasters and martial classes both contributed meaningfully through the mid levels at least (never got around to finishing so I can't comment on the high level encounters, but my gut feel is that trend will continue).

If by "nerfed" you mean that high level wizards aren't the strongest option available... yeah, perhaps they got nerfed. That's a good thing in my opinion. Classes should do different things and feel different to play, and I'm OK with per day resources being stronger than swinging a sword, but PF1 wizards were just too much. And how bad they were at lower levels didn't fix the issue, it just inverted it for a few levels.

The Exchange

magnuskn wrote:
Erm, yeah. You got to prepare Burning Hands in a fourth level slot to get 8d6, though. At which point you gotta ask yourself "wouldn't it be more useful to have another Fly in this slot or at least a 8d6 Fireball?". The real kicker is that to get it to for example 14d6, you gotta cast it as a level 7 spell, at which point it is competing with reality altering spells like Magnificent Mansion or Prismatic Spray.

I understand what you're saying but I think those situational questions are just part of playing a prepared caster. And with the way the math has been changed it seems like Burning Hands has been set up to cover your 1st and 2nd spell level need for a big fire spell if you want to avoid the concentrate action for Flaming Sphere before Fireball comes online.

Exo-Guardians

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes, wizards got the Nerf greataxe, they seriously earned it and I'm glad that I don't have to worry about the party wizard replacing the rest of the party.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
MER-c wrote:
Yes, wizards got the Nerf greataxe, they seriously earned it and I'm glad that I don't have to worry about the party wizard replacing the rest of the party.

Not quite true. My cleric was able to keep up with the party's wizard (… but we kind of left the non-casters in the dust though :().


11 people marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
All magic got nerfed into the ground. If that works for you, good. If not, PF1E will always love you.

Yeah i was wondering after they ended the playtest saying they would take a look into it if they had buffed it back up.

Took one look at Nethys, saw spells still nerfed to the ground, just came here to confirm it is as bad as it looked to me.

Well, guess that is that for 2E and now PF1 wont get new books either...

Oh well.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nox Aeterna wrote:

Well, guess that is that for 2E and now PF1 wont get new books either...

Oh well.

Don't panic yet. A lot of 3rd Party publishers are likely to continue supporting PF1 for a bit.


12 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I'm really going to miss magic jar. :(

One minute possession just doesn't quite have the same feel.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
All magic got nerfed into the ground. If that works for you, good. If not, PF1E will always love you.

I think the illusionist is probably better off in PF2 than in PF1. The durations have gotten a nice bump from the playtest.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Mitigating the "Caster/Martial Disparity" was like Job #1 when it came to the "balance" part of creating a new edition.

It's conceivable this is going to be the first edition since, well, first edition where I play a Wizard.


Looking at the saves for a moment, you get a base 10+cast Stat+ TEML: (maxing casting stat) 10+4+2=16 at first level, 7th level is 18, 10th level is 19, 15th level is 21, 19th level is 23, and 20th is 24 (25 with INT Item)

Going to use Demons for the saves CR 1, 7, 13, 16, 20
1 F 4, R 10, W 7
7 F 15, R 14, W 17
13 F 26, R 19, W 24
16 F 32, R 26, W 27
20 F 39, R 35, W 34

I will have to check other monsters but right now anything that allows a save above level 7 is not worth casting.


Lord Fyre wrote:
Nox Aeterna wrote:

Well, guess that is that for 2E and now PF1 wont get new books either...

Oh well.

Don't panic yet. A lot of 3rd Party publishers are likely to continue supporting PF1 for a bit.

Well, never been one for third party much, but guess now there is no other choice. Will start to check on this.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Mitigating the "Caster/Martial Disparity" was like Job #1 when it came to the "balance" part of creating a new edition.

It's conceivable this is going to be the first edition since, well, first edition where I play a Wizard.

Well i suppose. I only checked the spells, not going to check the rest really to see what changed from the playtest, the spells alone already showed me i wouldnt want to play this game anyway.

Guess i will hear how it goes in the forums and such from now on.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Kringress wrote:

Looking at the saves for a moment, you get a base 10+cast Stat+ TEML: (maxing casting stat) 10+4+2=16 at first level, 7th level is 18, 10th level is 19, 15th level is 21, 19th level is 23, and 20th is 24 (25 with INT Item)

Going to use Demons for the saves CR 1, 7, 13, 16, 20
1 F 4, R 10, W 7
7 F 15, R 14, W 17
13 F 26, R 19, W 24
16 F 32, R 26, W 27
20 F 39, R 35, W 34

I will have to check other monsters but right now anything that allows a save above level 7 is not worth casting.

I'm pretty sure you forgot to add level to those DCs...

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Kringress wrote:

Looking at the saves for a moment, you get a base 10+cast Stat+ TEML: (maxing casting stat) 10+4+2=16 at first level, 7th level is 18, 10th level is 19, 15th level is 21, 19th level is 23, and 20th is 24 (25 with INT Item)

Going to use Demons for the saves CR 1, 7, 13, 16, 20
1 F 4, R 10, W 7
7 F 15, R 14, W 17
13 F 26, R 19, W 24
16 F 32, R 26, W 27
20 F 39, R 35, W 34

I will have to check other monsters but right now anything that allows a save above level 7 is not worth casting.

You have profoundly misunderstood how Proficiency is calculated, which always includes level.

That makes Save DCs 17 at 1st, 25 at 7th, 29 at 10th, 36 at 15th, 42 at 19th (probably 43 due to Apex Item), and 44 or 45 at 20th.

Cydeth wrote:
I'm pretty sure you forgot to add level to those DCs...

They did indeed.


Kringress wrote:

Looking at the saves for a moment, you get a base 10+cast Stat+ TEML: (maxing casting stat) 10+4+2=16 at first level, 7th level is 18, 10th level is 19, 15th level is 21, 19th level is 23, and 20th is 24 (25 with INT Item)

Going to use Demons for the saves CR 1, 7, 13, 16, 20
1 F 4, R 10, W 7
7 F 15, R 14, W 17
13 F 26, R 19, W 24
16 F 32, R 26, W 27
20 F 39, R 35, W 34

I will have to check other monsters but right now anything that allows a save above level 7 is not worth casting.

I think you're missing the part where level contributes to Proficiency Bonus. So for level 1 it would be 10+4+(1+2)=17. At level 7 it would be 10+4+(7+4)=25, and so on.

EDIT: And severely ninja'd.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A lot of the changes to casters are good, although I think Wizard still comes out on top after reading through the CR. Magic was definitely nerfed and a lot of it was reasonable- unfortunately, as I have a smaller group, we often relied on save or suck casters to round out the party and eliminate larger threats and doing a wizard (or sorcerer, etc.) like that is a lot harder now.

Across the board, weakening spells, taking armor away from a casting-focused cleric, and so on was good. Sorcerer is heavily improved from the playtest and magic is better than it was last August. But your odds of pulling off something cool as a wizard (or any caster) are a lot, lot, lower. Crunching the numbers even the most powerful wizard will rarely force a critical failure even in something two levels below him. Blasting is really the only right option now unless you want to be bored (personal opinion) debuffing enemies for very low returns or buffing allies. If I had to sum it up I would say it's little bit like everyone is a support cleric regardless of spell list or casting class, except for a pure blaster. Maybe a debuff focused witch if you prefer.

It's a great system, though, and I'm thrilled with a lot of the tweaks to martials and I'm happy to see that bringing casting into line even at the top level like Wizard was a high priority. I would just enjoy it if spells like Baleful Polymorph did what they used to with any degree of reliability. Taking the risk on a spell like that is now simply not worth the actions spent.

My favorite school, Enchantment, was hit especially hard. I've also always enjoyed arcane polymorph specialists but Druid is the only viable route for that now unfortunately and I don't enjoy the nature feel. It's a shame in some ways. I see a lot of martial characters in my group's future.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I think 'normalizing' is best paradigm, and that includes things like improving Fighter Saves etc. (pre-3.x D&D norm)
Of course die-hard fans of "caster edition" focus on "nerfs" to spells, but there is also buffs to them situationally,
over-all there is more emphasis on what I call SUPPLENESS of rules, reflected in 4-outcome possiblities for checks.

I think what OP said about pumping up "lower end" cantrips is true, but not only the low end,
Focus (generally replacing non-slot magic abilities) being refreshable in 10min (or in some cases via easier means)
yet offering abilities potentially on par with highest level spells really extends adventuring endurance,
instead of characters wanting to hoard x/day abilities, they can use them every single combat,
which addresses pet peeve of mine for 3.x with Fire Domain Clerics getting their 1 Domain Slot Fireball and that was it for the day.

Over all I think casters retain alot more "narrative control" than martials (albeit skills are majorly buffed for this),
but player choices are much more determinant in that, breadth of utility vs blasting depth is tough choice.
(relatedly, the Wizard option to "relearn" slots is now exclusive Thesis, though certainly a potent choice)
So it definitely isn't a matter of only taking away from casters, they get a hell of alot too.
Just not everything in their favor like 3.x. I mean f@!$, 3.x basically made spell interruption a minor annoyance
compared to 2ndEd where ANY normal attack (governed by weapon speed) could interrupt casting like Readied Action in 3.x,
with 3.x Casting Defensively another one of those binary mechanics "game-able" to auto-pass status.
2E is built around supple variation that works, not binary mechanics inviting players to break them.

In terms of Heighten discussion, I don't think it was ever suggested that Heightening should always equally compete vs real spells,
within a certain range it generally is just as viable, but beyond that it tends to fall of in 1:1 comparisons,
but just because those aren't generically comparable doesn't mean they can't be situationally viable with certain mechanics,
if a mechanic or item can only cast X spells but heightened up to your max spell level, you might use 9th level flaming hands,
and it is uniquely attractive to Sorcerors who may not KNOW the spell that would better fulfill the same niche.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yep I screwed up forgot to add level, my mistake. Should just have level in those boxes. Yeash. Sorry about that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shinigami02 wrote:
Kringress wrote:

Looking at the saves for a moment, you get a base 10+cast Stat+ TEML: (maxing casting stat) 10+4+2=16 at first level, 7th level is 18, 10th level is 19, 15th level is 21, 19th level is 23, and 20th is 24 (25 with INT Item)

Going to use Demons for the saves CR 1, 7, 13, 16, 20
1 F 4, R 10, W 7
7 F 15, R 14, W 17
13 F 26, R 19, W 24
16 F 32, R 26, W 27
20 F 39, R 35, W 34

I will have to check other monsters but right now anything that allows a save above level 7 is not worth casting.

I think you're missing the part where level contributes to Proficiency Bonus. So for level 1 it would be 10+4+(1+2)=17. At level 7 it would be 10+4+(7+4)=25, and so on.

EDIT: And severely ninja'd.

Thanks for the edits, my mistakes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Fortidue/Reflex/Will

Goblin Commando Saves 7/8/5

Spell DC 17 (Fails on a 9/8/11 or less)
_____________
Drider Saves 13/13/15

Spell DC 22 (Fails on a 8/8/6 or less)
_____________
Glabrezu Saves 26/19/24 (+1 Magic)

Spell DC 32 (Fails on a 5/11/6 or less)
____________
Ancient White Dragon Saves 30/26/24 (+1 Magic)

Spell DC 36 (Fails on a 4/8/11 or less)

Just for some reference, the monsters are lvl 1/6/13/15


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As a frequent player of arcane casters, my initial response to the spells was, "I'm still not crazy about it, but I can work with it." Unseen servant is sustained now, giving it a max duration of ten minutes. I guess if i want a magic butler during downtime I could prepare it a bunch and cast it, sustaining it for 9 minutes and 50 seconds, which feels really stupid and gamey, but I guess it works.

Prestidigitation isn't as cool as it was in pf1, but seems improved a smidge from playtest, and is no longer significantly worse for non arcane people.

I would have to actually see how BFC control works, but it was quite strong in pf1 so I guess it's fair that they nerfed it to some degree, I can't count the number of enemies I completely got rid of with just a well placed pit spell, though I do hope the pit spells return, just with maybe a more reasonable climb DC.

I do think it's worth taking into account that most spells have some benefit even on a normal success now, as opposed to first edition where only blasts worked like that.

So yeah, they were nerfed from pf1 and then buffed somewhat from playtest I would say.


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

I think that low (1-3) level Wizards are standing stronger than PF1 by a long shot.

Yeah, this fits our experience with the first chunk of Hellknight Hill, where the blasting-focused fire elemental Sorcerer was the MVP. In terms of blasting options alone, she was choosing between:

-Produce Flame, +7 to hit, d4+5 fire, 30' range, with persistent burn critical effects (unlimited)
-Ray of Frost, +7 to hit, d4+4 cold, 120' range, with slowing critical effects (unlimited)
-Electric Arc, auto-hit up to two targets (DC17 for 1/2), 30' range, d4+4 electric (unlimited)
-Elemental Throw, +7 to hit, d8+2 fire, 30' range (1 focus, but only takes 1 action)
-Burning Hands, auto-hit (DC17 for 1/2), 15' cone, 2d6+2 fire (1st level slot)

And she also got good use out of Charm (which ended one encounter) and Heal (twice bringing players who got knocked unconscious back into the fight, and burning away a squad of skeletons).

Now to be fair, I haven't seen how things fare at higher levels. But I've never seen a first level caster in PF1 that was as effective as she was.


So yeah me and math at times....
Level 1: 17
Level 7: 25
Level 10: 29
Level 13: 32
Level 15: 36
Level 17: 39 (Item buff)
Level 20: 45 (Item buff)
1 F 4, R 10, W 7
7 F 15, R 14, W 17
13 F 26, R 19, W 24
16 F 32, R 26, W 27
20 F 39, R 35, W 34

Looks like its Reflex, Will then Fortitude for save preference.


25 people marked this as a favorite.

It's the humble Unseen Servant that bothers me the most. It's just completely useless for it's intended purpose: serving tea and cleaning the lab while the wizard is busy doing other things. Having to micromanage it every step of the way is incompatible with that. And the 10 minutes makes you fatigued thing makes it even worse than it was in the playtest, where it was already useless. It's not like Unseen Servant was powerful, or even that I saw it used much. It's just the principal of the thing. It's a spell that existed almost entirely for flavor reasons, and it got nerfed into uselessness, apparently because people were using it to trigger traps. Ugh. Giving it to Polymath Muse Bards seems almost like an insult. I'm in the camp that feels a terrible option feels worse than not getting the option at all.

A much better option (which I brought up in the playtest) would be to move it to a ritual that's location locked. I've mostly encountered Unseen Servants in places where the area has a permanent version running, constantly keeping the place clean. A ritual would serve that purpose fine, and avoid parties sending it ahead to trigger all traps, and steal treasure and such. I guess there's still room for a ritual that makes long-lasting, autonomous unseen servants to fill the traditional role, with the anemic spell version for trap triggering and wasting precious spell slots.

Like I said, it's the principle of the thing. This isn't something that effects every-day play. And I don't even really play casters, I'm just playing my first full caster character now after a decade of Pathfinder 1 and some time with 2nd ed back in the day. I just think magical fantasy should have some magical fantasy in it. There are certainly a lot more significant nerfs, it's just that this one is symptomatic of the approach. It just feels that the magic of the setting, no mater how minor, is being brutally suppressed in the name of 'balance.' And unlike so many here, I've never seen casters completely dominate PF1 like everyone says, so it doesn't seem like real balance. It's usually the martial characters who are one-rounding things. Maybe none of the caster players are doing it correctly?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

All casters were nerfed, not just the wizard. This edition is great if you want to play martials.

I've spent most of the day building versions of a concept of a hunter so attuned with nature they become an animal. The barbarian is better at this than the druid. I'm not sure if pest form was meant to be insulting or not.

It's also bothersome that the damaging cantrips were nerfed into d4s. The medicine skill increases the length of the adventuring day, so your 1st level wizard is going to burn through their spells before the day is over. Now you're back to being a poor crossbowman.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I didn't notice the damaging cantrips were nerfed to d4s... that is a problem. why was that done? They're not even comparable to weapon damage at that point, so weak.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Diego Hopkins wrote:


It's also bothersome that the damaging cantrips were nerfed into d4s. The medicine skill increases the length of the adventuring day, so your 1st level wizard is going to burn through their spells before the day is over. Now you're back to being a poor crossbowman.

Chill Touch

Playtest Version
1d8 negative damage. On a critical hit, double damage and enfeebled 1 for 1 round.
Heightened (3rd) Damage of 1d8 + your spellcasting ability modifier

Final Version
The spell deals negative damage equal to 1d4 plus your spellcasting modifier. The target attempts a basic Fortitude save, but is also enfeebled 1 for 1 round on a critical failure.
Heightened (+1) The negative damage to living creatures increases by 1d4.

The Cantrips were actually buffed, in the final version it do between 5-9 damage with 18int instead of 1-8 of the playtest at level 1, even the heightening scales better.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes giving 1d4 or 1d6 every caster level is better than a slightly higher number every 2 or 3 levels. It’s significantly stronger than crossbows for classes that don’t have feats to buff ranged or strong weapon proficiency.


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.

Liberty's Edge

9 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, cantrips have been buffed significantly if you actually compare damage at individual levels instead of getting hung up on die size.

Focus Spells are also worth noting as a 'per encounter' thing. Many are quite good and extend spellcasters adventuring days significantly if you have them.

Casters have been powered down from PF1, it's true, but for the most part I'd say their power has risen since the playtest. I'm pretty sure a properly done caster is still the most powerful character in the game at high levels, the gap is just a lot narrower.


Kyrone wrote:
Diego Hopkins wrote:


It's also bothersome that the damaging cantrips were nerfed into d4s. The medicine skill increases the length of the adventuring day, so your 1st level wizard is going to burn through their spells before the day is over. Now you're back to being a poor crossbowman.

Chill Touch

Playtest Version
1d8 negative damage. On a critical hit, double damage and enfeebled 1 for 1 round.
Heightened (3rd) Damage of 1d8 + your spellcasting ability modifier

Final Version
The spell deals negative damage equal to 1d4 plus your spellcasting modifier. The target attempts a basic Fortitude save, but is also enfeebled 1 for 1 round on a critical failure.
Heightened (+1) The negative damage to living creatures increases by 1d4.

The Cantrips were actually buffed, in the final version it do between 5-9 damage with 18int instead of 1-8 of the playtest at level 1, even the heightening scales better.

I suppose you're right about the math, but the d4 instead of the d6 just hits me wrong.


17 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Maybe you just aren't looking at the dice right. With it's caltropy form, the D4 is the most aggressive die!


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Diego Hopkins wrote:
I suppose you're right about the math, but the d4 instead of the d6 just hits me wrong.

Have you stepped on those things? They hurt!!

... ... ... I'll show myself out.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

14 people marked this as a favorite.
Diego Hopkins wrote:
All casters were nerfed, not just the wizard. This edition is great if you want to play martials.

Actually, I prefer to play casters - This edition does not change that!

Two reasons:
1 - I am no longer completely eclipsing the non-caster characters. The later adventures of an AP were great for the Wizard and I (the cleric), but leaving the non-casters in the dust was not as much fun as it may sound.
2 - I don't have to be pathetic at low levels.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, I checked after they said that to verify, cantrip damage is actually better. Crisis averted.

Though are any camping spells common anymore? I don't understand why they were all made uncommon. Is there something horrifically broken about the wizard being able to provide a safe place to sleep where the gm can't just send monsters to murder you? Is setting up watches something people find so fun that they want to do it all the time?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
HammerJack wrote:
Maybe you just aren't looking at the dice right. With it's caltropy form, the D4 is the most aggressive die!

With 10d4 at 20th, you're playing with a bag of caltrops.


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

Yeah, I checked after they said that to verify, cantrip damage is actually better. Crisis averted.

Though are any camping spells common anymore? I don't understand why they were all made uncommon. Is there something horrifically broken about the wizard being able to provide a safe place to sleep where the gm can't just send monsters to murder you? Is setting up watches something people find so fun that they want to do it all the time?

I think that depends on what you mean by "camping spells."

If your definition includes the humble Alarm, I think that's still common.

As for protected extradimensional resting spaces, I think making those uncommon was in service of the design goal of getting rid of the infamous 15 Minute Adventuring Day.


... fair enough. I'll probably just make them common in my home games now that I actually have home games and try to find other ways to fix that annoying issue.

Probably starting with telling the players they can't just go to sleep 15 minutes after waking up and that I reserve the right to throw books and dice at them if they do.

But actually, if that's the only reason, why also make them more obvious when cast, in pf1 you could pull the rope up with rope trick so as not to tip everyone that might be wanting to kill you off that "HEY, STUPID! there's a rope trick spell here!" Which actually kind of defeats the purpose of rope trick.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

All casters are stronger low levels due to Cantrips. Just finished first session, and our Air Elemental Primal Sorcerer was kicking all sorts of ass.

Mid and high levels, yeah they got nerfed. But they deserved it.

The martial caster desparity of 1E is the number one reason my group moved to 2E.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Corwin Icewolf wrote:

... fair enough. I'll probably just make them common in my home games now that I actually have home games and try to find other ways to fix that annoying issue.

Probably starting with telling the players they can't just go to sleep 15 minutes after waking up and that I reserve the right to throw books and dice at them if they do.

But actually, if that's the only reason, why also make them more obvious when cast, in pf1 you could pull the rope up with rope trick so as not to tip everyone that might be wanting to kill you off that "HEY, STUPID! there's a rope trick spell here!" Which actually kind of defeats the purpose of rope trick.

Or you could let them find an Explorer's Yurt. If it's good enough for Ghengis, it's good enough for the PCs!


4 people marked this as a favorite.

So all in all: As a player playing a mid-level wizard, why should I bother switching from 1e to 2e?

My BFC spells get (heavily) nerfed. What's in for me? The best things in 2e (in general opinion), the 3-action-system and the versatility in character advancement, are they any good in the light of the nerf? Isn't the new action system more a benefit for the fighting classes? And my character advancement was already fine because of the nice BFC spells I could aquire.

1 to 50 of 575 << 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

Want to post a reply? Sign in.