| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have created a guide to the Pathfinder Second Edition Wizard.
HERE IS THE FIRST DRAFT. I would appreciate your comments and criticisms.
Also, enjoy!
Seems like a good guide! One minor correction, in your fighter/wizard build example, you talk about bows being two-handed weapons. They actually require 1+ hands, which means that you need both hands to fire it but don't need to spend an action to put your hand back on. Even if it didn't, you don't need to let go of a two-handed weapon in order to cast spells unless it has a material component.
Seems like a good guide! One minor correction, in your fighter/wizard build example, you talk about bows being two-handed weapons. They actually require 1+ hands, which means that you need both hands to fire it but don't need to spend an action to put your hand back on.
You're right, Salamileg. My players and I (or maybe just I) have been doing it wrong!
What I learned from writing my first guide is that I learned a lot about the game by writing about it and I learned a lot more by being corrected. :-)
Even if it didn't, you don't need to let go of a two-handed weapon in order to cast spells unless it has a material component.
I don't think that's a lot of spells, though.
However, as you point out, the point is moot!
This is really good and tons of information so thank you! Glad to see 1st draft too so it seems as though it will be updated as more content is released. I like how you made sample build templates. I'll be taking more time read more, but so far so good!
I'm glad you liked it. Yes, I edited my first guide (to the 1e Transmuter wizard) dozens of times, giving it four major revisions. I think the first major revision to that document was two days after its release when it was pointed out to me how hopelessly wrong-headed I was on the subject of familiars.
I hope to keep this one reasonably up to date, real life permitting.
I have created a guide to the Pathfinder Second Edition Wizard.
HERE IS THE FIRST DRAFT. I would appreciate your comments and criticisms.
Also, enjoy!
Very good work. I liked the you have presented the maths details of the Summon Monster and the Battle Form spells.
It's not the most complex of cross-analyses, but I felt it was enough for a rough comparison. I'm glad it made sense!
Would you want to list the Backgrounds that have INT available? I only saw a few listed but many more with INT as an option.
I like that backgrounds are good RP fodder and prompts.
Very cool, Tarondor!
A few comments:
You might consider breaking the document into sections with the spells and the summons as different sections. Those sections might be useful to non-wizards too. But that's just a stylistic/editing comment.
Ranger Wizard is a cool idea and I'm interested to see that it's not horrible. The Monster Hunter feat might be a great pick up for such a character since it allows you to Recall Knowledge for free with the Hunt Prey action and on a crit you give everyone a +1 to hit. With your high Int, any Arcane or Occult identification gives you a good shot, and you probably get knowledge regardless.
Note that there are creatures with a 0 level that you could summon. Most are strictly worse than the level 1 creatures that you could get, but some have unique abilities like the Leaf Leshy that can glide in the air, or our old friend the pugwampi with its Unluck Aura. Also, the way summoning works if a creature's abilities require 3 actions, it's effectively unable to use it since it only gets 2 actions per your sustainment.
Your evaluation of Dex is off to me. I'd go so far as to make the stat blue. When you are advocating the use of unarmored defense, you have to prioritize reaching 20 Dex as soon as possible. Every point off of maximum AC incurs inflicts extra 10% of the base damage of any attack directed at you. Considering each point of dex down also makes you take an additional 7.5% of the base damage from reflex save effects, Dex is the most important damage mitigation stat by far for any unarmored or lightly armored character.
As for factual corrections, blur/concealment only provides a 20% miss chance, not 25%, because a 5 on the flat check is a success.
Surviving the early levels as a wizard is rather hard if you want to be at all useful. Picking up some armor through a dedication or general feat is almost certainly the right thing to do. Grabbing an actual shield for +2 AC at low levels is also almost certainly right as well.
Would you want to list the Backgrounds that have INT available? I only saw a few listed but many more with INT as an option.
I like that backgrounds are good RP fodder and prompts.
Remember that every background comes with at least one unallocated ability score bump. That means you can derive Intelligence from any of them, so I didn't really take that into consideration when evaluating the backgrounds. I was instead looking at the other things on offer.
Your evaluation of Dex is off to me. I'd go so far as to make the stat blue. When you are advocating the use of unarmored defense, you have to prioritize reaching 20 Dex as soon as possible. Every point off of maximum AC incurs inflicts extra 10% of the base damage of any attack directed at you.
I appreciate your input, but I have to give this idea a hard disagree. AC isn't terribly useful to a wizard. In fact, if you're not going to go the heavy armor route, I'd more or less ignore it after 5th level or so. The fact is that if you are a wizard, your unarmored AC (even with a high DEX) is not going to save you. The crazy barbarian is going to hit you if all he has to contend with is AC. His bonus to hit is going to mean that your AC is a paltry defense nearly always.
In 2e, your unarmored AC will be much better than it might have been in previous editions, but you're still going to be hit more than 50% of the time and you don't have the hit points or damage reduction of the front line fighters
The main way to avoid damage as a wizard is not to be where the damage is. At low levels, stand in the back. As soon as you can climb, levitate or fly, get up and get out of the melee. The other main thing you can do is get more hit points (real or temporary).
In addition to that, use spells like blink, blur, mirror image and invisibility to avoid being targeted or to impose a blanket miss chance.
Does that mean AC is bad? Of course not! It's great! Get some! But wizards have to rely on layered defenses, including AC, spells and positioning.
Anyway, there's nothing wrong with a high-Dexterity wizard, but it's certainly not a must in my opinion.
You might consider breaking the document into sections with the spells and the summons as different sections. Those sections might be useful to non-wizards too. But that's just a stylistic/editing comment.
I'm not sure I understand, ET. Do you mean different documents? Or just reorganizing the structure of this document?
Ranger Wizard is a cool idea and I'm interested to see that it's not horrible. The Monster Hunter feat might be a great pick up for such a character since it allows you to Recall Knowledge for free with the Hunt Prey action and on a crit you give everyone a +1 to hit. With your high Int, any Arcane or Occult identification gives you a good shot, and you probably get knowledge regardless.
Okay, thanks. I'll give that a look. I don't know anything about it.
Note that there are creatures with a 0 level that you could summon. Most are strictly worse than the level 1 creatures that you could get, but some have unique abilities like the Leaf Leshy that can glide in the air, or our old friend the pugwampi with its Unluck Aura. Also, the way summoning works if a creature's abilities require 3 actions, it's effectively unable to use it since it only gets 2 actions per your sustainment.
Hmm... I'll take a look at 0-level creatures. I hadn't really considered them because the spell calls for 1st level creatures.
As for 3-action powers, that's true, but how common are those?
Got to the Champion Dedication part:
Typo in point #5. I believe you meant drop DEX to 10.
On the note of Heavy Armor for a Wizard, if you're not worried about skill checks, you could buy a Wand of Longstrider Heightened to Lvl 2 which could offset 10ft of the Armor Speed penalty.
Either way, for a wizard, it's a great wand to buy for the mobility (likely you mention it in the Spell analysis, but wanted to point it out specific to the Champion Dedication and armor penalties)
As for factual corrections, blur/concealment only provides a 20% miss chance, not 25%, because a 5 on the flat check is a success.
Oops! Thanks!
Surviving the early levels as a wizard is rather hard if you want to be at all useful. Picking up some armor through a dedication or general feat is almost certainly the right thing to do.
Again, I don't agree. I did show several builds where that was done, but I wouldn't advocate it for the average wizard unless that wizard had a very low Dex. And even then I'd rather use the feat to do something cool.
Grabbing an actual shield for +2 AC at low levels is also
almost certainly right as well.
I question your use of the word "right". Is it doable? Heck yeah. Maybe I should mention that as a possibility. But the easy access to the shield cantrip seems to mitigate the value of an actual shield somewhat. Yeah, the +1 AC is nice, but shields are heavy and can break.
Got to the Champion Dedication part:
Typo in point #5. I believe you meant drop DEX to 10.
Thanks. Fixed.
On the note of Heavy Armor for a Wizard, if you're not worried about skill checks, you could buy a Wand of Longstrider Heightened to Lvl 2 which could offset 10ft of the Armor Speed penalty.
Either way, for a wizard, it's a great wand to buy for the mobility (likely you mention it in the Spell analysis, but wanted to point it out specific to the Champion Dedication and armor penalties)
I assume you would be concerned about skill checks if you're a physical guy wearing physical armor, so I recommend the Strength to effectively use any armor you choose to wear.
Yes, I rated longstrider as BLUE. It's a great spell. Still, if you're wearing heavy armor all the time you may want to consider the Fleet feet (or one of several other feats that do the same thing) to negate the speed penalty.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your evaluation of Dex is off to me. I'd go so far as to make the stat blue. When you are advocating the use of unarmored defense, you have to prioritize reaching 20 Dex as soon as possible. Every point off of maximum AC incurs inflicts extra 10% of the base damage of any attack directed at you.I appreciate your input, but I have to give this idea a hard disagree. AC isn't terribly useful to a wizard. In fact, if you're not going to go the heavy armor route, I'd more or less ignore it after 5th level or so. The fact is that if you are a wizard, your unarmored AC (even with a high DEX) is not going to save you. The crazy barbarian is going to hit you if all he has to contend with is AC. His bonus to hit is going to mean that your AC is a paltry defense nearly always.
In 2e, your unarmored AC will be much better than it might have been in previous editions, but you're still going to be hit more than 50% of the time and you don't have the hit points or damage reduction of the front line fighters
The main way to avoid damage as a wizard is not to be where the damage is. At low levels, stand in the back. As soon as you can climb, levitate or fly, get up and get out of the melee.
In addition to that, use spells like blink, blur, mirror image and invisibility to avoid being targeted or to impose a blanket miss chance.
Does that mean AC is bad? Of course not! It's great! Get some! But wizards have to rely on layered defenses, including AC, spells and positioning.
Anyway, there's nothing wrong with a high-Dexterity wizard, but it's certainly not a must in my opinion.
I certainly agree that layered defenses are necessary for the wizard to survive. I just think AC is the most fundamental of those layers at the levels less than 11 or so. Your AC as a caster will eventually be 3 points less than heavy armor martials, but by that time you will have a lot of alternate defenses. Up until level 11, though, you will only have 1 less AC than the heavy armor martials other than the champion if you max out your AC. If you take advantage of your range and use your spare action to raise a shield, you'll have better AC than a lot of martials.
I think if you don't come close to maxing out AC, you'll have a hard time using Electric Arc in the early levels without just getting blown out of the water. Not using Electric Arc will drastically reduce your damage output and usefulness. I just think there isn't any way around it other than the heavy armor route if you want to play a useful character up to level 7.
Hmm, well, the wizards I've seen and played would beg to disagree! :-) They're all still alive.
Explain the electric arc thing, please. What does that have to do with armor?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry but I will make critics. To me, you have one vision of the Wizard and you miss a lot of things in your guide.
First, you say that Universalists have more spells than Specialists. It's the opposite, they have less spells than specialists (Specialists have one extra spell of each and every level, too, so they have one extra spell over Universalists).
I agree that AC is not the best damage mitigation for a 6 hit points class (Constitution is better) but you miss the critical hits. Having crappy AC is a liability. Also, Bow Wizards are very efficient (and elven Wizards are a very common trope). Dexterity needs a green.
Spell Bending is not 'situational'. A spell bender uses it every day on all his spell slots.
Spell Substitution is not 'situational'. A spell substituer uses it a lot every day.
In my opinion, you haven't understood how they work and what builds you are supposed to make with them.
Familiars are managed in very different ways by different DMs. With some DMs, you just never take a Familiar as it's a wasted ability. A variable ability shouldn't be blue. Also, I think it's a very personal point of view, I see Familiars as being nice, but nowhere close to the efficiency of Spell Blending and Spell Substitution.
Sorcerer Archetype is major for a Wizard, basic archetype for me. For Dangerous Sorcery alone. And Sorcerer focus spells are nicer than Wizard's ones. It should at least be blue.
Also, Force Bolt is very nice. It's a free one action Magic Missile. It's kind of the basic focus spell, it's either blue or green.
In my opinion, you don't build Wizards to be combat-optimized.
The best defense for a wizard is none of these things, of course. The best defense is having a friendly fighter between you and the enemy. The wizard should never be where he's likely to be in melee. Sure, you can come up with a scenario where the party is facing a bunch of archers, but honestly I've been playing this game and its predecessors for more than forty years and have never seen that.
When you maximize any ability score, you have to make some other ability score less. I agree that Dexterity is good, but is it as good as Constitution or Wisdom? I think not.
As for Armor Class, I obviously did like that idea, as I showed several builds where the wizard was in full plate. But wizards survived all the previous editions of this game (and D&D) without access to armor and they'll do so in this version, too. Just because it is now possible doesn't mean it is now necessary (how boring would that be?)
Grab yourself a high AC if that's what you want. I may join you!
Or I may spend my ability points and feats somewhere else.
Hmm, well, the wizards I've seen and played would beg to disagree! :-) They're all still alive.
Explain the electric arc thing, please. What does that have to do with armor?
Electric Arc requires you to be within 30 feet of 2 enemies. That puts you in range for a counterstrike from 2 different origins. Further, an optimal positioning will have you starting within range of both of your targets so that you can use your third action to put up a shield to defend from archers. That means you have to be in the mix in order to make optimal use of electric arc versus mixed enemy types.
Goblins are an early game enemy that almost all have ranged weapons. You could go through an entire goblin centered chapter where almost every enemy has a ranged attack.
The difference between armor class in this edition and armor class in the others is the new critical system. Each point of difference usually counts twice for the low armor classes like wizard. Further, constitution is less important in this edition due to the max HP at every level and the ancestry HP to start the game.
Your guide has a good tone that looks at wizard conceptually through the lens of previous editions. I just think you need to account for the current edition changes a bit more in your analysis. Dexterity, in this edition, is just much more important than Constitution for lightly armored characters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry but I will make critics. To me, you have one vision of the Wizard and you miss a lot of things in your guide.
Sort of the point of saying it's a first draft and asking for comments.
First, you say that Universalists have more spells than Specialists. It's the opposite, they have less spells than specialists (Specialists have one extra spell of each and every level, too, so they have one extra spell over Universalists).
I disagree. As I pointed out, Specialists gain an extra spell slot at each level, but Universalists gain an extra use of Drain Bonded item at each level. They're not the same, but they are comparable.
I agree that AC is not the best damage mitigation for a 6 hit points class (Constitution is better) but you miss the critical hits. Having crappy AC is a liability.
Sure. So is every other thing you miss out on because you concentrated on AC. Look, I don't know how anyone got the idea that I think AC is bad. I don't. I just don't think it's the be-all and end-all of wizardcraft.
Also, Bow Wizards are very efficient (and elven Wizards are a very common trope).
Agreed. Did I say differently somewhere?
Spell Bending is not 'situational'. A spell bender uses it every day on all his spell slots.Spell Substitution is not 'situational'. A spell substituer uses it a lot every day.
I assume you mean Spell Blending, not Bending. Anyway, I don't believe that the opportunity to effectively blend spells will come up as often as the player might like, so I don't think it's worth rating blue. Note that I did rate both of those options green, which means I feel that they are good options.
In my opinion, you haven't understood how they work and what builds you are supposed to make with them.
Then this here is your opportunity to enlighten me.
Familiars are managed in very different ways by different DMs. With some DMs, you just never take a Familiar as it's a wasted ability. A variable ability shouldn't be blue. Also, I think it's a very personal point of view, I see Familiars as being nice, but nowhere close to the efficiency of Spell Blending and Spell Substitution.
I'm hearing you say you like one thing and not the other. You say that spell blending and spell substitution aren't situational, but a familiar is because some GM's might not give you situations where they might work well. Isn't the same true of any ability you might have? Seems to me that you're saying one option I liked doesn't work for you. And that's fine, but it doesn't make it universally true.
Nor do I claim anything I wrote is universally true. It has my name on it as the very first word because it is just my opinion. Feel free to try to show me why my opinion is wrong, but merely stating that it is wrong doesn't help me.
Sorcerer Archetype is major for a Wizard, basic archetype for me. For Dangerous Sorcery alone. And Sorcerer focus spells are nicer than Wizard's ones. It should at least be blue.
I absolutely agree with you. This is an example of how my reasoning on the subject changed during the writing of this. If you look at the actual Sorcerer Wizard build I wrote, I rated it blue and said it "provides an unparalleled wealth of spellcasting". When I first read the material I was unimpressed, but later when I built the sorcerer wizard I dramatically changed my mind. I failed to go back and update my rating of the archetype. I've done it now.
Also, Force Bolt is very nice. It's a free one action Magic Missile. It's kind of the basic focus spell, it's either blue or green.
I feel it is weak compared to the other focus spells.
In my opinion, you don't build Wizards to be combat-optimized.
You're right about that, too. A good role-playing game is about more than combat and as a GM when I see characters who can do combat but nothing else I die a little inside and wonder if I don't really have something better to do with my time.
BUT... all these characters are built with combat efficiency in mind in addition to hopefully being interesting.
If you have some builds to show me and to explain to me, I'd love to see them.
Explain the electric arc thing, please. What does that have to do with armor?
Electric Arc requires you to be within 30 feet of 2 enemies. That puts you in range for a counterstrike from 2 different origins. Further, an optimal positioning will have you starting within range of both of your targets so that you can use your third action to put up a shield to defend from archers. That means you have to be in the mix in order to make optimal use of electric arc versus mixed enemy types.
Don't you have allies between you and the bad guys?
And don't most of your fights take place in spaces not much larger than 30' anyway? Really long-ranged attacks (like ray of frost) don't often get to use that long range, in my experience.
Goblins are an early game enemy that almost all have ranged weapons. You could go through an entire goblin centered chapter where almost every enemy has a ranged attack.
Sure. It could happen. But are they going to be shooting at me when my friend in plate armor and holding a great sword is cleaving through their fellows like a hot knife through butter?
The difference between armor class in this edition and armor class in the others is the new critical system. Each point of difference usually counts twice for the low armor classes like wizard. Further, constitution is less important in this edition due to the max HP at every level and the ancestry HP to start the game.
I... sorta agree there.
Your guide has a good tone that looks at wizard conceptually through the lens of previous editions. I just think you need to account for the current edition changes a bit more in your analysis. Dexterity, in this edition, is just much more important than Constitution for lightly armored characters.
In a one-on-one fight, or where you're outnumbered, I could see your point, but I think those are things that sometimes happen, not things that happen a lot (particularly not in a published Paizo adventure, where you are most commonly fighting a small number of enemies and can stand in the back away from the enemy.)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let me be clear - I am not against high-AC wizards. I just don't believe it's the only way to go, or the best. I see it as just one option among several.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And don't most of your fights take place in spaces not much larger than 30' anyway? Really long-ranged attacks (like ray of frost) don't often get to use that long range, in my experience.
Ah, this is where we differ in experience. My experience with the game has had encounters in a traditional dungeon less than half of the time. Enemies like goblins out in the open will not stay in groups and will strafe around the party to get to the squishier bits.
I suppose the forward for your guide could include a section describing the games you've played in as traditional dungeon crawling. In that context, I could certainly see your advice being more applicable. I rarely play in that style of game, so your advice was off for me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love reading people's thoughts on the wizard and I really appreciate all of the time and energy you have put into this. Thank you very much.
Because you seem open to debate and interested in honest conversation, I do have some comments to share.
Personally, I think you are a little too combat focused in your analysis of the wizard, especially when looking at focus spells. In combat focus spells can be great, but the reality is that most characters spend far more hours of the day outside of combat than in combat, and the vast majority of combat-centric focus powers go unused most of the time.
The way you have analyzed Diviner's sight, makes it seem like you haven't really looked at what that focus power allows a knowledge centric wizard to do. Yes it has the fortune trait, so it doesn't work on downtime activities, but it doesn't allow a reroll. It allows you to roll the die before you make the skill check (OR SAVING THROW) and decide whether to use that roll or not, before you even commit to attempting a skill check. The fact it can be applied to saving throws as well as skill checks makes it still versatile in combat, and it will likely see use in every combat with a range of 30ft. But unlike almost every other specialist focus spell, it works out of combat as well, AND the way it works on knowledge checks is that it makes the roll happen in the open, meaning you know when the information you just got is useful or not.
As much as I love the Abjurer's focus power and think it is the best combat (non-cantrip) focus spell in the game, I think the diviner's power has so much versatility that creative players will put it to us 10 times as often as any other focus power. Cantrips really aren't that great outside of combat, and the only really specialized niche the wizard has outside of combat is in being good at making knowledge checks. Diviner's sight takes wizards from being decent at this, to being absolute masters of arcane, occult and social knowledge checks. If you were inspired to play a wizard by Gandalf, this is definitely the focus power for you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yep, I made a typo on Spell Blending.
Then this here is your opportunity to enlighten me.
The classical wizard has to forecast what spells he will need during the day and prepare these spells. But not everyone being a psychic, during long adventuring days, you will exhaust some areas of your spell list, becoming less and less efficient. Also, at the end of the day, you will still have a few spells left because the situation where you need them didn't arise.
These 2 issues are addressed by the spell blender and the spell substituer.The spell blender has 10 or 11 spells of his 2 highest spell levels, but only 3 spells of other levels and 2 first and second level spells. So his focus is potency at the cost of versatility. It's the ideal thesis if you want a combat oriented wizard (or a whatever oriented wizard). To complement his smaller and more focused spell list, he uses in general lots of scrolls (but low level scrolls are cheap anyway). The spell blender tend to last more during combat, with more powerful spells and at the end of a long adventuring day he has an empty spell list and quite some scrolls used. Potency and sustainability at the cost of wealth and versatility.
The spell substituer on the other hand is focused on sustainability without sacrificing versatility. Many people consider that what's cool with the substituer is that if a situation arise and you need one specific spell, you can take 10 minutes to get the proper spell. But not all situations will wait 10 minutes. You have to think in reverse. The spell substituer prepares every morning a lot of utility/situational spells so if a situation arises you already have the spell. On the side, he takes a small core of combat-focused spells, enough to last one long fight/2 small fights. And after every combat during the small break where everyone refocuses/treat wounds, you substitute spells to replenish your core, replacing situational spells for the combat spells you have used during the fight (and you can refocus at the same time as you are studying your spellbook).
During a long adventuring day, the spell substituer always have his small core of combat focused spells so he doesn't lose efficiency and he will use more spells than the classical wizard because of his substitutions. Sustainability at the cost of swapping time between fights.
So, these theses are not situational at all, they are changing the wizard mechanics and the spells you prepare every day.
Nice guide. I did notice one error though. In your evaluation of Alchemist Dedication you say that you’re not trained in Alchemical Bombs. That’s not true, the dedication does give you training in bombs. Now it never goes beyond trained, and if your Dex isn’t high you may be terrible with them, but they still seem like an okay low level option to me if your Dex starts at 16.
Nice guide. I did notice one error though. In your evaluation of Alchemist Dedication you say that you’re not trained in Alchemical Bombs. That’s not true, the dedication does give you training in bombs. Now it never goes beyond trained, and if your Dex isn’t high you may be terrible with them, but they still seem like an okay low level option to me if your Dex starts at 16.
Also, you seem to think Automatic Knowledge is a daily effect, it’s actually once per round, any number of times per day. It’s still kind of bad though due to the need to invest in assurance on an otherwise useless skill to have assurance on and the fact that you only succeed on recall knowledge with assurance on below level threats so it’s rarely going to do much at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion, you don't build Wizards to be combat-optimized.
Personally, I think you are a little too combat focused in your analysis of the wizard, especially when looking at focus spells.
“You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time.”
:-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And don't most of your fights take place in spaces not much larger than 30' anyway? Really long-ranged attacks (like ray of frost) don't often get to use that long range, in my experience.Ah, this is where we differ in experience. My experience with the game has had encounters in a traditional dungeon less than half of the time. Enemies like goblins out in the open will not stay in groups and will strafe around the party to get to the squishier bits.
I suppose the forward for your guide could include a section describing the games you've played in as traditional dungeon crawling. In that context, I could certainly see your advice being more applicable. I rarely play in that style of game, so your advice was off for me.
I appreciate your willingness to share your experience, and it's made me wonder whether more of my examples should have favored DEX. I didn't really consider the overall effect of the various builds so much as I tried to build a workable example of each concept. Thanks for the input! I'll give it some thought.
I'm glad to see that there's room for such a variety of thought on this subject, when I've read that there's no variety in wizards. When I told my friends I was writing this and was up to over a hundred pages (at the time), one said "I wouldn't have thought there was that much to say about wizards."
And don't most of your fights take place in spaces not much larger than 30' anyway? Really long-ranged attacks (like ray of frost) don't often get to use that long range, in my experience.Ah, this is where we differ in experience. My experience with the game has had encounters in a traditional dungeon less than half of the time. Enemies like goblins out in the open will not stay in groups and will strafe around the party to get to the squishier bits.
I suppose the forward for your guide could include a section describing the games you've played in as traditional dungeon crawling. In that context, I could certainly see your advice being more applicable. I rarely play in that style of game, so your advice was off for me.
I appreciate your willingness to share your experience, and it's made me wonder whether more of my examples should have favored DEX. I didn't really consider the overall effect of the various builds so much as I tried to build a workable example of each concept. Thanks for the input! I'll give it some thought.
I'm glad to see that there's room for such a variety of thought on this subject, when I've read that there's no variety in wizards. When I told my friends I was writing this and was up to over a hundred pages (at the time), one said "I wouldn't have thought there was that much to say about wizards."
I am a huge fan of wizards, so I appreciate hearing different people's thoughts on them as well. I think there is a general undervaluing of the arcane spell list and how many different builds wizards can have just based upon what kind of spells they are primarily going to cast. People get caught up in thinking there are best spells for wizards to memorize, but their are so many great arcane spells that the possibilities may not be endless, but they are every bit as vast as clerics with their domains or sorcerers and their bloodlines.
I love reading people's thoughts on the wizard and I really appreciate all of the time and energy you have put into this. Thank you very much.
Thanks for your kind words. It did take me many weeks to finish.
Because you seem open to debate and interested in honest conversation,
I am! Why close yourself off to new ideas? Heck, I learned a ton about how wizards worked in 1e when I wrote a guide and so many people told me how wrong I was. Sometimes, I was just flat wrong (the stuff about familiars was embarrassing!) Other times, I had my opinions changed and still other times we just had to agree to disagree.
I do have some comments to share.
Personally, I think you are a little too combat focused in your analysis of the wizard, especially when looking at focus spells. In combat focus spells can be great, but the reality is that most characters spend far more hours of the day outside of combat than in combat, and the vast majority of combat-centric focus powers go unused most of the time.
True, but do most players spend their time playing those characters in combat or in downtime? About 50/50, I'd guess. Anyway, as I joked about above, some people think I'm not being combat-centered enough.
I hope I at least examined both sides of the issue, even if I didn't strike a balance that will completely please everyone. Still, if I missed something important, please tell me.
The way you have analyzed Diviner's sight, makes it seem like you haven't really looked at what that focus power allows a knowledge centric wizard to do. Yes it has the fortune trait, so it doesn't work on downtime activities, but it doesn't allow a reroll. It allows you to roll the die before you make the skill check (OR SAVING THROW) and decide whether to use that roll or not, before you even commit to attempting a skill check. The fact it can be applied to saving throws as well as skill checks makes it still versatile in combat, and it will likely see use in every combat with a range of 30ft. But unlike almost every other specialist focus spell, it works out of combat as well, AND the way it works on knowledge checks is that it makes the roll happen in the open, meaning you know when the information you just got is useful or not.
My favorite character ever, ever, ever, was a 1e diviner who used the very similar Prescience ability to great effect, so I do know how cool an ability that can be. Man! I miss that campaign.
Anyway, you're right that it's not technically a re-roll. It's a pre-roll. My problem with 2e's Diviner's Sight is that it's a focus spell. I'm only going to be able to use it once or twice before I rest and refocus. It's 2e's version of 4e's "Encounter Power", and perhaps that's why I'm less than thrilled. One of my favorite abilities has been reduced to an Encounter Power.
Yeah, I'll give that some thought. I'll certainly tighten up the wording about re-rolls. Thanks.
SuperBidi, I'm not ignoring you. I just need more time to respond adequately.
Nice guide. I did notice one error though. In your evaluation of Alchemist Dedication you say that you’re not trained in Alchemical Bombs. That’s not true, the dedication does give you training in bombs. Now it never goes beyond trained, and if your Dex isn’t high you may be terrible with them, but they still seem like an okay low level option to me if your Dex starts at 16.
Yeah, I don't know how I could have screwed that up. You're quite right.
Also, you seem to think Automatic Knowledge is a daily effect, it’s actually once per round, any number of times per day. It’s still kind of bad though due to the need to invest in assurance on an otherwise useless skill to have assurance on and the fact that you only succeed on recall knowledge with assurance on below level threats so it’s rarely going to do much at all.
Hah! WELL! I'm certain that with that fixed, no one else will find any MORE mistakes.
Yeah, I somehow read once per round as once per day. Oops.
I also played a 1e diviner, through the carrion crown AP and it was the character that broke 1e for my entire table. The diviner in PF1 was so over the top, most powerful god class at high levels that it really exposed the cracks for us.
It is true that 10 minutes can feel like a really long time in play, but any day you have a couple of things you want to check up on as far as knowledge checks, you can space them out over an hour and make 6 reliable rolls. I think MC just to get extra focus powers isn't bad for the diviner, especially one a little more combat centric, but with a range of 30ft, you can boost your intimidating ally or your athletics centric martial when they attempt to debuff the big boss and it can benefit the entire party pretty effectively. And the fact that it can give anyone an extra roll on a critical saving throw on top of all that almost makes it too useful, because you have so many things you can do with it. Even being able to throw it around 3 times a combat is pretty incredible.
MC? Is that Multiclass?
yea, sorry.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ya talked me into it. I gave diviner's sight an upgrade to Green!
You might consider breaking the document into sections with the spells and the summons as different sections. Those sections might be useful to non-wizards too. But that's just a stylistic/editing comment.I'm not sure I understand, ET. Do you mean different documents? Or just reorganizing the structure of this document?
Yeah, different documents or use bookmark tags to denote different sections so you can link or jump straight to the spell guide or the summoning guide. I guess my comment is that effectively, you've written probably three different guides here. Breaking it up might make it easier to digest/navigate, prompt non-wizards to use some of it, and further your credit for the massive amount of work you've done. But again, that's a editing/style comment. Some people might not like opening different links to read it all.
I think I'll keep it as a single document, but let me ask you about the bookmarking. Doesn't the Table of Contents perform that function?
Your guide is really interesting and well done. Kudos!
There is one portion that I haven't been able to understand: your discussion of the two Halcyon archetypes. You seem to be implying that taking both of these archetypes together will get you... I'm not quite sure what? Probably I'm just being dense but personally I would love it if you could expand the explanation of that part.
The classical wizard has to forecast what spells he will need during the day and prepare these spells. But not everyone being a psychic, during long adventuring days, you will exhaust some areas of your spell list, becoming less and less efficient. Also, at the end of the day, you will still have a few spells left because the situation where you need them didn't arise.
These 2 issues are addressed by the spell blender and the spell substituer.
I agree. Note that I rated both of these abilities highly. I rated Spell Blending GREEN, meaning “I recommend this option. It is a strong choice.” And I rated Spell Substitution BLUE, than which there is no higher rating. Not sure what the complaint is about.
The spell blender has 10 or 11 spells of his 2 highest spell levels, but only 3 spells of other levels and 2 first and second level spells.
For a specialist wizard yeah (it’ll be 10, not 11). But the same wizard not using spell blending will get 8 of those spells and not miss out on all the utility spells available.
So his focus is potency at the cost of versatility. It's the ideal thesis if you want a combat oriented wizard (or a whatever oriented wizard).
Well, that is one way to look at it, but it’s not the way I look at it. I think that if you’re interested in hyper-focused combat efficiency you should be looking at the sorcerer. Winning in combat isn’t only about showing up with the biggest gun. Variety is a powerful combat tool.
This isn’t to say that I think spell blending is bad. It’s very cool!
The spell substituer on the other hand is focused on sustainability without sacrificing versatility. Many people consider that what's cool with the substituer is that if a situation arise and you need one specific spell, you can take 10 minutes to get the proper spell. But not all situations will wait 10 minutes. You have to think in reverse. The spell substituer prepares every morning a lot of utility/situational spells so if a situation arises you already have the spell. On the side, he takes a small core of combat-focused spells, enough to last one long fight/2 small fights. And after every combat during the small break where everyone refocuses/treat wounds, you substitute spells to replenish your core, replacing situational spells for the combat spells you have used during the fight (and you can refocus at the same time as you are studying your spellbook).
During a long adventuring day, the spell substituer always have his small core of combat focused spells so he doesn't lose efficiency and he will use more spells than the classical wizard because of his substitutions. Sustainability at the cost of swapping time between fights.
Yup, that sounds like a good way to run Spell Substitution. You seem to think that I should think better of Spell Substitution than I do, but I gave it the highest rating. I’m not sure what your issue is here.
So, these theses are not situational at all, they are changing the wizard mechanics and the spells you prepare every day.
It seems that you’re really just objecting to the word “situational”, and I don’t get that at all. I said “It can be situational, depending on whether you have the 10 minutes to spare, but this is a great ability, especially if you’re undecided between two or more spells.” That’s a completely true statement. If the situation doesn’t allow you 10 minutes to swap out a spell, that makes the ability’s utility situational.
Your guide is really interesting and well done. Kudos!
There is one portion that I haven't been able to understand: your discussion of the two Halcyon archetypes. You seem to be implying that taking both of these archetypes together will get you... I'm not quite sure what? Probably I'm just being dense but personally I would love it if you could expand the explanation of that part.
Abraham - the Magaambyan Attendant archetype is a prerequisite for the Halcyon Speaker archetype. I wouldn't give the former much attention (except for Tempest-Sun Shielding) if it weren't required for the latter, which is awesome.
Abraham - the Magaambyan Attendant archetype is a prerequisite for the Halcyon Speaker archetype. I wouldn't give the former much attention (except for Tempest-Sun Shielding) if it weren't required for the latter, which is awesome.Your guide is really interesting and well done. Kudos!
There is one portion that I haven't been able to understand: your discussion of the two Halcyon archetypes. You seem to be implying that taking both of these archetypes together will get you... I'm not quite sure what? Probably I'm just being dense but personally I would love it if you could expand the explanation of that part.
Yep, I understood that. But I couldn't make out what was so awesome about the Halcyon Speaker archetype. You seemed to be indicating that it was doing something very special and unique (which is why I'm intrigued by it) but I couldn't figure out what that was.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some minor corrections/observations:
* You call out Arcane Sense as an excellent feat for a wizard in at least a couple of places, but also say in one spot that this is only a good feat for non-wizards taking the wizard dedication.
* In your Magaambyan sample build, you never take the Cascade Bearers Spellcasting feat, which you earlier seemed to indicate was the linchpin of the whole concept.
* Not really a correction, but just pointing out that the text is identical in the section on Arcane School Specialists and the section on Focus Spells.
* Given how much you emphasize on the power of familiars, your discussion of "how to make them do stuff" seems pretty thin. Yes, you use the minion rule. But, beyond that, what can a familiar actually do (besides deliver touch spells)? What are some examples of things that you see a familiar using its two actions for?
* Metamagic - seems very thin at the moment, presumably because 2e is still very thin on metamagic, but that will only grow over time. Might be worth a section.
* Action economy - If most wizards will use a 2 action spell most rounds, the big questions are: a) what to use the 3rd action for (shield, ok, but what else? what kinds of options are there?) and b) what are useful reactions for wizards and how do they get them?
These are quibbles though. Overall, this is such great work and I'm already contemplating my first wizard build.
But I couldn't make out what was so awesome about the Halcyon Speaker archetype. You seemed to be indicating that it was doing something very special and unique (which is why I'm intrigued by it) but I couldn't figure out what that was.
Let me see if I can do it justice:
First, it's a new pool of spells, just like taking a spellcasting archetype, which is awesome. More spells equals more variety, more utility and more power.
Second, unlike the spells from a class archetype, these spells can be either of two traditions, and eventually, from ANY tradition.
Third, you can decide on the fly whether your halcyon spells are arcane or primal, which could be useful in certain circumstances.
Fourth, at 20th level, you can cast spells up to 7th level as a free action. Cast a spell, cast another spell and keep a third action open for admiring how awesome you are.
Some minor corrections/observations:
* You call out Arcane Sense as an excellent feat for a wizard in at least a couple of places, but also say in one spot that this is only a good feat for non-wizards taking the wizard dedication.
Yeah. I'm delightfully quirky like that.
Thanks for pointing that out. I do need to fix that. Turns out that Arcane Sense is a feat tax for wizards. You don't really need it in itself, but it is a prerequisite for Eye of the Arclords, a cool 2nd level feat.
* In your Magaambyan sample build, you never take the Cascade Bearers Spellcasting feat, which you earlier seemed to indicate was the linchpin of the whole concept.
The problem is that this archetype has so many good feats you can't possibly take them all. If I put this one in I have to take out something else just as good. I wish I could see a way to get that feat, plus Flexible Halcyon Spellcasting plus Synergistic Spell and all its precursors.
* Not really a correction, but just pointing out that the text is identical in the section on Arcane School Specialists and the section on Focus Spells.
Yes, I acknowledged that:
The various focus spells were rated with the Specialist schools, above, but I have repeated them here for ease of use:
* Given how much you emphasize on the power of familiars, your discussion of "how to make them do stuff" seems pretty thin. Yes, you use the minion rule. But, beyond that, what can a familiar actually do (besides deliver touch spells)? What are some examples of things that you see a familiar using its two actions for?
Good idea.
* Metamagic - seems very thin at the moment, presumably because 2e is still very thin on metamagic, but that will only grow over time. Might be worth a section.
It's not a bad idea. There are so few metamagic feats yet that I'm not sure what I'd say!
* Action economy - If most wizards will use a 2 action spell most rounds, the big questions are: a) what to use the 3rd action for (shield, ok, but what else? what kinds of options are there?) and b) what are useful reactions for wizards and how do they get them?
Good stuff. I'll work on that.
SuperBidi, I'm not ignoring you. I just need more time to respond adequately.
No problem, I was sleeping (I'm not living in the US).
Well, that is one way to look at it, but it’s not the way I look at it. I think that if you’re interested in hyper-focused combat efficiency you should be looking at the sorcerer. Winning in combat isn’t only about showing up with the biggest gun. Variety is a powerful combat tool.
Have you played PF2 Sorcerer? Because I think you have a wrong vision of it (inherited from PF1). If you want to be hyper focused, what you want to play is a spell blender. 3 extra spells of your highest spell levels (the third one is drain bonded item) is massive.
Actually, when I read your advice about how to build a spell list and your big taste for Universalist, I think you may be more of a Sorcerer player than a Wizard one, as these are advice about how to build a Sorcerer spell list.Also, I think the issue in your guide (and the reason why I react to it) is that you have a bia that one can feel when reading it. You can have personal preferences, but the goal of a guide is to help people build their character, not to push them towards your style of play.
So, you can't put Universalist blue and Specialists green as there is not a power level of difference between them. Dexterity should be green as it's a secondary attribute to the Wizard. Gnome and Goblins can't be blue and not Humans, Elves and Hobgoblins as they are all perfectly good choices (well, I question the choice of blue for Goblin).
Spell Blender can't be green while the other choices are blue.
I don't see why Druid Dedication is blue when most Dedications aren't.
And a spell like Force Bolt is not red. It's a perfectly valid focus spell, nowhere close to a bad one.
You should expand your vision on the Wizard and include multiple builds. You made a considerable work on documenting every options/spells, but for the core options you must be extra careful and make sure that you're not misleading readers (especially the ones who need guidance) into playing what you think is good instead of playing what they want to play.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, I think the issue in your guide (and the reason why I react to it) is that you have a bia that one can feel when reading it. You can have personal preferences, but the goal of a guide is to help people build their character, not to push them towards your style of play.
...
A perfectly neutral guide is an unrealistic expectation. Everyone has their own preferences, blind spots and rule interpretations. Cavet Emptor. There are always going to be lots of opinions in a guide. Tarondor has put a fair bit of work in here. I enjoyed reading his opinions, biased or not. A player new to PF2 will get a good start out of this.