Woefully disappointed


Rules Discussion

151 to 200 of 205 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

HumbleGamer wrote:
oholoko wrote:
HumbleGamer wrote:


The number of slots is irrelevant since it is the same ( until the wizard gets or craft his ring of wizardly ), but being able to choose ( talking about a competent wizard and not a beginner ) is a solid choice better than few known spells.

Wizards get an extra spell of every slot(Limited to a spell from the school school) and can recast a spell from the arcane bond, unless he is an unversalist then he can recast spells of every level. So wizards got at least 1 extra spell per slot.

Hasn't also the bard a feat which allows him to cast extra spells in a similar way?

Perfect Encore? I mean an extra level 10 is similar and all but is not like an extra spell slot of every level...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
oholoko wrote:
HumbleGamer wrote:
oholoko wrote:
HumbleGamer wrote:


The number of slots is irrelevant since it is the same ( until the wizard gets or craft his ring of wizardly ), but being able to choose ( talking about a competent wizard and not a beginner ) is a solid choice better than few known spells.

Wizards get an extra spell of every slot(Limited to a spell from the school school) and can recast a spell from the arcane bond, unless he is an unversalist then he can recast spells of every level. So wizards got at least 1 extra spell per slot.

Hasn't also the bard a feat which allows him to cast extra spells in a similar way?
Perfect Encore? I mean an extra level 10 is similar and all but is not like an extra spell slot of every level...

There is also Studious Capacity that gives you 1 extra spell of your non highest level per day. Still not the same. And in fact belies how strong the wizard bonus spells are. Its a level 16 feat to get a single extra cast per day.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

And again, it's not just 1 bonus spell per level for Wizard.
People consider only low level basic features, when standard Wizard Feats significantly expand effective # of slots.
Just like people blindly assert Wizards don't have 1-action options without addressing their Focus spells.
...
.

(8)Bond Conservation vastly expands effective slots, *using 1 action* to pull out chain of -2 level bonus spells down to level 1/2.
(10)Scroll Savant adds two spells limited to max -2 and max -3 spell levels (may *use 1 action* to retrieve scroll).
(14)Superior Bond gives additional usage of Bond limited to max -2 spell levels (combinable with Conservation).
(18)Reprepare Spell lets you infinitely cast all <=4th level spells (without duration) with 10 minute re-prep ...Almost like Focus spells.

Then there are abilities which effectively amount to additional spell
(14)Reflect Spell (also for Sorcerors) reflects back casting instead of just Counterspelling it, 2 for 1.
(16)Spell Tinker lets you change variable effects (e.g. Resist Energy, Polymorphs, Summons, Contingency), as if casting new instance of it.


HumbleGamer wrote:

Guess you don't know what are you talking about.

A wizard chooses from Arcana, which has a wider pool of spells for any situation, while bard chooses from occult, which is a hybrid between support/control.

A wizard is versatile and can set up his spells depends the fight.

The number of slots is irrelevant since it is the same ( until the wizard gets or craft his ring of wizardly ), but being able to choose ( talking about a competent wizard and not a beginner ) is a solid choice better than few known spells.

You acan increase int but you will be renouncing other stats. Your choice in terms of balance. But you can also have 8 in const an 10 in dex. All choices are allowed.

The class doesn't need a rework since it is fine.

The problem here is, apart from earlier levels, the fact that a party could chain spam medicine to rest.

But sometimes people forget that if both blaster and healer run out of spells, then a long rest is required.

Imagine at some point 3/4 fight per day.

A wizard will be able to handle them easily.

The class does need a rework.

What you say isn't working in actual play because you don't usually have time to sit there and let the wizard adjust, much less do all the scouting necessary for the wizard to meaningfully switch and then have him have all the spells needed in his book to switch for every situation.

Not sure why some of you are so up in arms about this. The wizard lacks good 1 action ops. Spell versatility doesn't come close to making up for it.


HumbleGamer wrote:
oholoko wrote:
HumbleGamer wrote:


The number of slots is irrelevant since it is the same ( until the wizard gets or craft his ring of wizardly ), but being able to choose ( talking about a competent wizard and not a beginner ) is a solid choice better than few known spells.

Wizards get an extra spell of every slot(Limited to a spell from the school school) and can recast a spell from the arcane bond, unless he is an unversalist then he can recast spells of every level. So wizards got at least 1 extra spell per slot.

Hasn't also the bard a feat which allows him to cast extra spells in a similar way?

He has that feat.

And he can also take wizard multiclass feats to expand his wizard casting and get the best parts of the wizard: their spell versatility. Which lets them cast even more spells with versatility than the wizard.
The best use for the wizard is multiclassing.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Deriven Firelion wrote:
HumbleGamer wrote:

Guess you don't know what are you talking about.

A wizard chooses from Arcana, which has a wider pool of spells for any situation, while bard chooses from occult, which is a hybrid between support/control.

A wizard is versatile and can set up his spells depends the fight.

The number of slots is irrelevant since it is the same ( until the wizard gets or craft his ring of wizardly ), but being able to choose ( talking about a competent wizard and not a beginner ) is a solid choice better than few known spells.

You acan increase int but you will be renouncing other stats. Your choice in terms of balance. But you can also have 8 in const an 10 in dex. All choices are allowed.

The class doesn't need a rework since it is fine.

The problem here is, apart from earlier levels, the fact that a party could chain spam medicine to rest.

But sometimes people forget that if both blaster and healer run out of spells, then a long rest is required.

Imagine at some point 3/4 fight per day.

A wizard will be able to handle them easily.

The class does need a rework.

What you say isn't working in actual play because you don't usually have time to sit there and let the wizard adjust, much less do all the scouting necessary for the wizard to meaningfully switch and then have him have all the spells needed in his book to switch for every situation.

Not sure why some of you are so up in arms about this. The wizard lacks good 1 action ops. Spell versatility doesn't come close to making up for it.

We as a group don’t let the Wizard use tactics or you as the GM don’t let the Wizard use tactics?

And you don’t like the 1 Action abilities they have. That doesn’t make them bad or not exist.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Strill wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Strill wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:


See the problem with the wizard? He has no options for his 1 action other than move or erect a shield spell. They didn't make the wizards support abilities provide some useful one action option that makes them seem special or standout.
Fortunately, all the metamagic is 1-action modifiers that let the wizard do exactly that, or they can Recall Knowledge, or they can move to be in the best spot for that spell.

And how does that help the wizard provide equal fun and support as other caster classes? Any class can do those things.

Metamagic is fairly useless. I tried to use metamagic. It didn't do much at all. I figured Reach or Widen would do something moderately useful, but they didn't. The martials cut everything down without the need for my spell help. My bard inspire courage composition was far more helpful than anything a wizard can do. Bows are inherently longer range than most spells even with a reach ability.

My bard has as many skills as my wizard. He can recall knowledge just as easily if needed. Given the stat boosts, I gave him intelligence as one of his boost. He has a nice high intel, charisma, and wisdom. The only physical stat I need on the bard is Con for more hit points.

Not sure why people keep making excuses for a wizard class that is poorly designed given the new paradigm. It should be absolutely required that if a caster is going to be support, he should have 1 action support options that are useful. The wizard is sorely lacking. Metamagic that most caster classes can access is not comparable.

You're saying the fights were too easy, and you never fought enemies difficult enough to justify using metamagic, therefore metamagic is underpowered because it's too powerful to bother using? What kind of argument is that?
How do you interpret this in this fashion?
From the part where you say that you stopped bothering to cast...

I want you to do the math on that and show yourself why that statement is false.

Our party is being challenged. The martials do more effective damage supplement by a bard than the wizard doing his cantrips or spells.

There is theory and then there is practice. In theory the wizards spells should be good and they should have solid options, in practice that is not the case.

I tried to summon a creature so I could use my one action to sustain it and attack like having a pet, but the summoned creature had trouble hitting equal level creatures and if I spent one action to move, I could do nothing but sustain the summon. That lowered my damage substantially. The creature could often spend it's third attack once engaged to destroy a summoned creature since it had a much lower AC.

Then I tried the old flaming sphere strategy using my sustain action, that did ok damage when I was in position and if they missed their saves.

It seems pathfinder 2 wants combats fast and furious both ways. So the monsters do a lot of damage, healing is high, and the PCs put out a lot of damage, so I spend a 2nd level flaming sphere spell that I could do two times a day at 3rd level to do very little. Yet the bard was adding +1 attack and damage rolls to all the attacks.

If you have fun playing in that type of scenario, then have at it. I personally found the wizard lacking in effective options. They played very underwhelming. My party is much happier with a bard than a wizard. I'm happier playing one and feeling far more effective and helpful.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

It sounds like you're not choosing the right spells for the situation. Summons (even in PF1) aren't about getting another damage dealing body, but rather options: a flanking partner, a spellcaster, a creature with an aura, and occasionally a silver bullet answer to an encounter.

Flaming sphere is a high risk, high reward spell that promises big damage on a failed save, but nothing on a success. It's best use is to clear out weaker foes and probably shouldn't br a first pick in your highest level spell slot.

All that said, it's absolutely fine to enjoy playing the bard more. That doesn't mean that wizard isn't fun to play or is a poorly designed class. You're attempted to turn a subjective thought into an objective fact.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Strill wrote:
From the part where you say that you stopped bothering to cast...

I want you to do the math on that and show yourself why that statement is false.

Our party is being challenged. The martials do more effective damage supplement by a bard than the wizard doing his cantrips or spells.

None of which is a reason to stop bothering to cast. Even low power actions are beneficial compared to no actions. If the martials can defeat encounter without you doing anything, they can also do so without a bard. Adding powers to a wizard doesn't change whether or not martials can defeat an encounter alone. If they are consistently able to do so VS nominally hard encounters, it is because encounter is especially vulnerable to martial strengths or is otherwise unchallenging (which can include GM lack of tactical skill), so in fact they aren't being challenged if they manage just fine with one party member doing nothing.

A Wizard should also have 1-action Focus spell options, as well as skill usages, Shield and other item usages, moving to Flank or "draw" enemy actions to compensate, as well as weapon attacks which (without MAP attack spell) should have better modifier than average martial 2nd attacks, so certainly viable as 3rd action when compared as such and not to martial 1st or even 2nd attacks. If you're not using these, then you're voluntarily giving up options that could benefit you and allies. Just because you feel they aren't "glorious" insta-win buttons doesn't mean you should ignore them, small benefits add up to win, especially thinking ahead to next round (e.g. draw smokestick 1 round, use it the next).


Rysky wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
HumbleGamer wrote:

Guess you don't know what are you talking about.

A wizard chooses from Arcana, which has a wider pool of spells for any situation, while bard chooses from occult, which is a hybrid between support/control.

A wizard is versatile and can set up his spells depends the fight.

The number of slots is irrelevant since it is the same ( until the wizard gets or craft his ring of wizardly ), but being able to choose ( talking about a competent wizard and not a beginner ) is a solid choice better than few known spells.

You acan increase int but you will be renouncing other stats. Your choice in terms of balance. But you can also have 8 in const an 10 in dex. All choices are allowed.

The class doesn't need a rework since it is fine.

The problem here is, apart from earlier levels, the fact that a party could chain spam medicine to rest.

But sometimes people forget that if both blaster and healer run out of spells, then a long rest is required.

Imagine at some point 3/4 fight per day.

A wizard will be able to handle them easily.

The class does need a rework.

What you say isn't working in actual play because you don't usually have time to sit there and let the wizard adjust, much less do all the scouting necessary for the wizard to meaningfully switch and then have him have all the spells needed in his book to switch for every situation.

Not sure why some of you are so up in arms about this. The wizard lacks good 1 action ops. Spell versatility doesn't come close to making up for it.

We as a group don’t let the Wizard use tactics or you as the GM don’t let the Wizard use tactics?

And you don’t like the 1 Action abilities they have. That doesn’t make them bad or not exist.

What tactics? Explain these tactics? Do you think every party wants to spend the time scouting, waiting an extra day for the wizard to change out spells, and then attack when it isn't necessary for anyone else?

What do you mean? Specifically slowing the game down to allow the wizard to perfectly prepare for an encounter to somewhat match what the other characters can do without the same preparation?

Why would we do something unnecessary like that to accommodate a class weakness?


Ruzza wrote:

It sounds like you're not choosing the right spells for the situation. Summons (even in PF1) aren't about getting another damage dealing body, but rather options: a flanking partner, a spellcaster, a creature with an aura, and occasionally a silver bullet answer to an encounter.

Flaming sphere is a high risk, high reward spell that promises big damage on a failed save, but nothing on a success. It's best use is to clear out weaker foes and probably shouldn't br a first pick in your highest level spell slot.

All that said, it's absolutely fine to enjoy playing the bard more. That doesn't mean that wizard isn't fun to play or is a poorly designed class. You're attempted to turn a subjective thought into an objective fact.

The math would say otherwise. It is an objective reality that can be analyzed with math in real game situations.

Bard is far more effective than the wizard.

The wizard isn't useless, but he is clearly not as effective as the bard. In PF1 he his spell versatility was a huge bonus, perhaps too powerful. Given time a wizard could do a lot. I played a lot of them. They were a lot of fun.

In PF2 the limits on spells make spell versatility just ok. The Incapacitate trait, high saving throws, the limits on Summons having to use one action to sustain a summon and cause it to us two actions, the rule your summons can't use higher level spells than the level of the spell used to cast them, the need to move to position to attack, and the variable effects from saves all just make spell versatility nowhere near the advantage it used to be.
The innate abilities of the wizard don't do enough to make up for that loss.

That's why I don't see a single argument with actual wizard abilities to make them seem great. That alone should be sending you all a red flag that something is wrong, since I've listed inherent cleric, druid, and bard abilities unique to each class that they can use to be effective beyond their spells.

So what unique wizard abilities make the wizard stand out compared to bard compositions, druid pet and shapechange, or cleric domains and healing?


Quandary wrote:
None of which is a reason to stop bothering to cast. Even low power actions are beneficial compared to no actions. If the martials can defeat encounter without you doing anything, they can also do so without a bard. Adding powers to a wizard doesn't change whether or not martials can defeat an encounter alone. If they are consistently able to do so VS nominally hard encounters, it is because encounter is especially vulnerable to martial strengths or is otherwise unchallenging (which can include GM lack of tactical skill), so in fact they aren't being challenged if they manage just fine with one party member doing nothing.

They can win without a bard, but they feel the bard there far more than they feel the wizard there. They were making jokes about the wizards uselessness. Laughing at my burning hands and fireball spells when I had a low damage roll or the enemies critically their save. When my summoned creature did nearly nothing and was at best used for flanking, that made them give me the "useless wizard" look as well. I tried a lot of different ways to make the wizard seem good and it was all very underwhelming. 1st level spells don't scale very well at all even when you can start using 3rd and 4th level spells.

Imagine casting a crap 2d6 1st level burning hands because you're out of 3rd level slots or trying to use a 1st level charm on a higher level creature only to have it succeed with a basic saving throw success because of the Incapacitate trait.

Tiresome. Have you read summon and the incapacitate trait? They really weaken spells.

Quote:
A Wizard should also have 1-action Focus spell options, as well as skill usages, Shield and other item usages, moving to Flank or "draw" enemy actions to compensate, as well as weapon attacks which (without MAP attack spell) should have better modifier than average martial 2nd attacks, so certainly viable as 3rd action when compared as such and not to martial 1st or even 2nd attacks. If you're not using these, then you're voluntarily giving up options that could benefit you and allies. Just because you feel they aren't "glorious" insta-win buttons doesn't mean you should ignore them, small benefits add up to win, especially thinking ahead to next round (e.g. draw smokestick 1 round, use it the next).

Non-specific 1 action options that don't feel wizardly aren't really fun are they? I don't find them fun. Moving your wizard into combat with some of the dangerous reaction AoOs in this game is a recipe for disaster.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Deriven Firelion wrote:

What tactics? Explain these tactics? Do you think every party wants to spend the time scouting, waiting an extra day for the wizard to change out spells, and then attack when it isn't necessary for anyone else?

What do you mean? Specifically slowing the game down to allow the wizard to perfectly prepare for an encounter to somewhat match what the other characters can do without the same preparation?

Why would we do something unnecessary like that to accommodate a class weakness?

Actually planning and using tactics rather than blindly running into every combat is not a weakness, and is in fact encouraged.

For all classes and parties.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's one tip: If you have 3rd level spells, 1st level Burning Hands has nearly no reason to prepare beyond swarms (area damage vulnerability). Because 3rd level Cantrips out do it in damage. Arcane has best damage cantrips of game by far, so use them. Electric Arc is top cantrip damage AND hits two targets with better range, so outside swarms should always be preferred to Burning Hands (Produce Flame cantrip does single target Fire damage). Just because they are humble Cantrips doesn't mean using them effectively isn't important part of Wizardry, you can't play a Wizard without understanding your spell list.

Acting fearfully because of AoOs seems extremely odd given 2E specifically drastically reduced the number of enemies with an AoO.
If you don't have viable alternative, it may not be advisable to summarily throw out potential options... If you believe you are useless otherwise it can't hurt to risk it, really.

IMHO it's a bit strange that AFAIK you never once specified which Focus powers you have played with as Wizard, and presumably dislike using. Really there is quite a bit of variety, so it's hard to imagine everything is unlikable... If something isn't your cup of tea, play a different school that is.

But that seems the crux of your complaint, not potential efficacy, but "not liking" and refusing to use the options they do have because they aren't "fun" to you or aren't "wizardly" enough, whatever that means. If you just don't "like" the options available to 2E Wizards, maybe it just isn't the class for you thematically.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also wanted to say, since you complained about subpar damage spell, consider 3rd level Force Bolt (Evocation School Focus spell) does same average damage as 1st level Burning Hands (with higher floor) but can't be Saved for Half, is very rarely resisted except by Shield cantrip, uses just 1 action, and you can cast it every single encounter (or more later, or with Focus Familiar Regen).

In regards to group stopping to accomodate your strategic re-adjustment, your normal daily prep already includes chance to totally swap spells, and if you want more flexibility that is role of Spell Substitution Thesis which allows to swap prepared spells in just 10 minutes, i.e. while somebody else is using Medicine healing after combat and somebody else is doing their Refocus activity for Focus spells. The standardization of 10 minute actions is exactly to allow characters to do their own particular actions, and for a SpellSub Wizard that includes swapping spells, that's what the Thesis is for. Or when swapping spells isn't priority, fixing an ally's Shield since Craft is good skill for you. Or just making Recall Knowledge checks about the foes and clues you just encountered.

You seem to think martials and bard are very effective, but if somebody refused to use their effective abilities, they probably wouldn't be so hot either. Maybe you have certain preconceptions which conflict with 2E Wizard class... There's nothing wrong with that, but refusing to engage with the class as it is, whatever that is, just isn't a formula for success... and complaining it doesn't work when you refuse to work with it hardly seems a fruitful approach.

D&D Wizards were traditionally extremely fragile at low levels, with half the base HPs of Clerics let alone Fighters, with limited spells and weak or awkward weapons which they relied on when spells ran out or weren't appropriate, only having primary advantage in knowledge skills which didn't have direct effect but allowed them and allies to act effectively in informed manner. And everybody did in fact accomodate themselves around their limitations, which coined the term "15 minute adventuring day" (after they run out of spells). IMHO, P2E really is huge step above that tradition in regards to low level viability for Wizards, but maybe it's just not the class for you at this point. Serious fluency in spell list and mechanics has always been part of playing Wizard class which also matched it's theme, and that has never been easy or recommendable to players not familiar with the system.


Deriven Firelion wrote:

They can win without a bard, but they feel the bard there far more than they feel the wizard there. They were making jokes about the wizards uselessness. Laughing at my burning hands and fireball spells when I had a low damage roll or the enemies critically their save. When my summoned creature did nearly nothing and was at best used for flanking, that made them give me the "useless wizard" look as well. I tried a lot of different ways to make the wizard seem good and it was all very underwhelming. 1st level spells don't scale very well at all even when you can start using 3rd and 4th level spells.

Imagine casting a crap 2d6 1st level burning hands because you're out of 3rd level slots or trying to use a 1st level charm on a higher level creature only to have it succeed with a basic saving throw success because of the Incapacitate trait.

Tiresome. Have you read summon and the incapacitate trait? They really weaken spells.

I think it comes from a misuse of the Wizard. You only speak about dealing damage and shutting down enemies with one spell. The second has been completely removed from the game unless you target low level enemies. And the first one is doing great. A Fireball still does tremendous damage if you hit a lot of enemies, I don't even understand how you get no value out of it.

Also, the Wizard has the biggest number of top level spells per day. You can get 5-6 spells of your highest level and 5 of your second highest with first level options (Bond, Thesis and School). Then you have ways to swap them and much more, giving you the most sustainability of all casters.
For 1-action actions, you have Force Bolt, Magic Missile, True Strike. It's not like if there were none of them.
In my opinion, you have too much expectations for the Wizard. And Bard is very very good, comparing anything to Bard is hard for anything.


Maybe part of the problem is the DM.

We can see that enchants have a lvl, which is meant to underline what lvl a character should be in order to get that enchant.

Obviously, the first question which comes in mind is:

"Can I buy those stuff earlier if I have cash? "

By doing so, you could not only lower the difficulty of further encounters, but also create even more disparities in the game.

Imagine a party with a wizard and a fighter. The cleric heals and the rogue is doing sneaky stuff.

If a lvl 5 fighter ( or even a lvl 4 ) already have a Striking rune ( instead of getting it by lvl 6 ), then it is obvious that even a fireball could seem doing low damage for the time it will be available.

2 attacks which deal 2d12+4 ( average 18 dmg per attack )

Vs

A fireball which deals 6d6 ( average 24 dmg on failure, or 12 on success ).

By lvl 7 you will be able to have 2x 8d6 fireballs, whose damage is way better than melee attacks.

Obviously you won't be spamming high lvl magic all day long. Cantrip are also part of your attack routine.

A lvl 7 ray of frost will deal 4d4+4 ( average 16 dmg ) which is not bad.

Same goes for Electric Arc, for multitargeting.

The point is, that given how medicine works, the more you proceed, the worst for a spellcaster And The better for a melee.

I say that 3/4 encounters per day during Early levels could be enough.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Quandary wrote:
None of which is a reason to stop bothering to cast. Even low power actions are beneficial compared to no actions. If the martials can defeat encounter without you doing anything, they can also do so without a bard. Adding powers to a wizard doesn't change whether or not martials can defeat an encounter alone. If they are consistently able to do so VS nominally hard encounters, it is because encounter is especially vulnerable to martial strengths or is otherwise unchallenging (which can include GM lack of tactical skill), so in fact they aren't being challenged if they manage just fine with one party member doing nothing.

They can win without a bard, but they feel the bard there far more than they feel the wizard there. They were making jokes about the wizards uselessness. Laughing at my burning hands and fireball spells when I had a low damage roll or the enemies critically their save. When my summoned creature did nearly nothing and was at best used for flanking, that made them give me the "useless wizard" look as well. I tried a lot of different ways to make the wizard seem good and it was all very underwhelming. 1st level spells don't scale very well at all even when you can start using 3rd and 4th level spells.

Imagine casting a crap 2d6 1st level burning hands because you're out of 3rd level slots or trying to use a 1st level charm on a higher level creature only to have it succeed with a basic saving throw success because of the Incapacitate trait.

Tiresome. Have you read summon and the incapacitate trait? They really weaken spells.

Quote:
A Wizard should also have 1-action Focus spell options, as well as skill usages, Shield and other item usages, moving to Flank or "draw" enemy actions to compensate, as well as weapon attacks which (without MAP attack spell) should have better modifier than average martial 2nd attacks, so certainly viable as 3rd action when compared as such and not to martial 1st or even 2nd attacks. If you're not using
...

None of this sounds like a wizard problem. It sounds like a group problem, undermining the wizard’s usefulness (or joking around with a friend based on rolls not in your favor). I have to agree with others about your spell usage. By the time a wizard has 3rd level and higher spells, (s)he should be using cantrips for secondary damage, while lower level spells should be used for buffs, debuffs, or utility. If the increase in damage of spells you can use all day is not wizardly, I’m not sure what would be. And while incapacitation spells are not as effective at lower level for higher level enemies, not many (22 out of all available spells or so) are affected by it, and even then, they’re not unusable against higher level enemies. They just suffer from high risk, high reward.

As for the assertion that wizard has nothing going for it, I don’t believe that is true. The primary stat aims at knowledge skill usage, while also improving their number of trained skills. Intelligence is also the crafting stat, which can supplement number of spells with scrolls or benefit the party when party level outstrips settlement level. Wizards being able to copy down their spells increases the availability of circumstantial spells. Since wizards aren’t paying for weapon upgrades, there’s no reason they shouldn’t load up on scrolls. Wizards also access the arcane spell list, the most diverse and versatile of the lists available at present. All of this together is what makes the wizard shine: the wizard should rationalize how to take an encounter down, use the best spell in his (or her) arsenal to exploit that knowledge, and if a spell with the appropriate save isn’t in the wizard’s prepared spells for the day, then there should be a scroll to use as a back up.

Also, if I’m not wrong, (some) wizards have an ability to change our spells over a ten minute break, while others can just increase their number of utility, buffing, or debuffing spells for a single higher tier one. Using these would make the class even more useful. That is not even considering the focus spells. With the exception of augment summoning, which is incredibly action intensive, all of the other focus spells look very useful: divine sight gives the equivalent of 5e’s advantage, call of the grave grants sickened (the best condition on an enemy in my opinion), charming words gives self protection even on 3/4 of the results, force bolt is guaranteed damage (more guaranteed than any martial’s attack) for one action, hand of the apprentice gives damage equal to a non-barbarian martial with appropriate runes (which I admit conflicts with using gold for scrolls), physical boost is a great buff, protective ward is a sustained buff to defense like the bard’s inspire defense but from level 1 (takes a little while to reach the entire battlefield, however, and warped terrain can help set up many different tactics with excellent battlefield control.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Narxiso wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Quandary wrote:
None of which is a reason to stop bothering to cast. Even low power actions are beneficial compared to no actions. If the martials can defeat encounter without you doing anything, they can also do so without a bard. Adding powers to a wizard doesn't change whether or not martials can defeat an encounter alone. If they are consistently able to do so VS nominally hard encounters, it is because encounter is especially vulnerable to martial strengths or is otherwise unchallenging (which can include GM lack of tactical skill), so in fact they aren't being challenged if they manage just fine with one party member doing nothing.

They can win without a bard, but they feel the bard there far more than they feel the wizard there. They were making jokes about the wizards uselessness. Laughing at my burning hands and fireball spells when I had a low damage roll or the enemies critically their save. When my summoned creature did nearly nothing and was at best used for flanking, that made them give me the "useless wizard" look as well. I tried a lot of different ways to make the wizard seem good and it was all very underwhelming. 1st level spells don't scale very well at all even when you can start using 3rd and 4th level spells.

Imagine casting a crap 2d6 1st level burning hands because you're out of 3rd level slots or trying to use a 1st level charm on a higher level creature only to have it succeed with a basic saving throw success because of the Incapacitate trait.

Tiresome. Have you read summon and the incapacitate trait? They really weaken spells.

Quote:
A Wizard should also have 1-action Focus spell options, as well as skill usages, Shield and other item usages, moving to Flank or "draw" enemy actions to compensate, as well as weapon attacks which (without MAP attack spell) should have better modifier than average martial 2nd attacks, so certainly viable as 3rd action when compared as such and not to martial 1st or even 2nd
...

You do understand that you get +2 to four stats every five levels? It is very easy to make a bard with high intelligence. It's not like PF1 where the wizard is clearly the most intelligent. He may be slightly more intelligent based on the bard focus.

I used intelligence as one of my better stats. I have an 18 intel compared to the wizard having a 20 at lvl 10 which we just hit. I have all the skills a wizard would have. I'm Craft focused, so am master in crafting.

And the bard starts with Performance and Occultisms plus 4 skills and intel modifier skills compared to the wizard having Arcana with 2 plus intel skills. A bard with a 14 intelligence starts with eight skills while wizard with an 18 intelligence starts with seven.

I don't know how else to show the naysayers that I gave the wizard a real try and found it lacking compared to the bard. The bard is a better designed and more useful class in nearly every situation. From my experience as a DM and player, so is the wizard and druid.

The math supports they are better. All these arguments continue to list all these actions that any class can do as well as the wizard. The bard can easily be built to be better at knowledge skills as well, especially if you take Bardic Lore.

There's nothing other than spell versatility that the wizard is better at. Spell versatility used to be great when spells scaled by level, but with the new magic paradigm spell versatility isn't near as valuable considering only your highest level spell slots are useful due to things like the Incapacitate trait, the limits on summoned creatures, and the way you Heighten Spells.

I'm sure more folks will figure this out on their own as more people play wizards and other casters to higher levels. I think it will mirror my experience having fewer interesting options to use.

People seem to think that when you say weaker, you mean useless or unplayable. That isn't the case. A wizard will still do some useful acts. The class doesn't have as many options or a unique niche compared to other caster classes. Wizard feats, familiars, metamagic, and general all around abilities aren't as interesting or useful as comparative casters save perhaps the sorcerer, which I don't know much about. I don't like playing classes that don't have interesting options or strategies compared to other classes.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

You can not like something, you keep saying you don't like the class and that's okay. But you keep saying that it's poorly designed and either not knowing what that means or just not telling us what you think it means.

As for the math being out, there have been numerous threads proving the that math works just fine. What math are you referring to?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:

You do understand that you get +2 to four stats every five levels? It is very easy to make a bard with high intelligence. It's not like PF1 where the wizard is clearly the most intelligent. He may be slightly more intelligent based on the bard focus.

I used intelligence as one of my better stats. I have an 18 intel compared to the wizard having a 20 at lvl 10 which we just hit. I have all the skills a wizard would have. I'm Craft focused, so am master in crafting.

And the bard starts with Performance and Occultisms plus 4 skills and intel modifier skills compared to the wizard having Arcana with 2 plus intel skills. A bard with a 14 intelligence starts with eight skills while wizard with an 18 intelligence starts with seven.

It's not easy at all to take INT as a Bard. If you took INT, it means that you didn't raise Charisoma, or one of the saving throw attributes.

Quote:
There's nothing other than spell versatility that the wizard is better at. Spell versatility used to be great when spells scaled by level, but with the new magic paradigm spell versatility isn't near as valuable considering only your highest level spell slots are useful due to things like the Incapacitate trait, the limits on summoned creatures, and the way you Heighten Spells.

Did you know that Wizards can sacrifice lower level spells to get more of those higher-level spells that you think are so all-important? Probably not if you wrote that paragraph.

C'mon man. If you know so little about the class as to write something like that, why are you here lecturing us like you're an expert?


Deriven Firelion wrote:
Narxiso wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Quandary wrote:
None of which is a reason to stop bothering to cast. Even low power actions are beneficial compared to no actions. If the martials can defeat encounter without you doing anything, they can also do so without a bard. Adding powers to a wizard doesn't change whether or not martials can defeat an encounter alone. If they are consistently able to do so VS nominally hard encounters, it is because encounter is especially vulnerable to martial strengths or is otherwise unchallenging (which can include GM lack of tactical skill), so in fact they aren't being challenged if they manage just fine with one party member doing nothing.

They can win without a bard, but they feel the bard there far more than they feel the wizard there. They were making jokes about the wizards uselessness. Laughing at my burning hands and fireball spells when I had a low damage roll or the enemies critically their save. When my summoned creature did nearly nothing and was at best used for flanking, that made them give me the "useless wizard" look as well. I tried a lot of different ways to make the wizard seem good and it was all very underwhelming. 1st level spells don't scale very well at all even when you can start using 3rd and 4th level spells.

Imagine casting a crap 2d6 1st level burning hands because you're out of 3rd level slots or trying to use a 1st level charm on a higher level creature only to have it succeed with a basic saving throw success because of the Incapacitate trait.

Tiresome. Have you read summon and the incapacitate trait? They really weaken spells.

Quote:
A Wizard should also have 1-action Focus spell options, as well as skill usages, Shield and other item usages, moving to Flank or "draw" enemy actions to compensate, as well as weapon attacks which (without MAP attack spell) should have better modifier than average martial 2nd attacks, so certainly viable as 3rd action when compared as such and not
...

From reading what the “naysayers” are saying it sounds like they want you to provide specific gameplay examples. You might have done earlier in the thread but this has been going on a while

But if you did the examples must have been vague and/or unconvincing to generate some of the responses they have

And notably there are comments suggesting you haven’t understood all the options of the class. I won’t claim to understand them but there are clearly people who are skeptical about how much you have actually played as a wizard in the 4 months the game has been out

Complaints about things like incapacitate and “spells are weaker now” don’t actually require gameplay experience you see as they have been discussed in so much detail. They also allow for confirmation bias from anyone who has read them

I do wonder whether brand new players have the same issues with wizard as 3.5/1E players do

Also what never seems to be considered is that messing with enemy action economy is a big deal in this edition. So something like Slow can be clutch even on a successful saving throw at higher levels because it can stop an enemy with a nasty three action move from doing it completely. And those with a nasty two action move are highly restricted - for example they won’t be able to move and do it. This is a very big difference in game dynamic between editions that is pretty much never acknowledged


Strill wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:

You do understand that you get +2 to four stats every five levels? It is very easy to make a bard with high intelligence. It's not like PF1 where the wizard is clearly the most intelligent. He may be slightly more intelligent based on the bard focus.

I used intelligence as one of my better stats. I have an 18 intel compared to the wizard having a 20 at lvl 10 which we just hit. I have all the skills a wizard would have. I'm Craft focused, so am master in crafting.

And the bard starts with Performance and Occultisms plus 4 skills and intel modifier skills compared to the wizard having Arcana with 2 plus intel skills. A bard with a 14 intelligence starts with eight skills while wizard with an 18 intelligence starts with seven.

It's not easy at all to take INT as a Bard. If you took INT, it means that you didn't raise Charisoma, or one of the saving throw attributes.

Quote:
There's nothing other than spell versatility that the wizard is better at. Spell versatility used to be great when spells scaled by level, but with the new magic paradigm spell versatility isn't near as valuable considering only your highest level spell slots are useful due to things like the Incapacitate trait, the limits on summoned creatures, and the way you Heighten Spells.

Did you know that Wizards can sacrifice lower level spells to get more of those higher-level spells that you think are so all-important? Probably not if you wrote that paragraph.

C'mon man. If you know so little about the class as to write something like that, why are you here lecturing us like you're an expert?

What is that ability called? And can only wizards do it?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Lanathar wrote:
Strill wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:

You do understand that you get +2 to four stats every five levels? It is very easy to make a bard with high intelligence. It's not like PF1 where the wizard is clearly the most intelligent. He may be slightly more intelligent based on the bard focus.

I used intelligence as one of my better stats. I have an 18 intel compared to the wizard having a 20 at lvl 10 which we just hit. I have all the skills a wizard would have. I'm Craft focused, so am master in crafting.

And the bard starts with Performance and Occultisms plus 4 skills and intel modifier skills compared to the wizard having Arcana with 2 plus intel skills. A bard with a 14 intelligence starts with eight skills while wizard with an 18 intelligence starts with seven.

It's not easy at all to take INT as a Bard. If you took INT, it means that you didn't raise Charisoma, or one of the saving throw attributes.

Quote:
There's nothing other than spell versatility that the wizard is better at. Spell versatility used to be great when spells scaled by level, but with the new magic paradigm spell versatility isn't near as valuable considering only your highest level spell slots are useful due to things like the Incapacitate trait, the limits on summoned creatures, and the way you Heighten Spells.

Did you know that Wizards can sacrifice lower level spells to get more of those higher-level spells that you think are so all-important? Probably not if you wrote that paragraph.

C'mon man. If you know so little about the class as to write something like that, why are you here lecturing us like you're an expert?

What is that ability called? And can only wizards do it?

Spell blending arcane thesis. It's literally a level 1 ability. To miss it shows zero looking at the class

And yes only wizards.


Malk_Content wrote:
Lanathar wrote:
Strill wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:

You do understand that you get +2 to four stats every five levels? It is very easy to make a bard with high intelligence. It's not like PF1 where the wizard is clearly the most intelligent. He may be slightly more intelligent based on the bard focus.

I used intelligence as one of my better stats. I have an 18 intel compared to the wizard having a 20 at lvl 10 which we just hit. I have all the skills a wizard would have. I'm Craft focused, so am master in crafting.

And the bard starts with Performance and Occultisms plus 4 skills and intel modifier skills compared to the wizard having Arcana with 2 plus intel skills. A bard with a 14 intelligence starts with eight skills while wizard with an 18 intelligence starts with seven.

It's not easy at all to take INT as a Bard. If you took INT, it means that you didn't raise Charisoma, or one of the saving throw attributes.

Quote:
There's nothing other than spell versatility that the wizard is better at. Spell versatility used to be great when spells scaled by level, but with the new magic paradigm spell versatility isn't near as valuable considering only your highest level spell slots are useful due to things like the Incapacitate trait, the limits on summoned creatures, and the way you Heighten Spells.

Did you know that Wizards can sacrifice lower level spells to get more of those higher-level spells that you think are so all-important? Probably not if you wrote that paragraph.

C'mon man. If you know so little about the class as to write something like that, why are you here lecturing us like you're an expert?

What is that ability called? And can only wizards do it?

Spell blending arcane thesis. It's literally a level 1 ability. To miss it shows zero looking at the class

And yes only wizards.

Well in my case i fully expect to be GMing so I have not been looking at every class option in detail

But I am not the one providing extensive criticism either. But perhaps I shouldn't be trying to defend it either without doing all the reading...

Is there a way of getting a second thesis?
Because I notice a lot of people saying Wizards are not good as they don't have extra things and they are not proposing a solution

A second thesis seems like a potential step. Indeed the comments completely ignore the thesis at all times (or discount it as not valuable)

That spell blending sounds very very useful at higher levels. And switching spells also seems great. I am not versed enough on improved familiars to judge.

I guess there is a question about whether those abilities are as strong as compositions and the like. But I reiterate that I don't think I have seen wizard complaint discussions acknowledge them at all. They don't mention arcane bond either. It the issue that these arguably don't scale?

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
...

Well, you do know that focusing on intelligence on a bard also leaves other stats lower. Going for intelligence on a bard comes with a steeper opportunity cost than for a wizard. While it’s not impossible (and far more forgiving than most other systems) to have intelligence on a bard, that does leave a defensive stat lower. It’s impossible to be great at everything. Did you know that?

It doesn’t sound like you gave the P2e wizard a try. It sounds like you tried to fit different parts into molds that they aren’t made for. Incapacitation is not nearly as big of a deal as you try to make it out to be. At worst, you can avoid using those spells. There are only 22 of them, and that leaves a whole swath of others to choose from, all of which can be useful in lower slots, especially if you’re not trying to do martial damage with them. There’s command, fear, goblin pox, and spider sting for level 1 spells that can be immediately useful in combat with many more that are buffs or utility at that level alone. And many others without incapacitation are available at later levels.

I don’t know what math you’re talking about showing that bards are designed better. In fact, I don’t see it at all in actual play. I played a bard as my first full release 2e character, and there were many times when I wished we had a wizard to fill in spots and cast in situations where my bard’s spells were not the most effective, such as against a room full of creatures before any martials stepped into the room or even in our last fight when there were three creatures far enough away that a terrain warp, fireball, or other control spell could have been useful. Yes, a bard can be built to fill in the role a wizard naturally fits, but without specific builds, bards can’t fill all of them, such as against anything with weak reflexes. As far as I can tell, they’re equivalent in usefulness, but the entirety of their roles slightly differ.

And by the way, while my group is only level 9 right now (one less than your level 10, if you didn’t know), our caster has been instrumental in our success so far. He may not cause the most damage, but he has completely reduced damage against the party and increased our damage against enemies, making fights go by faster. In fact, he’s my vote for group MVP. And he’s not a bard.

I’m just saying that I’d take a balanced party with a wizard any day, unless players are trying to do things in classes that they’re not designed to do and complain about it.


Lanathar wrote:

Well in my case i fully expect to be GMing so I have not been looking at every class option in detail

But I am not the one providing extensive criticism either. But perhaps I shouldn't be trying to defend it either without doing all the reading...

Is there a way of getting a second thesis?
Because I notice a lot of people saying Wizards are not good as they don't have extra things and they are not proposing a solution

A second thesis seems like a potential step. Indeed the comments completely ignore the thesis at all times (or discount it as not valuable)

That spell blending sounds very very useful at higher levels. And switching spells also seems great. I am not versed enough on improved familiars to judge.

I guess there is a question about whether those abilities are as strong as compositions and the like. But I reiterate that I don't think I have seen wizard complaint discussions acknowledge them at all. They don't mention arcane bond either. It the issue that these arguably don't scale?

Arcane Bond does scale. With the level 8 feat Bond Conservation, when you use Arcane Bond, you can use it again for free on the following action, but the next spell has to be at least 2 levels lower. You can chain this together to get oodles of bonus spell uses.

For example, if you cast a 9th-level spell, you can use Bond Conservation to cast a 7th-level spell again for free on the following turn, and then use it again to cast a 5th-level spell on the turn after that, and then a 3rd-level spell, and then a 1st-level spell.

If you're a Universalist Wizard, you get one use of Arcane Bond for every spell slot level, and each of those arcane bond uses can be used with the above technique, meaning you can do this over and over again to get huge piles of extra spell casts, all on top of the ordinary spell spell slots you already had. With this build you get way, way, way more spell uses than any other caster.


Strill wrote:
Lanathar wrote:

Well in my case i fully expect to be GMing so I have not been looking at every class option in detail

But I am not the one providing extensive criticism either. But perhaps I shouldn't be trying to defend it either without doing all the reading...

Is there a way of getting a second thesis?
Because I notice a lot of people saying Wizards are not good as they don't have extra things and they are not proposing a solution

A second thesis seems like a potential step. Indeed the comments completely ignore the thesis at all times (or discount it as not valuable)

That spell blending sounds very very useful at higher levels. And switching spells also seems great. I am not versed enough on improved familiars to judge.

I guess there is a question about whether those abilities are as strong as compositions and the like. But I reiterate that I don't think I have seen wizard complaint discussions acknowledge them at all. They don't mention arcane bond either. It the issue that these arguably don't scale?

Arcane Bond does scale. With the level 8 feat Bond Conservation, when you use Arcane Bond, you can use it again for free on the following action, but the next spell has to be at least 2 levels lower. You can chain this together to get oodles of bonus spell uses.

For example, if you cast a 9th-level spell, you can use Bond Conservation to cast a 7th-level spell again for free on the following turn, and then use it again to cast a 5th-level spell on the turn after that, and then a 3rd-level spell, and then a 1st-level spell.

If you're a Universalist Wizard, you get one use of Arcane Bond for every spell slot level, and each of those arcane bond uses can be used with the above technique, meaning you can do this over and over again to get huge piles of extra spell casts, all on top of the ordinary spell spell slots you already had. With this build you get way, way, way more spell uses than any other caster.

Thanks. I hadn’t spotted the universalist thing

I found that feat immediately after posting.

I did say “arguably” regarding the scaling in an attempt to try and raise a potential counter argument that people who don’t like wizards could raise . They might think there should be more organic scaling. Or they might just be ignoring it...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Deriven Firelion wrote:
The class doesn't have as many options or a unique niche compared to other caster classes.

The class that effectively has unlimited spells known and can literally change what they are capable of doing every single time they do their daily preparations doesn't have as many options?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Fumarole wrote:
The class that effectively has unlimited spells known

People always seem to take for granted the idea that a Wizard can just know their whole spell list like a Cleric or Druid but in practice that's really... not the case. You're heavily limited by whatever downtime the GM allows you to have, the spell access the GM gives you and the amount of money you're willing to spend.

If you have to learn spells off scrolls it gets ridiculously expensive to try to fill out your spellbook.

Realistically a Wizard is going to spend most of a campaign knowing only a handful of spells more than a Sorcerer and even when they do start adding more spells known they can only really do it in bulk with significantly lower level ones.

Not nothing, but they're going to be way behind a Druid or Cleric and it's a far cry from "unlimited spells."


I really dont see were the idea of wizards having infinite spells known came from. They were always very limited in how many spells they knew, and how many they could carry at a time.

The limit was an an important part of why Wizard players needed to be creative in their use of spells. It's also part of why Illusions were so hard to balance, under fair rules a creative player could turn illusions into a highly effective tool in and out combat; Setting up ambushes, hiding pits/dangerous terrain, confusing the enemy (distraction and subterfuge), anti enemy moral (psychological attacks), copying spells (fake walls, pits and things), etc.


Temperans wrote:
I really dont see were the idea of wizards having infinite spells known came from. They were always very limited in how many spells they knew, and how many they could carry at a time.

It comes from a long legacy of little details.

It starts with AD&D era stuff presenting a rule where how many spells in the spellbook of each spell level was limited by Intelligence score, but a particularly high score had "all" listed instead of a number.

Then it got bolstered by there having been published adventures in which the party can get spellbooks as treasure which have huge numbers of spells in them.

And it continues because it's not only touted as a feature by the game that a wizard can end up with more spells to prepare from than other casters with access to the Arcane spell list, but the wealth expectations support it since a wizard's share of treasure doesn't have as many necessities to cover (i.e. you don't need an equivalent to weapon potency or striking, so you can spend that on scrolls - and since copying doesn't use up the scroll, you get the bonus of being able to use an extra casting at some point on top of expanding your book)

I do have to point out though that it's not "infinite spells known" it's just "more than anyone else can have, and theoretically all of them in the book" and the counter-argument of "but downtime isn't guaranteed" is a logic that applies to literally everything in the game (it is "but that situational thing is situational") so it's irrelevant.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not sure "I say it's irrelevant so just please ignore it" is how any of this works.

There are very real costs to trying to fill out your spellbook. Trying to simply handwave it away is how you get people spouting stuff like "effectively unlimited spells known" and being serious about it.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Squiggit wrote:
There are very real costs to trying to fill out your spellbook.

Indeed, but the costs only apply when you attempt to copy a spell into your own spellbook. Spells can be prepared from other sources with a skill check using Borrow An Arcane Spell. Hence the qualification on my original statement.


Of course the cost doesnt apply when you are borrowing a spell, you didnt copy the spell (it's not a spell "known"). Not to mention that's like saying "A Fighter [Wizard] can use infinitely different weapons [Spell] because he can just borrow them", which is completely different then saying "The Fighter [Wizard] owns infinitely different weapons [Spells]".

In both cases it's impossible for it to happen because there just isnt enough time or money to do so. So for most of the game the wizard wont actually be able to learn new spells outside level up. (The campaign would need to allow enough downtime in a place with new spells for it to happen, which isnt always the case).

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Temperans wrote:
In both cases it's impossible for it to happen because there just isnt enough time or money to do so. So for most of the game the wizard wont actually be able to learn new spells outside level up. (The campaign would need to allow enough downtime in a place with new spells for it to happen, which isnt always the case).

Which as a part of being a Caster who learns their spells the GM needs to accommodate that. Not allowing the Wizard to learn new spells is a GM issue, not a system one.


I wont deny that, but it's a problem of both.

The system is set up so you can only learn so many spells (time and money).
The GM has to determine how many spell he will let you try to get (how much time and/or money will he give).

The only way to have infinite spells is with cheese by going to a plane with much faster time with some type of gold generation (like philosopher stone), you will ofcourse become super old doing that.

Now I have an idea for a setting where Wizards go to a hyperbolic time chamber to learn/create new spells and come out with gray beards. That's why they leave in towers, so that people cant learn of their Trick for power. (Its also why they have the youth spell, to fool people afterwards).


Temperans wrote:
In both cases it's impossible for it to happen because there just isnt enough time or money to do so.

If a wizard claims an enemy spellbook during an adventure in PF2, they don't have to spend any time or money to use those spells.

They can use the Borrow an Arcane Spell action: it has no cost, it takes no longer than preparing spells normally does, and according to the book "it's typically a bit easier than Learning the Spell"

It's just not completely guaranteed to work because a die roll does get involved - there isn't even much of a consequence for failing the check, since it just means you can't try preparing that one spell until your next preparations.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Temperans wrote:
In both cases it's impossible for it to happen because there just isnt enough time or money to do so. So for most of the game the wizard wont actually be able to learn new spells outside level up. (The campaign would need to allow enough downtime in a place with new spells for it to happen, which isnt always the case).
Which as a part of being a Caster who learns their spells the GM needs to accommodate that. Not allowing the Wizard to learn new spells is a GM issue, not a system one.

A GM never letting a wizard learn new spells is a GM issue. A class needing to perfectly prepare for every battle to be equally effective to other classes that rarely prepare is a system issue.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Temperans wrote:
In both cases it's impossible for it to happen because there just isnt enough time or money to do so. So for most of the game the wizard wont actually be able to learn new spells outside level up. (The campaign would need to allow enough downtime in a place with new spells for it to happen, which isnt always the case).
Which as a part of being a Caster who learns their spells the GM needs to accommodate that. Not allowing the Wizard to learn new spells is a GM issue, not a system one.
A GM never letting a wizard learn new spells is a GM issue. A class needing to perfectly prepare for every battle to be equally effective to other classes that rarely prepare is a system issue.

Thankfully the latter is not demanded.


Fumarole wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
The class doesn't have as many options or a unique niche compared to other caster classes.
The class that effectively has unlimited spells known and can literally change what they are capable of doing every single time they do their daily preparations doesn't have as many options?

First, it doesn't have unlimited spells known. Arcane list has a lot spells, but not even close to unlimited.

Second, useful spells due to the new way spell mechanics work only makes the highest level slots useful.

Third, wizard has only one more spell slot and one focus spell more than a bard.

I'd rather have a bard cantrip or druid animal companion that always works at every level than to try to have the perfect spell ready in my 6 to 9 highest level slots.

Once again, have you read the Incapacitate trait or the summon limitations?

My bard spells can be heightened as needed with signature spells. So far my bard spells are more versatile than my wizard's spells were. Occult has Shadow Blast. A 5th level spell that can be used for 5d8 any type of damage in various areas that I can have as a signature spell. Whereas a 5th lvl fireball does 10d6 damage if the wizard prepares a 5th level fireball for the day.

The wizard casts his 1 10d6 fireball and has nothing else he can do for 35 fire damage.

The bard casts his 5d8 shadowblast for 22 damage and casts his Inspire Courage bard cantrip to boost the damage and attack capabilities of his party in the same round.

The wizard's lvl 5 prepared fireball is all done. The bard can use his other lvl 5 slots to cast another shadow blast with his cantrip or one of his other three choices.

People touting this spell versatility act as though the bard doesn't have good spells on his occult list. They are acting like every spell on the Arcane list is equally useful and the wizard has them all in his book.

One thing I guarantee is the bard inspire courage is always 100% of the time useful in combat and so is inspire defense. Wizard has no class ability close to either of those songs. And his spell versatility that takes time, preparation, and requires he have the spells in his book do not make up for what he lacks.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Second, useful spells due to the new way spell mechanics work only makes the highest level slots useful.
Entirely dependent on the spell.
Quote:
Once again, have you read the Incapacitate trait or the summon limitations?

Have you? Not all spells have Incapacitate on them.


Narxiso wrote:
Well, you do know that focusing on intelligence on a bard also leaves other stats lower. Going for intelligence on a bard comes with a steeper opportunity cost than for a wizard. While it’s not impossible (and far more forgiving than most other systems) to have intelligence on a bard, that does leave a defensive stat lower. It’s impossible to be great at everything. Did you know that?

It does not come at a deeper opportunity cost. Not sure why you believe this.

You get four stats get +2 to +1...2/3rds of your stats. Do the math. No you don't have to be lacking. I am lvl 10. At lvl 10 I have raised Int, Con, Wis, Cha. I don't need dex because unless you're armor focused, it's best to just raise Con. I mostly stay out of battle.

This isn't a single stat increase like PF1 where you have to hyper focus on a single stat. You get four stat boosts every 5 levels. Very easy to raise intel.

Quote:
It doesn’t sound like you gave the P2e wizard a try. It sounds like you tried to fit different parts into molds that they aren’t made for. Incapacitation is not nearly as big of a deal as you try to make it out to be. At worst, you can avoid using those spells. There are only 22 of them, and that leaves a whole swath of others to choose from, all of which can be useful in lower slots, especially if you’re not trying to do martial damage with them. There’s command, fear, goblin pox, and spider sting for level 1 spells that can be immediately useful in combat with many more that are buffs or utility at that level alone. And many others without incapacitation are available at later levels.

I played the wizard to lvl 5. Maybe it gets better. I'll let others figure it out. At the moment, I'm a bard-wizard archetype and having more fun and feeling more useful.

Quote:
I don’t know what math you’re talking about showing that bards are designed better. In fact, I don’t see it at all in actual play. I played a bard as my first full release 2e character, and there were many times when I wished we had a wizard to fill in spots and cast in situations where my bard’s spells were not the most effective, such as against a room full of creatures before any martials stepped into the room or even in our last fight when there were three creatures far enough away that a terrain warp, fireball, or other control spell could have been useful. Yes, a bard can be built to fill in the role a wizard naturally fits, but without specific builds, bards can’t fill all of them, such as against anything with weak reflexes. As far as I can tell, they’re equivalent in usefulness, but the entirety of their roles slightly differ.

The math that shows useful options within the PF2 framework where having a strong 1 action option is huge.

Quote:

And by the way, while my group is only level 9 right now (one less than your level 10, if you didn’t know), our caster has been instrumental in our success so far. He may not cause the most damage, but he has completely reduced damage against the party and increased our damage against enemies, making fights go by faster. In fact, he’s my vote for group MVP. And he’s not a bard.

I’m just saying that I’d take a balanced party with a wizard any day, unless players are trying to do things in classes that they’re not designed to do and complain about it.

I'd take a bard over a wizard. Is your caster a wizard? Wizard is the only class I've seen weak and sorcerer I don't know about.

Since you have more experience than I do with the wizard, what is your wizard doing for his single actions or use of focus points? I'd be interested to know, truly. I like real data. If you have a real group with a wizard player, I'd like some info on how they do the job. What specialty they are. what they are using their one action for.

My bard at the moment mostly uses Harmonize with Inspire Courage and inspire defense with occasional focus point use for Inspire Heroics to give a slightly larger burst. Both those cantrips have been extremely useful.

Inspire Courage: +1 status bonus attack, damage, and fear saves in 60 foot emanation.

Inspire Defense: +1 status bonus AC, saves, and half level to physical damage in 60 foot emanation.

Those two spells are effective for many battles.

When I want to add some damage or cast a spell in support like haste or fly, I cut back to one of the above cantrips and cast my spell.

What does your wizard do for single action option? That part interests me greatly.


Lanathar wrote:

Is there a way of getting a second thesis?

Because I notice a lot of people saying Wizards are not good as they don't have extra things and they are not proposing a solution.

I have solutions that I think would good. My main issue with the wizard is the lack of effective one action options.

Now some of these can be mitigated later. For example, you can get a feat that allows you to sustain a spell as a free action. This would allow you to sustain a summon for no extra cost. Which would be helpful. Problem is the summons are not that great at the moment. Some of these summons may improve with additional monster books, but at the moment an appropriate level summon is pretty lame.

The familiar is really useless. I'm sure someone will regale us with tales of the useful familiar, but on average they seem pretty useless. They were never great, but they didn't have a real cost for the old wizard either. Every wizard had a familiar for free without spending anything to obtain one. Even those old familiars were more useful than and less limited than the new ones.

Now if the familiar arcane thesis were some kind of elemental or monstrous servant like a druid animal companion, that would be enormously attractive. I'd probably still be playing my wizard if I had a familiar/summoned battle companion to use my 1 action on.

I think the metamagic option would be better if metamagic feats were better. Even Quicken Spell is one time a day. There are no ways to boost damage for metamagic. There are no ways to make DCs harder. Metamagic is mainly to increase range or area of spells. That just isn't a very useful ability the vast majority of the time.

I took the metamagic Arcane Thesis hoping for better metamagic options at a later time. I found Reach and Widen spell to both be feats I rarely used. Not much of the metamagic given the limitations looked very interesting.

My feeling is they went too far hammering the wizard. Magic needed some reining in. For the most part every caster is pretty well done. Wizard is primarily as good as his magic given he doesn't have many useful class abilities and magic is lacking in many ways given the lack of spell scaling and certain traits making spells very limited in effectiveness.


Lanathar wrote:
From reading what the “naysayers” are saying it sounds like they want you to provide specific gameplay examples. You might have done earlier in the thread but this has been going on a while

I can list what playing the wizard was like.

Cast a cantrip and erect the shield spell or move.

Cast a burning hands with widen metamgic do 6 points of a damage to 3 targets depending on saves.

Cast a grim tendrils on a few targets for 4d4 damage. Half made saves doing piddling damage.

I was a necromancy focused wizard. I never used my focus point because the necromancy 1st lvl focus spell sucked.

I cast a lvl 2 summon spell too. I can't remember what I summoned. I think it had +6 or +8 to hit and missed a lot doing barely any damage.

I quit after I cast my 3rd level fireball spell on a group. Rolled crappy damage, had half the enemy make their saves, and barely have any effect on the combat.

Our bard player had stopped showing up to the game due to frequency of play. All the other players were unhappy the bard had left and were giving me the "Keep playing the wizard if you're having fun" words, while continuing to complain they missed the bard. My wizard didn't feel like he was having much of an impact compared to the bard who was buffing the party and providing good support spell use and abilities.

So I switched to bard at lvl 5 and never looked back. Occult spell list has a lot of good spells. Is fairly versatile inherently. The bard compositions are amazing. I'm providing more bang for the buck as a contributor to the game.

I took the wizard archetype feats. I get a lot of spell versatility on top of my bard abilities. It fits well with my concept of a bard named Kilgrave Ghostwhisper that talks to ghosts to learn ancient histories, songs, and information.


The wizard blasts while the bard doesn’t.

And if a wizard would liKe to inspire courage or defense, he can do it by lvl 8.

There are not that much issues.

I personally would prefer to have a bard only if we had a full melee party.

And Fortunately, our party doesn't mass melee.


Strill wrote:
It's not easy at all to take INT as a Bard. If you took INT, it means that you didn't raise Charisoma, or one of the saving throw attributes.

Am I reading something wrong? I get four stat boosts? 2/3rds of my total stats? It's not hard to raise intel with four stat boosts. A bard wizard doesn't need strength. I do intel instead of dex. Dex is mostly damaging spells and AC which doesn't seem high enough unless you're armor focused.

Quote:

Did you know that Wizards can sacrifice lower level spells to get more of those higher-level spells that you think are so all-important? Probably not if you wrote that paragraph.

C'mon man. If you know so little about the class as to write something like that, why are you here lecturing us like you're an expert?

Are you talking about the spell blending arcane thesis? You only get one thesis. I took Metamagic thesis. Is everyone supposed to take spell blending?


Ruzza wrote:

You can not like something, you keep saying you don't like the class and that's okay. But you keep saying that it's poorly designed and either not knowing what that means or just not telling us what you think it means.

As for the math being out, there have been numerous threads proving the that math works just fine. What math are you referring to?

Link me to some threads showing a comparison of the bard cantrip use both for offense and defense in combat compared to wizard. I'd love to see those threads.

I've made it quite clear what I mean by poorly designed.

The wizard does not have effective and interesting 1 action options compared to the bard, druid, or cleric. Or inherent class abilities using focus points that match the bard, cleric, or druid.

I've made this clear multiple times. I keep hearing "spell versatility" or they can do these things that every class can do like recall knowledge. Or their intelligence, their intelligence, like we're still playing PF1 with only a one stat increase every 4 levels. This is PF2 where it is very easy for a class to focus on intelligence with four stats increased every 5 levels.

How about you point out to me what unique actions a wizard can do with their 1 action options that bards, clerics, and druids don't have better, more interesting, or more outstanding similar options to use? That would be a good first step in this discussion.

I have posted multiple examples of what a bard can do with their 1 action options for both offense and defense. I've also posted what a druid can do. I've yet to hear back from the pro-wizard crowd on what their interesting, useful, and equally effective 1 action options are.


HumbleGamer wrote:

Imagine a party with a wizard and a fighter. The cleric heals and the rogue is doing sneaky stuff.

If a lvl 5 fighter ( or even a lvl 4 ) already have a Striking rune ( instead of getting it by lvl 6 ), then it is obvious that even a fireball could seem doing low damage for the time it will be available.

2 attacks which deal 2d12+4 ( average 18 dmg per attack )

Vs

A fireball which deals 6d6 ( average 24 dmg on failure, or 12 on success ).

By lvl 7 you will be able to have 2x 8d6 fireballs, whose damage is way better than melee attacks.

Obviously you won't be spamming high lvl magic all day long. Cantrip are also part of your attack routine.

I picked up Shadow Blast. A highly versatile occult spell that does 5d8 damage. It does less pure damage, but is less limited than fireball. I can do some good AoE damage while I'm boosting or defending the party with my bard cantrips. I can exploit energy weaknesses on the fly with Shadow Blast. It's a good spell. Check it out.

Quote:
A lvl 7 ray of frost will deal 4d4+4 ( average 16 dmg ) which is not bad.

I took that cantrip with my wizard archetype feat.

Quote:
Same goes for Electric Arc, for multitargeting.

I took electric arc with a feat. That is a good cantrip. And got two more Arcane Cantrips with my wizard archetype multiclass feat. I'm all good there.

Quote:

The point is, that given how medicine works, the more you proceed, the worst for a spellcaster And The better for a melee.

I say that 3/4 encounters per day during Early levels could be enough.

Medicine keeps things going a lot longer. I have a healer cleric who is medicine focused. He can keep the party in combat a long, long time.


SuperBidi wrote:
I think it comes from a misuse of the Wizard. You only speak about dealing damage and shutting down enemies with one spell. The second has been completely removed from the game unless you target low level enemies. And the first one is doing great. A Fireball still does tremendous damage if you hit a lot of enemies, I don't even understand how you get no value out of it.

I got value out of it. It didn't do zero damage. It's not a precise spell, so you have to set it up not to hit your party. Usually opening with it is best.

I get more value from Shadow Blast[/] with a bard composition cantrip than I do from [i]fireball on it's own. The number of times that +1 attack and damage has added to a battle making a miss a hit or a boosting overall damage given all the attack rolls of a six person party and fireball doesn't see so interesting.

Quote:
Also, the Wizard has the biggest number of top level spells per day. You can get 5-6 spells of your highest level and 5 of your second highest with first level options (Bond, Thesis and School). Then you have ways to swap them and much more, giving you the most sustainability of all casters.

You can get nearly as many spells from taking the wizard spell archetype with your base bard class along with your bard spells. Occult spell list isn't bad at all. Phantasmal Killer quite a good spell. As is confusion and shadow blast. You also get access to flyinvis and haste. So you can use your arcane spells form wizard spell feats to round out some energy damage and transport spells if they are needed.

Quote:

For 1-action actions, you have Force Bolt, Magic Missile, True Strike. It's not like if there were none of them.

In my opinion, you have too much expectations for the Wizard. And Bard is very very good, comparing anything to Bard is hard for anything.

Bard may be too good. You are right. Though I'd rather see the wizard boosted than the bard nerfed.

Druid seems pretty good too. That animal companion can be nasty. No duration. Good damage. He can't be dispelled. Send him while you cast or melee. 1 action to use.

I thought about taking the Evocation school, but I went with necromancy. At least i would have had a reason to use my focus point with evocation. That force bolt being 1 action better than the two action Call of the Grave. No idea why Call of the Grave is two actions when a bard can do that to an entire group for 1 action Dirge of Doom with no save or hit roll.

151 to 200 of 205 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Woefully disappointed All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.