Wizard: Interested in PF2 play experience

[Deriven Firelion]

Xenocrat wrote:

Henro wrote:

I don't feel like it's too surprising people who think 2E magic sucks would consider the class with the most magic at the expense of everything else to also suck.

I don’t think it’s surprising that the class that is based on intelligence, analysis, and planning frustrates players who lack much capacity in those areas.

Heh. The ad hominem attack. The fortress of the person lacking a substantive argument.

[devilbunny]

Deriven Firelion wrote:

More theory-craft which doesn't emulate the experience in games. I would rather see damage tracked in a party over the course of an entire module to see where casters stand or even multiple boss fights against level +2 or +3 creatures. That is the data I want to see. Not theory-craft.

With martials using flanks, item bonuses, and caster buffing, they benefit far more than casters benefit.

In PF1 casters could attack some creature weak point like Touch AC or make someone flat-footed losing their dex, which balanced out lower attack rolls. Now they have lower attack rolls with nothing to balance it out. No item bonuses and no flanking. Just a lower attack roll with ACs of monsters much higher for two action attacks don't do much damage with a higher chance of failure in a round to relying on a single roll.

Not just theory-craft, I've actually played 2 high lvl wizards, one with spell substitution and one with spell blending, since Pathfinder 2e came out. If martials get caster buffing, then spellcasters should get the same benefit of the doubt. Flat-footed is easy to get from a myriad of spells and conditions (such as prone) at this lvl. Arcane casters are usually 2 points behind in spell attack rolls compared to martials but it's more than made up for with true strike. AND you can target your choice of defense as an arcane caster between AC, Fortitude, Reflex, and Will while martials can only hit AC.

My 11th lvl party consisted of my wizard, a maestro bard, a Giant instinct barbarian, and a Dex dual-wield fighter when we ran up against a lich and a bunch of undead minions. Lich was flying, and barbarian had terrible ranged options so he couldn't attack the lich and just focused down the undead horde while the fighter took pot shots with his bow at the lich. The bard buffed everyone, and kept them topped off. First round of combat, my wizard killed a quarter of the minions and severely injured the rest with a chain lightning and then trapped the flying lich in a quickened resilient sphere. The lich wasted his turn dispelling the sphere, so on my wizard's second round of combat he cast true strike and disintegrate. Bard's inspired heroics increased my spell attack to +22 and I got two attack rolls with true strike. Got a crit because of that so the lich's Fort save counted as one degree worse. My spell DC was 30, so the lich needed to roll a 13 or higher on his Fort save. Ended up rolling a 11, so he failed but since I crit on my attack roll cuz true strike and inspire heroics, he crit failed. Did 140 damage to the lich, and turned him into paste.

The rest of my party sat there stunned after that cuz I effectively dusted a lvl 13 encounter by myself with some assistance from the bard's buffs. And that's just one example from our campaign, if ya want more I can provide them.

[Temperans]

1st, a lich itself is a level 12 enemy. So it was only 1 level higher.
2nd, Fort is their weak save at +17, compared to their high save of +23.
3rd, it sound like the GM sent a bunch of level-2 or level-4 creatures. In which case yeah your Chain lighting would deal a lot of damage.

I am not trying to dismiss your case because its clear you had fun. But its clear that the encounter was heavily in your favor, from the number of minions to the Lich being weak to fort saves.

My point is that we need more info. 1 case of a single encounter going perfectly doesn't help when everything else feel bad. Would you agree?

[Cyouni]

I mean, isn't that the way we should be using spells, against enemies' weak or moderate saves? Not against their strongest, and then complaining that it's not working very well?

[Temperans]

Well yes using the right spell vs the right enemy is the way to maximize in this edition. I am not denying that.

Just saying 1 good fight doesn't make a class feel better. Specially when the concept is something other than "Use Disintegrate".

[devilbunny]

Temperans wrote:

1st, a lich itself is a level 12 enemy. So it was only 1 level higher.

2nd, Fort is their weak save at +17, compared to their high save of +23.
3rd, it sound like the GM sent a bunch of level-2 or level-4 creatures. In which case yeah your Chain lighting would deal a lot of damage.

I am not trying to dismiss your case because its clear you had fun. But its clear that the encounter was heavily in your favor, from the number of minions to the Lich being weak to fort saves.

My point is that we need more info. 1 case of a single encounter going perfectly doesn't help when everything else feel bad. Would you agree?

Isn't that the case with any class? A lot of people are arguing that wizards can't contribute effectively compared to other classes while I'm saying they can. Nobody complains about the fighter not being able to perform well in situational combat encounters like things that are incorporeal and invisible, or with flight, or fighting in the heart of a volcano. Yet the wizard, who has a whole spell list suited for not only specific combat situations like the aforementioned ones but generic ones as well, is ridiculed. If wizards were just as good as fighters at their job, why play a fighter when you can play someone with just as much dmg output as a fighter and teleportation, divination, summoning, etc.

Everyone just looks at the martial classes and go good proficiencies, BIG NUMBERS, feels good to play with new action economy. Which they are. They feel great to play after 1e. But people feel as if wizards suck cuz they got hit the hardest with the nerf bat because their primary schtick is spellcasting and magic isn't what it used to be and the wizard's numbers aren't up to par.

But that's on the surface. If you actually look at the game design, the numbers are extremely tight cuz Paizo has guys like Mark Seifter, who was doing AI research at MIT, balancing 2e. Spellcasters are behind by 2 points in spell attack rolls and DCs compared to martials hitting things (and only 1 point by the time they get legendary spellcasting) because not only can they target the weakest defense of their choice, they also have spells that fundamentally break reality. Martials can't buff effectively, provide new movement options, reshape the battlefield, etc.

If you give spellcasters similar scaling item bonuses, they would come out 2 points ahead of martials except fighters in both attacks rolls and DCs. And they can still target the weakest defense.

[devilbunny]

There's a lot of baggage and presumptions from 1e carrying over. Everyone can agree god wizards are not wanted in the new edition. But they treat wizards as if the same tactics from 1e work for 2e. The spells that auto-won 1e encounters now mostly have the incapacitation trait, so they're only useful for specific situations. And that's intentional game design. The best spells that are always useful are the ones lacking that trait. Take those if you want to be consistently able to contribute, and only take those incapacitation ones if you know what you're walking into. That's when they're at their most devastating.

You need to cast smart in 2e and spells will be hella useful. Don't lob a fireball against something you suspect has a high Reflex. Also don't lob a fireball against a single target and expect it do as much damage as the martial. That's a relic from 1e, and why wizards were broken. Cuz they were doing the martial's job just as well/better on top of being able to do other things.

People are also saying it's not fair that my examples have the weak save being targeted. Why? That's the whole point of playing a spellcaster, target the weak save.

[devilbunny]

Temperans wrote:

Well yes using the right spell vs the right enemy is the way to maximize in this edition. I am not denying that.

Just saying 1 good fight doesn't make a class feel better. Specially when the concept is something other than "Use Disintegrate".

But you can though. My example also had the lich being stuck in a Resilient Sphere. I could have also cast Wall of Stone and blocked off the minions forcing either the lich to try and get rid of it, effectively wasting a turn while my allies beat on it, or just deal with not having minions to assault us with so we can all then gang up on the lich anyways.

And those spells are just as useful in almost ANY encounter. And if they aren't? Good thing you've got the whole arcane spell list. Target's got a weak Will save? Drop a Confusion on them, no incapacitation trait, if they succeed they're still stunned 1 but if they fail they're now confused for a minute.

The great thing about wizard is if you know what you're facing ahead of time, you can tailor your spells specifically to screw something's day up. Because you're a prepared arcane caster.

[Exocist]

Will chime in and say I have a wizard player for Extinction Curse, only played level 1-3 currently but he’s been pretty effective.

The boss fight of chapter 1 features a level+2 boss, a level+0 mook and a level-2 mook. The only damage dealt to either mook in that encounter was from electric arc, which killed both of them, allowing the ranger and battle oracle to focus on the boss (ranger got magic weapon from the wizard, oracle magic weapon’d himself with weapon surge too). Still was nearly a TPK because I rolled a 14+ on shocking grasp 3 times in a row, but the wizard managed to avoid the most of it by climbing on top of some terrain which the mooks couldn’t reach.

Chapter 2 was brutal for everyone, and they skipped most of it (I use milestone levelling so they weren’t punished for skipping straight to chapter 3 after one combat). The wizard wasn’t that amazing here but no one really was.

Chapter 3 provided a lot of space for the wizard to be useful. He solo’d one encounter by the enemy crit failing a save vs sudden bolt on round 1 and dying instantly (it had taken 0 damage prior - wizard was the very first turn). Many of the tight corridors and narrow spaces were prime time for burning hands, of all spells, to be very useful. The real standout was Sudden Bolt though (and, of course, Magic Weapon) which absolutely nuked some of the encounters.

[Temperans]

Exocist that helps.

Btw Sudden Bolt would have been nice to have in the core book. As far as I could tell its the 3rd damage spell at level 2, but it rounds out Lightning Mages until they get 3rd level spells. Too bad the spell is uncommon.

Devilbunny, you were talking about a damage spell I responded about the damage spell. Also I dont believe anyone has said they wanted Fireball vs a single target to deal as much damage as the Martial, where did that even come from? I didnt even say your experience was bad, just that more people needed to chime in, which Exocist did.

[Exocist]

Temperans wrote:

Btw Sudden Bolt would have been nice to have in the core book. As far as I could tell its the 3rd damage spell at level 2, but it rounds out Lightning Mages until they get 3rd level spells. Too bad the spell is uncommon.

It's sort of worse than lightning bolt is when you upcast it (you get an extra d12 of damage, but lose the AoE - they're the same range), but it's a pretty amazing spell at level 2.

That being said I'm generally very generous with stuff I allow my players to get, mostly because uncommon+ isn't uncommon+ for any sort of game-balance reason, it's either because it's uncommon+ in golarion itself (which I don't particularly care about), was printed in an AP or it has the potential to storybreak. Most of the uncommon+ stuff falls into the first two categories, the third is the only one I really ban - I don't want to allow teleport in an AP for instance.

[Temperans]

Exocist wrote:

Temperans wrote:

Btw Sudden Bolt would have been nice to have in the core book. As far as I could tell its the 3rd damage spell at level 2, but it rounds out Lightning Mages until they get 3rd level spells. Too bad the spell is uncommon.

It's sort of worse than lightning bolt is when you upcast it (you get an extra d12 of damage, but lose the AoE - they're the same range), but it's a pretty amazing spell at level 2.

That being said I'm generally very generous with stuff I allow my players to get, mostly because uncommon+ isn't uncommon+ for any sort of game-balance reason, it's either because it's uncommon+ in golarion itself (which I don't particularly care about), was printed in an AP or it has the potential to storybreak. Most of the uncommon+ stuff falls into the first two categories, the third is the only one I really ban - I don't want to allow teleport in an AP for instance.

Yes I agree that its mostly the 3rd one the problem. But sadly not all GMs share that opinion.

Also you mentioned Teleport not being allowed in your game. But then I remember Krispy specifically mentioning getting a Scroll of Teleport. And some people mentioned getting Teleport. Which shows just how dependent the Wizard is on the GM.

[devilbunny]

Temperans wrote:

Devilbunny, you were talking about a damage spell I responded about the damage spell. Also I dont believe anyone has said they wanted Fireball vs a single target to deal as much damage as the Martial, where did that even come from? I didnt even say your experience was bad, just that more people needed to chime in, which Exocist did.

Sorry, I didn't mean to target you with that. It's just something that was mentioned earlier in the thread when there were complaints about damage.

Anyways I think APG is going to solve a lot of issues that people have. Animate Dead has been mentioned to be one of the spells in it, and said to work similarly to the existing summon spells. That means a 5th-lvl Animate Dead should let you summon a bone croupier which have a 1/day ability called Change of Luck where instead of rolling a d20 check, the target automatically fails the roll. Should make every spell with a saving throw much better.

[Henro]

Xenocrat wrote:

Henro wrote:

I don't feel like it's too surprising people who think 2E magic sucks would consider the class with the most magic at the expense of everything else to also suck.

I don’t think it’s surprising that the class that is based on intelligence, analysis, and planning frustrates players who lack much capacity in those areas.

I very much don’t appreciate how you took my comment and twisted it into something rude.

[Unicore]

devilbunny wrote:

Temperans wrote:

Devilbunny, you were talking about a damage spell I responded about the damage spell. Also I dont believe anyone has said they wanted Fireball vs a single target to deal as much damage as the Martial, where did that even come from? I didnt even say your experience was bad, just that more people needed to chime in, which Exocist did.

Sorry, I didn't mean to target you with that. It's just something that was mentioned earlier in the thread when there were complaints about damage.

Anyways I think APG is going to solve a lot of issues that people have. Animate Dead has been mentioned to be one of the spells in it, and said to work similarly to the existing summon spells. That means a 5th-lvl Animate Dead should let you summon a bone croupier which have a 1/day ability called Change of Luck where instead of rolling a d20 check, the target automatically fails the roll. Should make every spell with a saving throw much better.

All along, I have said that people voicing their concerns and impressions about the wizard is useful and valid, and by doing so, you increase the chances of seeing new content you will like in future materials. However, expecting core changes to the design of the class at this point is setting an expectation bar that will never get met (for example expecting early access to increased casting proficiency based on school specialization), and wanting the math tuned up for when casting is at its least efficient:

ie. targeting a bad defense with a single target spell against a higher level enemy, is asking for the return of the god wizard when players leverage those math boosters when they are being efficient.

There is a divide amongst players on these threads between players that want their wizard to be able to pick any spells they want, and have the game provide ways to leverage those spells against nearly any enemy (feats that improve specific schools of magic, generally what you could do in PF1), and those players that want to be able to have spell selection be the tactical choice that determines whether your spells are effective against any specific enemy (which is pretty much the direction PF2 has gone). Basically, if you really, really enjoyed having greater spell focus by level 1 or 2 in PF1, PF2 offensive casting is going to feel very different to you. You are under no obligation to like the new system, but the decision to remove that was deliberate and unlikely to make a return. The core rule book attempted to control these expectations by making it explicitly clear that item bonuses to spell attack rolls were going to be rare and difficult to find.

Beyond the casting math debate, the only really contentious wizard issue seems to be centered around expanding character flavor options, and that is where I think we will continue to see a lot of expansion over time. Things like no transmutation cantrips will certainly get fixed, and the amount of new spells that have come out with Extinction Curse alone make it clear that the new normal for casters in APs is going to be finding access to new and interesting spells that will help your character feel tied to the specific story that is developing. Even society play is likely to grant access to some uncommon spells as boons eventually and GMs that are homebrewing a setting or adventure content, and deliberately denying their players access to any uncommon options ever are essentially house ruling out content more than they are playing by the intended function of rarity.

In play, I have found rarity to be much more of a way to give players cool new stuff rather than to prevent them from being too powerful. Some players may want more control over what uncommon and rare options they get over the course of play than an adventure writer or GM intends to give them, but this really boils down to a communication issue between players and GMs. The rules themselves clearly intend that GMs work with their players to make sure their character concepts are viable and fun as long as they are not disruptive to the campaign or the table.

[NemoNoName]

Unicore wrote:

Things like no transmutation cantrips will certainly get fixed

We are almost a year in the new Pathfinder, with what, 5 new books and two full adventure paths, not to mention all the PFS stuff. Still no Transmutation cantrip (common or uncommon), but we have absolutely critical spells such as "Personal Rain Cloud" or "Temporary Tool". So I'm sorry if I have serious doubts about this whole thing. At this point, I'm pretty sure Wizards are in the last place of Paizo's "things to fix".

[Exocist]

NemoNoName wrote:

Unicore wrote:

Things like no transmutation cantrips will certainly get fixed

We are almost a year in the new Pathfinder, with what, 5 new books and two full adventure paths, not to mention all the PFS stuff. Still no Transmutation cantrip (common or uncommon), but we have absolutely critical spells such as "Personal Rain Cloud" or "Temporary Tool". So I'm sorry if I have serious doubts about this whole thing. At this point, I'm pretty sure Wizards are in the last place of Paizo's "things to fix".

AFAIK only one cantrip has been printed since CRB (Join Pasts) which is more of a flavour cantrip than a legitimate choice.

AP spells are usually thematic rather than anything to fix holes in lists, I'd expect a usable transmutation cantrip with the APG.

[Deriven Firelion]

NemoNoName wrote:

Unicore wrote:

Things like no transmutation cantrips will certainly get fixed

We are almost a year in the new Pathfinder, with what, 5 new books and two full adventure paths, not to mention all the PFS stuff. Still no Transmutation cantrip (common or uncommon), but we have absolutely critical spells such as "Personal Rain Cloud" or "Temporary Tool". So I'm sorry if I have serious doubts about this whole thing. At this point, I'm pretty sure Wizards are in the last place of Paizo's "things to fix".

I'm sure they'll add in some interesting wizardly things to do in the first real magic book they do. Or at least I hope they do.

We still haven't seen the Magus, Warmage, or Arcanist yet.

[Lelomenia]

Shouldnt the comparison be wizard vs. other spellcasters, not wizard vs. martial? People give examples of wizards being useful; was there a reason those things couldnt have been achieved (better) with a different caster class? I dont know the answer, just curious.

[Exocist]

Lelomenia wrote:

Shouldnt the comparison be wizard vs. other spellcasters, not wizard vs. martial? People give examples of wizards being useful; was there a reason those things couldnt have been achieved (better) with a different caster class? I dont know the answer, just curious.

Well in the case of my wizard player, no other caster class except Arcane Sorc has access to both Magic Weapon and Sudden Bolt.

The thing is, the party already has a charisma character (Battle Oracle), a wisdom character (Animal Druid) and a strength character (outwit ranger) so wizard is the better choice over arcane sorc there.

In the case of the wizard I played, similar boat. The party was a champion, fighter, scoundrel rogue and cleric. They were seriously lacking in AoE options and an INT character, wizard was a natural fit.

When Witch comes out, the arcane witch vs wizard debate will be a bit more interesting. If Witch has good focus powers + cantrips (and isn't crippled by familiar) I think I will play a witch over a wizard most of the time.

[Corwin Icewolf]

Lelomenia wrote:

Shouldnt the comparison be wizard vs. other spellcasters, not wizard vs. martial? People give examples of wizards being useful; was there a reason those things couldnt have been achieved (better) with a different caster class? I dont know the answer, just curious.

Well, one of the caster classes has the flavor of "willing slave to a deity in return for power," which is baggage not everyone wants. I know I don't like it.

Druid, replace deity with nature. A bit better because I can't see nature per se bossing anyone around too much by itself. Gozreh could, but the druid isn't really obligated to listen to the same degree as a cleric of Gozreh would be.

Bard and sorcerer have been repeatedly compared to wizard in this thread, it seems to be the consensus that bard is better overall thanks to composition cantrips, despite wizard's having more high level spells. Basically because the bard pretty much always has something it can do.

[Unicore]

Lelomenia wrote:

Shouldnt the comparison be wizard vs. other spellcasters, not wizard vs. martial? People give examples of wizards being useful; was there a reason those things couldnt have been achieved (better) with a different caster class? I dont know the answer, just curious.

There has been a lot of different comparisons between wizards and other casters buried in these threads, the only damage based caster that can do better the wizard is the arcane sorcerer (true strike and heightened shocking grasp, after having cast spectral hand is pretty much the best that can be done with spell attack roll spells, the sorcerer getting Dangerous sorcery and the wizard having nothing in comparison. Spectral hand lets you easily pick up flanking even at decent ranges.)

However, the wizard can get dangerous sorcery to apply to all of their wizard spells for two feats, so it is entirely possible to build a wizard that gets the flexibility of the wizard's list with the dangerous sorcery bonus. It means having to start with a 14 Charisma to get the bonus by level 4, but that probably is "the" big damage evocation wizard build, for now and probably even past the APG's publication.

[Orithilaen]

Temperans wrote:

You roll an attack to determin if you even hit with ~50% chance of nothing happening, ~45% chance of a normal hit and ~5% chance of worse save by 1 tier. Then you have a ~5% chance of nothing, ~45% chance of half damage, ~45% chance of normal damage, and ~5% chance of double damage. The average damage for 12d10 is 66.

Also OP would preffer to talk more about actual game experience. Not just the theoritical chance that it may or may not be useful.

I think disintegrate (and many of the spell attack spells generally, but especially disintegrate) is designed with true strike in mind.

[Xenocrat]

Orithilaen wrote:

Temperans wrote:

You roll an attack to determin if you even hit with ~50% chance of nothing happening, ~45% chance of a normal hit and ~5% chance of worse save by 1 tier. Then you have a ~5% chance of nothing, ~45% chance of half damage, ~45% chance of normal damage, and ~5% chance of double damage. The average damage for 12d10 is 66.

Also OP would preffer to talk more about actual game experience. Not just the theoritical chance that it may or may not be useful.

I think disintegrate (and many of the spell attack spells generally, but especially disintegrate) is designed with true strike in mind.

And against a boss it’s just not that hard for a party to stack on Spell Focus, flatfooted, and your choice of 2+ status penalty to AC/saves to make the chance of a failure quite good and a crit failure decent. It’s an interesting high variance (nuke or whiff chances are both in play) spell with a good average result.

[Deriven Firelion]

Lelomenia wrote:

Shouldnt the comparison be wizard vs. other spellcasters, not wizard vs. martial? People give examples of wizards being useful; was there a reason those things couldnt have been achieved (better) with a different caster class? I dont know the answer, just curious.

I know this is a long thread. We've already done the comparison. Most of the other casters are fine. Though I did find even a sorcerer designed to do damage does not compete at the moment.

I'm going to accept that likely this issue won't be fixed until more material is released. It can be fixed on the back end with spell design and tinkering to get a better feel. With limited spell slots and the like, they have more room to do some tinkering with numbers without breaking things.

[Nocte ex Mortis]

Corwin Icewolf wrote:

Lelomenia wrote:

Shouldnt the comparison be wizard vs. other spellcasters, not wizard vs. martial? People give examples of wizards being useful; was there a reason those things couldnt have been achieved (better) with a different caster class? I dont know the answer, just curious.

Well, one of the caster classes has the flavor of "willing slave to a deity in return for power," which is baggage not everyone wants. I know I don't like it.

*Headdesk*

[Orithilaen]

Xenocrat wrote:

And against a boss it’s just not that hard for a party to stack on Spell Focus, flatfooted, and your choice of 2+ status penalty to AC/saves to make the chance of a failure quite good and a crit failure decent. It’s an interesting high variance (nuke or whiff chances are both in play) spell with a good average result.

Yep. Not sure what Spell Focus is doing here (does that exist in 2e?) but agreed on the general point.

The returns to system mastery for wizards have always been high, but it used to be that wizards were substantially more effective than other classes so you could be competent with a much lower level of system mastery. (And with a high level of system mastery, you needed to be trusted not to do technically legal things that broke the game.) That's not so true anymore. And to compound it, it's a new edition so people (me too) haven't had time to figure everything out yet; it doesn't help that parts of the game math are pretty nontransparent (for example, the spell effects that substitute for the lack of item bonuses to spell attacks).

But we'll get there, I think. And to the extent there are real gaps, they're likely to be supplemented over time.

[Xenocrat]

I meant Spell Penetration, not Focus. It works like PF1 spell focus in all schools against most high level monsters.

[Cyder]

Corwin Icewolf wrote:

Well, one of the caster classes has the flavor of "willing slave to a deity in return for power," which is baggage not everyone wants. I know I don't like it.

Ignoring the fact that witches aren't 'willing slaves,' devs have flat our said a witches patron is 'as important as you want it to be' meaning it can flat out (mechanically and as an in game roleplaying tool) be ignored unlike Anathemas for other classes.

You can mostly play a witch like a wizard, hell I am pretty sure at your home table you can talk to your GM about replacing the familiar with a spellbook and just being an alternate wizard. Make your 'patron' a wizard (alive or the spirit of a legendary dead one) and bam you are playing a wizard. Your (wizard) patron demands you carry and learn prepare your spells from a spell book and you act in a bookish manner in return for casting arcane spells.

Pretty sure that might be the fix for a lot of people. As it is an Arcane Sorceror with 5 feats invested in Wizard Archetype fills a lot of the spell versatility I need if I want to play something that feels like a an old school wizard.

Its just sad that the wizard focus spells were not more metamagic flavoured or a particular school as the baseline, nothing will stop that changing in the future though.

[BlessedHeretic]

I mean people have pointed out why Wizards feel pretty horrible to play. It isn't because they are invalid or bad, it's that they are boring.

The biggest shame is most of the things that make them look unique or interesting to play are exceedingly high level feats.

Combo magic for example.

[Corwin Icewolf]

Cyder wrote:

Corwin Icewolf wrote:

Well, one of the caster classes has the flavor of "willing slave to a deity in return for power," which is baggage not everyone wants. I know I don't like it.

Ignoring the fact that witches aren't 'willing slaves,' devs have flat our said a witches patron is 'as important as you want it to be' meaning it can flat out (mechanically and as an in game roleplaying tool) be ignored unlike Anathemas for other classes.

I was referring to the cleric, actually. I should have said that I guess. And I was trying to point out why I'm not so keen on people comparing the wizard directly to the cleric or druid and that maybe others share my feelings, even if it is technically valid.

Quote:

You can mostly play a witch like a wizard, hell I am pretty sure at your home table you can talk to your GM about replacing the familiar with a spellbook and just being an alternate wizard. Make your 'patron' a wizard (alive or the spirit of a legendary dead one) and bam you are playing a wizard. Your (wizard) patron demands you carry and learn prepare your spells from a spell book and you act in a bookish manner in return for casting arcane spells.

I don't actually know what the final witch is gonna look like. If they've said anything new I've missed it. If they are in fact planning to stick with that route, then I'm glad to hear it though. I was worried the class was going to be saddled with anathema after the discussions.

[Bluenose]

BlessedHeretic wrote:

I mean people have pointed out why Wizards feel pretty horrible to play. It isn't because they are invalid or bad, it's that they are boring.

The biggest shame is most of the things that make them look unique or interesting to play are exceedingly high level feats.

Combo magic for example.

Well here's the challenge, write something that makes them "interesting" without it being a power-up.

[First World Bard]

Bluenose wrote:

BlessedHeretic wrote:

I mean people have pointed out why Wizards feel pretty horrible to play. It isn't because they are invalid or bad, it's that they are boring.

The biggest shame is most of the things that make them look unique or interesting to play are exceedingly high level feats.

Combo magic for example.

Well here's the challenge, write something that makes them "interesting" without it being a power-up.

I am very curious what Wizard feats we will find in the APG. I hope that some of them will pass this challenge.

[NemoNoName]

First World Bard wrote:

I am very curious what Wizard feats we will find in the APG. I hope that some of them will pass this challenge.

You guys are expecting Wizard feats in APG?! :-O

[Salamileg]

NemoNoName wrote:

First World Bard wrote:

I am very curious what Wizard feats we will find in the APG. I hope that some of them will pass this challenge.

You guys are expecting Wizard feats in APG?! :-O

Assuming you're not joking (and if you are, ignore me), yeah? Feats for every core class have been confirmed for the APG, and wizards in particular are getting a new thesis focused on staves.

[Draco18s]

Bluenose wrote:

Well here's the challenge, write something that makes them "interesting" without it being a power-up.

I mean the Sorcerer exists so I don't really see the problem with finding a design that works. Is it going to be difficult and a fair bit of work?

Sure. Everything worth having is.

But you can't tell me that it cannot be done when I can objectively show that it can be by the existence of another class that uses very similar mechanics and achieves the desired result.

Wizard feats, in comparison to Sorcerer feats, are boring.

[citricking]

Don't know if this been brought up, but the number of free spells known for a wizard is actually very low, and the cost of adding spells of your level to your spell book is actually very high (scroll prices have increased a lot relativity from pf1), so I feel the spells known by a wizard are actually very limited, which makes them a lot worse off compared to cleric/druid and spontaneous casters.

[Unicore]

I know a lot of people don't like what the feats do, because they don't explicitly improve your combat power, but I want more wizard metamagic feats in the vein of conceal spell and silent spell, that interact directly with the way that wizards can cast spells and incorporate skill usage into spell casting. Perhaps a metamagic feat that lets you use one action to make an intimidate check against each target of an enchantment spell before the spell is cast. Or a transmutation metamagic feat that lets you stride and leap before casting a transmutation spell. I think there is a lot of room for wizards to have school specialized metamagic feats that play with the action economy in interesting ways. I also understand that something that specialized would have been really difficult to fit into the core rulebook.

I'd be fine with these feats making appearances spread out over supplements and even as AP back matter if the goal was to tie them into the setting as regional or academy specific feats. I'd like for specialist wizards outside of Thasalon have their own interesting and rich traditions as well.

[Henro]

Did you see my homebrew, Unicore? It is extremely similar to what you describe.

[Puna'chong]

Having DMed now for a couple Wizards and every caster but a Sorcerer, I think so far they all seem pretty balanced--Bards as the notable "all day, every day" class, with Druids close behind. The Wizards (and casters generally) have an encounter or two that they can just end, depending on their spells. Even at lower levels, illusory object in particular has had some very creative uses, and grease has been decisive in some fights and become a party staple.

The Wizard "niche" Paizo has carved seems to be that they have more daily spells. That's hard to appreciate from a theorycraft perspective, but in-game it's been my impression that my players have felt like 3 slots + specialist slot + a bonded item use is an actual advantage. Whether that would play out mathematically I don't know (or care about). That also might not be a feeling players at other tables have.

I think Wizards are balanced, and I also think they don't follow up on their class mechanics (thesis, school specialization, arcane bond, and to an extent metamagic) in satisfying ways. They never follow up on their thesis, their focus spells are lackluster (which goes for many focus spells), the bond has one(?) feat, and their metamagic doesn't deliver on what I see as a cool niche of empowering spells more often than other classes. Though Quickened is good.

I think a problem generally for spellcasters is that focus spells are largely undertuned. Many are vestigial (like Sorcerer ones that give melee attacks) or aren't broadly useful, where they should be a form of "encounter ability" that you want to use frequently and against a variety of obstacles. You're inherently limited with them and have to spend quite some time sitting to get them back, so when they're meh they feel really meh.

To make Wizards more interesting I think they'd need to lean in on unique effects for their arcane bond, specialization-specific feats, and metamagic that lets Wizards play with their spells more, and with less action cost. Then just generally better focus spells. Beyond just more feats and more spells, I think that's where Paizo could make Wizards feel more Wizardy.

[Bluescale]

Draco18s wrote:

Wizard feats, in comparison to Sorcerer feats, are boring.

I'm curious which sorcerer feats you think are less boring than wizard feats, as other than cross-blooded evolution, they seem pretty similar until high levels. Wizards even get more valuable metamagic (Silent Spell being one I really wish my sorcerer had).

[Draco18s]

Bluescale wrote:

Draco18s wrote:

Wizard feats, in comparison to Sorcerer feats, are boring.

I'm curious which sorcerer feats you think are less boring than wizard feats, as other than cross-blooded evolution, they seem pretty similar until high levels. Wizards even get more valuable metamagic (Silent Spell being one I really wish my sorcerer had).

So, for one, bloodlines are way more interesting (even ignoring the spell list choice) than wizard theses. Which inherently makes ALL of the bloodline feats more interesting.

Which is...basically most of the sorcerer's feats.

I mean heck, there's the ___ Evolution feats. Sure, any given sorcerer is only going to have one (unless Crossblooded), but wow those are unique and fun. Arcane Evolution gives the sorcerer the versatility of a wizard without any of the sunk costs. Prep a spell you think you might need that day cast it as many times as you want (which might be zero without taking away from your other spells).

Divine Evolution isn't as strong as a Cleric, but it grants a bit of extra clerical power. Heck, even if you don't pick up Heal or Harm as one of your known spells you can get a free casting of it every day anyway.

Occult Evolution? "Oh s~+#, Charm would be perfect right now...Oh hey, I know Charm!"

Primal Evolution? Hello free summon. I might still think summoned critters are incredibly weak for the resources I'm expending to get it, but some folks really think they're worth it.

What's a wizard get at that level?
Bespell Weapon, Linked Focus, and Silent Spell.

Nothing wrong with those feats, mechanically, but they're...not as interesting (and Sorcerer also gets Bespell Weapon). Linked Focus is a great feat...if your Focus spells are good, which as has been discussed, some of them are quite lacking. Silent Spell is certainly unique to the Wizard but...its situational. Its not the kind of thing that's going to be used every day.

[Old_Man_Robot]

This is inline with how I generally feel.

Wizards aren't bad, they are just in need of something a little more, something to give them more oomph.

Future books will probably fix this, and it will be an "early edition" problem, but as long as they get something I think they will be fine over all.

Puna'chong wrote:

I also think they don't follow up on their class mechanics (thesis, school specialization, arcane bond, and to an extent metamagic) in satisfying ways. They never follow up on their thesis, their focus spells are lackluster (which goes for many focus spells), the bond has one(?) feat, and their metamagic doesn't deliver on what I see as a cool niche of empowering spells more often than other classes. Though Quickened is good.

This is an interesting take.

An Expanded Thesis feat which just overall improves thesis option at 10th would be pretty good. More Focus spell options for each school is definitely needed.

Arcane Bond is actually the Wizards strongest ability, but only if you are a Universalist - otherwise its just nice.

Over all though, I think "lack of follow through" is a good way to put it.

[First World Bard]

citricking wrote:

Don't know if this been brought up, but the number of free spells known for a wizard is actually very low, and the cost of adding spells of your level to your spell book is actually very high (scroll prices have increased a lot relativity from pf1), so I feel the spells known by a wizard are actually very limited, which makes them a lot worse off compared to cleric/druid and spontaneous casters.

So, you don’t need to rely on Scrolls to copy new spells into your spell book; I agree that doing so is quite expensive. You just need to spend 1 hour/level in conversation with a character that knows the spell, or the same time with the spell in written form (book or scroll). Note that in PF2, copying from a scroll does not consume the scroll, so if that’s the route you take, you can still cast the spell off the scroll later. But I’d recommend making friends with other Wizards, and other spellcasters in general, since every tradition shares some spells with Arcane. (Magical Shorthand helps bring the time down to something more manageable if you are learning spells higher than cantrip or 1st level by talking to other PCs)

[Unicore]

Spells are definitely supposed to be a part of the rewards of for the party, and shouldn't be valued at the cost of scrolls. Even one level +1 or +2 enemy wizard is usually a treasure trove from a wizard

[Deriven Firelion]

Now one of my buddies thinks wizards can create scrolls with the Quicken Casting metamagic feat. He insists it doesn't say anywhere he can't do this with crafting. This is his attempted to fix to bring wizards on par to craft a bunch of scrolls with Quicken Metamgic feat. I hope he doesn't try this as metamagic doesn't work as he thinks it works and can't be incorporated into scrolls and magic items. That's how desperate he is to make casting work in PF2 for a wizard.

[Unicore]

I don't think you can craft scrolls with metamagic feats on them, but all a scroll is a spell on a page, so you definitely can use metamagic on spells cast from a scroll, as long as you have the actions left to cast it and it fits the spell level requirements for the feat. Lower level scrolls are definitely a great resource for wizards, but also all casters.

[KrispyXIV]

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Now one of my buddies thinks wizards can create scrolls with the Quicken Casting metamagic feat. He insists it doesn't say anywhere he can't do this with crafting. This is his attempted to fix to bring wizards on par to craft a bunch of scrolls with Quicken Metamgic feat. I hope he doesn't try this as metamagic doesn't work as he thinks it works and can't be incorporated into scrolls and magic items. That's how desperate he is to make casting work in PF2 for a wizard.

I continue to see (literally yesterday, in fact) Arcane Spells dominate when cast normally by a Sorcerer. No bloodline fanciness, no shenanigans, no Sorcerer feats at all even, just "Blam! Fireball!" and "Whapow, Chain Lightning!" and "Who knows what past that door/inside that building/etc? I do!" and "He looks dumb, lets see if he's scared of PHANTASMAL KILLER!"

Most damage done for the of the session, by virtue of targeting the right folks with the right spells at the right time. Most effects applied. Most barriers straight up ignored by virtue of having the right knowledge at the right time.

A Wizard could do all those things, just as effectively, and the Wizard can swap in a Clairvoyance in 10 minutes as soon as it becomes relevant even if he didn't think to bring it that morning with the right thesis. Better yet, the Wizard could do that with any 'Silver Bullet' spell as soon as it becomes relevant with a bit of time. Even a Bard struggles here, because even with a Spellbook they're inflexible until overnight.

This is all officially published material, and there's nothing at all that prevents this sort of shenanigans.

I'm not sure what you're buddies doing wrong - he has all the tools to succeed.