| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
This isn't about trash fights where spells like chain lightning shine. I can see am AoE spell with some critically failed saves doing a lot of damage. What I can't see is a main BBEG fight where chained lightning does much to a solo very tough character unless the player is very lucky.
The discussion has never been is the caster able to destroy trash. Set up trash right now and my bard does huge damage. So what. I want to be be able to take on a main BBEG and be as effective, not the trash master. I dropped a Phantasmal Calamity on some trash. For that round I did something like 160, 120, and 20 or 300 points of damage to 7 creatures. That was extremely impressive. No martial can even touch that save at the very highest levels with an extremely lucky round. And I stunned the trash and made it an easy fight.
Then went up against the boss creature, barely able to land anything and was better off buffing the martials. This isn't about how effective a caster is at killing trash encounters or minions. Casters with AoE spells are very good at doing aggregate damage to kill trash.
But that don't make you feel good when you're shooting beebees in the main fights.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
This isn't about trash fights where spells like chain lightning shine. I can see am AoE spell with some critically failed saves doing a lot of damage. What I can't see is a main BBEG fight where chained lightning does much to...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.
You need to change your strategy - and your expectations - for boss foes.
Against one strong enemy, anything you can do that relieves it of even one action is a huge swing. Focus on spells that have effects even on successful saves, and keep your expectations reasonable.
You're not likely to cripple them completely. You don't need to. That's not one characters worth of contribution. Its not how 2E really works.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
You need to change your strategy - and your expectations - for boss foes.
This isn't just true for casters either, martials also have to change up tactics versus bosses. Against a level+3 boss, even your second attack doesn't have a great shot at hitting, so you have to change up what you do on your turn.
Having different strategies against bosses and mooks is a fundamental part of the game.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Calling encounters against lower level enemies "Trash Encounters" makes it seem like you don't have much respect for the game or the game's design. You can easily design a sever and difficult encounter for any party with monsters that are still in the level -1 or level -2 range.
The vast majority of martial characters, on their own, are going to struggle against a "boss" (level +2 or 3) monster too. The Fighter might get a hit or two in, but is going to be on the ground in a round when the creature focuses fire on them. Even worse for the martial, when they stumble into a large solo fight, they are usually in even bigger trouble because they have almost no chance of escaping the creature as martials, especially big power melee martials, tend not to have really great movement. The ability of a group of martials to adapt to an unfavorable set of circumstances is incredibly limited in comparison to casters generally, but especially wizards.
Very often times it is the casters stealing actions away from bosses and making it difficult for the boss to move into position to attack the party that makes the difference in boss battles, and when the party is in trouble it is usually the casters who save the day.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
this is only if a wizard guessed right.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
this is only if a wizard guessed right.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.
I mean, if the Wizard knows they're doing dungeoning or adventuring today, preparing a chain lightning, a fireball, etc. etc. in their top level slots isn't a stretch. Wizards can cover a lot of ground with 3 top level slots, and 4 at their second tier.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's kinda impressive to me how the "wizards have to guess" thing gets used in such versatile ways.
It makes me laugh a bit when it gets brought up in a way that suggests a player would have the right spells if they were a sorcerer with the arcane list, but they won't since they're a wizard instead - since the reality is that either a player is gonna have a solid grasp of what spells to choose for their character, or they won't, and either way the wizard class is more readily able to fix any errors in spell selection.
Well, to be fair, Wizards do have on aggravating factor in that they need to choose the exact number of each spell they want to cast, which both makes it harder to guess right and more punishing to be wrong (as you lose an actual resource and not only the opportunity to have chosen another spell). Though, Spell Substitution is a good measure against this issue, if you choose that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's kinda impressive to me how the "wizards have to guess" thing gets used in such versatile ways.
It makes me laugh a bit when it gets brought up in a way that suggests a player would have the right spells if they were a sorcerer with the arcane list, but they won't since they're a wizard instead - since the reality is that either a player is gonna have a solid grasp of what spells to choose for their character, or they won't, and either way the wizard class is more readily able to fix any errors in spell selection.
A wizard has to guess both the spell and the number of times he will need that exact spell. further if you are a wizard and memorizing the same exact 3 spells for every situation, one has to asked why aren't you playing a sorcerer?
The entire alleged point of a wizard is that they have either attained mastery of magic(universalist) or mastery within a school of magic(specialist).
wizards get no mechanical feats that demonstrate any of the above abilities. the focus spells are horrendously bad, but even if they were decent I would argue they are not the appropriate avenue for the class to demonstrate mastery of magic.
Further I would say if you are correct in your assertion that all that is needed is for wizards to just memorize the same three spells every level I think you have argued successfully that wizards are actually a pointless class, and nothing more than a worse version of a sorcerer.
The simple fact is wizards are not very good class right now, plain and simple.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The simple fact is wizards are not very good class right now, plain and simple.
It certainly sounds like they aren't for you.
I wouldn't memorize multiple copies of the same spell except under weird circumstances as it stands now, or maybe if I had Spell Blending. Spell Blending makes you strictly better than a sorcerer at the Number of Spells thing, with a potential 5 top level slots.
Drain Bonded Item gives every Wizard a second cast of something if you need to play pocket-Sorcerer.
Prepared Spellcasting wasn't a drawback last edition, and its not a drawback this edition - presuming that you take advantage of it, and don't treat it like a liability. Is it more sensitive to a bad decision than a Sorcerer? Its certainly easier to correct than for a Sorcerer. 10 minutes with Spell Substitution, otherwise just overnight and your entire prepared spell list can change.
As well, you note again here that the 'focus spells are horrendously bad', which is hillariously untrue. Several of them are kindof boring... but they're not weak. Divination is straight up powerful, Evocation is a workhorse and worth the action, Hand of the Apprentice is fine, and the Necromancy one applies Sickened which is a great debuff. Protective Ward is also quite strong for the single action (don't compare it to the Bard equivalent, Bards are better at this thing and they lose spells for it - also they're the most powerful class in the game), and Physical Boost is good, if extremely niche. Charming Words is limited, but the only one I've seen that has a real issue is Augment Summoning due to its action cost. It'd be fine as a free action.
Expecting more from the Focus Spells is expecting too much. Most of them are a single action and provide a solid 'plus' for the rest of a normal turn.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Calling encounters against lower level enemies "Trash Encounters" makes it seem like you don't have much respect for the game or the game's design. You can easily design a sever and difficult encounter for any party with monsters that are still in the level -1 or level -2 range.
The vast majority of martial characters, on their own, are going to struggle against a "boss" (level +2 or 3) monster too. The Fighter might get a hit or two in, but is going to be on the ground in a round when the creature focuses fire on them. Even worse for the martial, when they stumble into a large solo fight, they are usually in even bigger trouble because they have almost no chance of escaping the creature as martials, especially big power melee martials, tend not to have really great movement. The ability of a group of martials to adapt to an unfavorable set of circumstances is incredibly limited in comparison to casters generally, but especially wizards.
Very often times it is the casters stealing actions away from bosses and making it difficult for the boss to move into position to attack the party that makes the difference in boss battles, and when the party is in trouble it is usually the casters who save the day.
\
Martials get to swing so much with buffing, debuffing the BBEG guys from other classes, along with item bonuses, and flanking, they often land crits and double strikes.
What does it matter if they don't land a third strike when a casters spells don't even do enough damage to match one martial strike against a single target and even less on a save?
And on top of that wizards aren't even great at buffing and debuffing compared to other classes. Even druids have more to do. And at least a cleric can basically eliminate the damage done with one Divine Font spell. Our cleric yesterday took the rogue from down 100 to max in one spell against a BBEG. Very impressive. Can the wizard do the same to the BBEG? Nope, not unless he gets super lucky.
The paladin was even doing good damage swinging blind getting lucky with a crit and making their flat check to hit. The paladin with a Greater Striking Weapon averages 50 plus point crits. She's got a 39 AC with a shield, something a caster can't even touch.
It's just kind of sad honestly.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Martials get to swing so much with buffing, debuffing the BBEG guys from other classes, along with item bonuses, and flanking, they often land crits and double strikes.What does it matter if they don't land a third strike when a casters spells don't even do enough damage to match one martial strike against a single target and even less on a save?
And on top of that wizards aren't even great at buffing and debuffing compared to other classes. Even druids have more to do. And at least a cleric can basically eliminate the damage done with one Divine Font spell. Our cleric yesterday took the rogue from down 100 to max in one spell against a BBEG. Very impressive. Can the wizard do the same to the BBEG? Nope, not unless he gets super lucky.
The paladin was even doing...
I'm noticing a recurring theme here of being jealous of things other classes can do.
A Wizard is not those classes. Focus on your advantages, and not the things they do best... thats literally their thing and you as the Wizard do not get their thing.
You get a versatile spell list, on a versatile chassis, that has a lot of assets that you seem to be dismissing because they don't invalidate every other class. That's something Wizards did in PF1, and its not on the menu for this edition.
I would suggest that if you don't like the core mechanic of Wizards, preparing spells to the last detail, don't play a Wizard. You're not going to have fun if that doesn't do it for you.
If you aren't happy with the effectiveness of their spells, I literally can't help you. I've seen their spells in action, and they're fine. They're great even. You probably need to adjust your expectations and try to understand the relative mechanics of 2E - your summaries sound a lot like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole, when you should be playing to strengths that you don't seem to be acknowledging exist.
Don't try and use Save-based nukes on 'boss' enemies unless you can cripple their weak save - in which case, absolutely hit them there and watch them die. Hit them with spells like Slow, and rob them of one of their precious actions even if they make their save. Its not glamorous, but as a GM I assure you its absolutely crippling.
And most of all because its most important - Wizards probably aren't ever going to be the 'best' at anything, other than the best at being Versatile. Their whole spell list can change over night - thats their thing. They share it with Clerics and Druids, but the Arcane list is like a greatest hits list from Primal and Occult, getting most of the best stuff from each.
I sincerely don't see that changing, because versatility has defined Wizards since way back when they could specialize into any of the schools. The difference between a Specialist Wizard and a Sorcerer has always been that the Wizard is still a generalist - he gets to pick from ALL the Evocations, plus 70% of other magic.
This isn't new, its always been the class. Whats new is that Wizards aren't stealing everyone elses cake and eating it too.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Calling encounters against lower level enemies "Trash Encounters" makes it seem like you don't have much respect for the game or the game's design. You can easily design a sever and difficult encounter for any party with monsters that are still in the level -1 or level -2 range.
The vast majority of martial characters, on their own, are going to struggle against a "boss" (level +2 or 3) monster too. The Fighter might get a hit or two in, but is going to be on the ground in a round when the creature focuses fire on them. Even worse for the martial, when they stumble into a large solo fight, they are usually in even bigger trouble because they have almost no chance of escaping the creature as martials, especially big power melee martials, tend not to have really great movement. The ability of a group of martials to adapt to an unfavorable set of circumstances is incredibly limited in comparison to casters generally, but especially wizards.
Very often times it is the casters stealing actions away from bosses and making it difficult for the boss to move into position to attack the party that makes the difference in boss battles, and when the party is in trouble it is usually the casters who save the day.
\
Martials get to swing so much with buffing, debuffing the BBEG guys from other classes, along with item bonuses, and flanking, they often land crits and double strikes.
What does it matter if they don't land a third strike when a casters spells don't even do enough damage to match one martial strike against a single target and even less on a save?
And on top of that wizards aren't even great at buffing and debuffing compared to other classes. Even druids have more to do. And at least a cleric can basically eliminate the damage done with one Divine Font spell. Our cleric yesterday took the rogue from down 100 to max in one spell against a BBEG. Very impressive. Can the wizard do the same to the BBEG? Nope, not unless he gets super lucky.
The paladin was even doing...
Yeah, Martials get a lot better when there are 2 casters in the party dedicated to doing nothing but buffing them and keeping them on their feet.
In your party it sounds like you have a bard and a cleric that spend at least 2 actions a turn doing nothing but buffing/healing their allies. That is going to improve their capabilities quite a lot. As a player of cleric, I also find that I usually have to spend most of my turns casting heals and moving into position to cast more heal next round, and when I did that, the barbarian stayed alive and the rogue on his feet.
In the one battle where the party decided to press ahead past the point I had exhausted my healing spells, the Barbarian died, a Fighter NPC died, and the rogue ended the battle using a hero point to stabilize (the barbarian was bleeding so the hero point was meaningless). Meanwhile the sorcerer, my cleric and another casting NPC barely, barely beat the boss monster, because we were capable of staying back and kiting it.
Honestly, I feel like this thread started off talking about how the wizard was unexciting in play, but my experience playing a bard was that the bard is way, way more boring in play. My bard was expected to buff with one to three actions a turn and maybe plink away with a shortbow once around if I didn't have to do something more important.
My player with the wizard has way more fun using magic to control the battlefield with longer lasting spells like flaming sphere, clouds, grease, and looking forward to walls.
Obviously everyone has different definitions of fun, but it has been my experience and the experience of my party that the wizard looks more bland on paper than other casters, but has way more interesting things to do in play because it is THE class for applying spells with creativity. No other caster gets enough spells and the ability to change up their spells from day to day to change up their strategies with nearly every encounter. Having good martials in the party can make or break how some of those spells can be used to turn a battle/ take advantage of the environment, but they almost never can do it on their own.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
This isn't about trash fights where spells like chain lightning shine. I can see am AoE spell with some critically failed saves doing a lot of damage. What I can't see is a main BBEG fight where chained lightning does much to a solo very tough character unless the player is very lucky.
The discussion has never been is the caster able to destroy trash. Set up trash right now and my bard does huge damage. So what. I want to be be able to take on a main BBEG and be as effective, not the trash master. I dropped a Phantasmal Calamity on some trash. For that round I did something like 160, 120, and 20 or 300 points of damage to 7 creatures. That was extremely impressive. No martial can even touch that save at the very highest levels with an extremely lucky round. And I stunned the trash and made it an easy fight.
Then went up against the boss creature, barely able to land anything and was better off buffing the martials. This isn't about how effective a caster is at killing trash encounters or minions. Casters with AoE spells are very good at doing aggregate damage to kill trash.
But that don't make you feel good when you're shooting beebees in the main fights.
This honestly sounds like an argument calling back for the God Wizard, the "I can do everyone else's jobs and only need a clean up crew," that was explicitly designed against. Those "trash" fights without a caster's high damage AOE really put those same martials at risk.
I also refute that the wizard can't do anything against boss fights. Against bosses, I usually did higher, more reliable damage than any of the martials. And chain lightning, when I get it, is my go-to spell against a single target because it avoids friendlies.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Prepared Spellcasting wasn't a drawback last edition
It absolutely was, though. It was just one that you could ignore a lot more easily by preparing blatantly overpowered spells and having a spell level advantage over spontaneous casters.
Honestly I'm not even sure why you keep trying to tie everything back to 1e in the first place. "But wizards were overpowered last edition" doesn't really have any bearing on where they may or may not exist now.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wizards being overpowered last edition is potentially evidence that Wizards may have been over nerfed as a sort of revenge.
I don't think Paizo was approaching from that mentality at all, even if there are some changes I find kind of pointless.
Won't disagree that some people on the forums seem really stuck on that mindset, though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think Paizo was approaching from that mentality at all, even if there are some changes I find kind of pointless.
Paizo as a whole, probably no. However, I listened to a bunch of stuff from Mark Seifter, both on Paizos' channel, his Arcane Mark channel, and some other random stuff. And my impression is that he definitively falls into overnerf Wizard category, whether he realises it or not.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think Paizo was approaching from that mentality at all, even if there are some changes I find kind of pointless.Paizo as a whole, probably no. However, I listened to a bunch of stuff from Mark Seifter, both on Paizos' channel, his Arcane Mark channel, and some other random stuff. And my impression is that he definitively falls into overnerf Wizard category, whether he realises it or not.
Because at the end of the day it's a lot easier to buff casters than it is to buff martials. For a caster, you can get new spells or new feats, for a martial it's just new feats. Two levers to pull vs one.
In a choice between risking wizards being CRB broken (again) or aiming low, I would have picked to aim low as well. Because it's a lot easier to bring the wizard up to par if aiming low makes them bad, than it is to bring the fighter up to par.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You might be right that it's easier to fix them - although I strongly disagree. Primary problem with Wizards isn't spells, it's that they are boring and do not engage with their class options, compared to other classes.
Furthermore, I actually think Mark Seifter doesn't realise his bias against Wizards, which also means he doesn't see the problems it creates. And he's one of the main designers.
It's sad, and it might be my pessimism, but I actually expect more of the same from APG: feats and upgrades which give some minor improvements but are ultimately boring, situational, and do not engage with Wizard class features.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wizards being overpowered last edition is potentially evidence that Wizards may have been over nerfed as a sort of revenge.I don't think Paizo was approaching from that mentality at all, even if there are some changes I find kind of pointless.
Won't disagree that some people on the forums seem really stuck on that mindset, though.
Its hard to tell at this point what Paizo's ultimate goal is, so I wont say they 100% had that mentality.
However, I do think that some people in the playtest had that mentality. I also do think some people now have that mentality.
My main evidence of course being that instant call of "wanting the God Wizard" in response to people saying that Wizards have boring options. Ignoring the fact the God Wizard was a Buffer/Debuffer/Battlefield Control mostly summoning, it was not a Blaster.
You could make a variety of wizards in PF1. One of those concepts was a blaster/damage dealer that was easily on par with martials. I built that character.
You could build a variety of concepts in PF1.
1. Blaster: Empowered damage and quickened blasts.
2. Dominator: Enchantment and control of enemies.
3. Transmuter: Polymorph and stone spells.
4. God wizard: Sort of a generalist relying on high value spells for control.
5. Summoner went to summoner class after Master Summoner released, but you could do a wizard summoner early on.
You could build a variety of concepts. But all I'm seeing right from the wizard is the following:
1. AoE damage dealer.
2. Action remover.
Neither of those are attractive to me. I did not use slow much in PF1. I liked other concepts, which are nearly unplayable now.
Maybe if you have not a lot of experience building casters in PF1, then this new wizard seems fine. If you know the PF1 system in and out, you know building highly effective wizards that weren't the general "God Wizard" were very possible.
That is the problem with the wizard. Not only is his less effective in most areas than other classes, but he's not fun to customize. His abilities aren't that fun or interesting. He has no real schtick other than cast a lot of watered-down spells that no longer allow you to do what you used to do.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You might be right that it's easier to fix them - although I strongly disagree. Primary problem with Wizards isn't spells, it's that they are boring and do not engage with their class options, compared to other classes.
Furthermore, I actually think Mark Seifter doesn't realise his bias against Wizards, which also means he doesn't see the problems it creates. And he's one of the main designers.
It's sad, and it might be my pessimism, but I actually expect more of the same from APG: feats and upgrades which give some minor improvements but are ultimately boring, situational, and do not engage with Wizard class features.
This is the primary problem. The wizard is boring on top of being minimally effective. I have no idea what to do with them to make them shine other than what so many on here state: wait for AoE opportunties and then try action removal/debuffing in major fights. That is the wizard's options. Pretty boring.
My buddy is starting a wizard at lvl 8. Hopefully he'll make it past 11th level and hit that magical level of goodness where the wizard starts to shine. Then I'll see with my own eyes if they suddenly become highly effective.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wizards being overpowered last edition is potentially evidence that Wizards may have been over nerfed as a sort of revenge.
If Wizards were not as strong then people would not have such joy in seeing them so weak in this edition.
Not even remotely.
The issue is, when a lot of people are saying, "I used to play Wizard but don't like Wizard anymore, they suck." and the primary overall adjustment was to bring them in line with other classes, you start to question what it is that's being missed.
Especially since the primary evidence being presented is how much "better" other classes are, and how much people wish Wizards were as good as them at the things they specialize in.
You know, the thing they were notorious for last edition.
That, plus the dismisal of Arcane magic as "bad" or ineffective at things in ways which are clear hyperbole and a apparent misunderstanding of how tactics work against various relative levels of creature all seem to lead toward a conclusion that what's wrong with the class isn't actually the "feelsbad" lack of flavor, but the lack of in-game Power relative to expectations.
It leads one to suspect that the draw to Wizard for many was not the class-narrslative of being the Wise and Learned spellcaster who knew all about the breadth of Magic, or the Evoker who had a different spell for every occasion- but instead to a class that would satisfy a desire to be as strong as possible.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of the polymorph spells are not bad, the problem with them for most casters, for combat purposes, is that they are tuned into making your attacks and defenses at the low end of what martials can do, meaning that if you have 2 or 3 martials in your party, you are likely playing needlessly into a redundancy that your party has covered. If you compare your wizard without the polymorph to your wizard with it, they will be much better at combat with it, but not better than a martial. But what is the alternative really?
A polymorph instantly improves your attack, your defense and often grants movement options and other utility value, from having cast 1 spell. If it made you fully equal to a high end martial, at one spell, it would make multiple classes irrelevant. As is, the utility from spells like animal form and pest form are incredibly high. The transmuter has some minor issues that need fixed (a cantrip, for example), but it is at the very high end of magical versatility.
Most of the complaints I am seeing voiced here now seem more targeted at fun equals being able to dominate high level solo monsters with any spell I might chose to cast. That is a wildly unrealistic expectation that flies in the face of everyone saying wizards aren’t terribly under powered, they are just “boring.”
If the value of spells that are not static buffs becomes dependent on feats (much as it did in PF1), you are basically asking for multiclass casters to be terrible again. I like that spells themselves do most of the lifting in what they can do. What I want from future feats is subtle but interesting adjustments, primarily to action economy and versatility.
I think PF2 is becoming “the martial” edition because martial characters are expecting casters to focus on making them play better without making any efforts to return the favor. Martials can do a lot of damage, but often require spending actions moving directly into harms way and then having to survive for multiple rounds giving the enemy full rounds of attacks to be able to do so. By itself, that is pretty much a suicide tactic. Martial players far too often expect the rest of the party to turn bad tactics into good, and that largely excludes letting the wizard take advantage of their tactical superiority.
PF2 is very much a team game. If the party talks about what they can all do to make things more fun for everyone, they will very likely succeed.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My buddy is starting a wizard at lvl 8. Hopefully he'll make it past 11th level and hit that magical level of goodness where the wizard starts to shine. Then I'll see with my own eyes if they suddenly become highly effective.
8th onwards is, in my opinion, where Wizards really start to shine. Lucky duck skipping the harsher levels!
Overall it does feel like Wizards are simply missing some mechanic which defines their identity more. I don't even thing it needs to be big, just something which establishes their space in the game design beyond just legacy.
From 3.5 > PF1 > PF2, Paizo have done an amazing conceptual evolution of the Sorcerer. It would have been nice to see some of that thinking come the Wizard's way as well.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of the polymorph spells are not bad, the problem with them for most casters, for combat purposes, is that they are tuned into making your attacks and defenses at the low end of what martials can do, meaning that if you have 2 or 3 martials in your party, you are likely playing needlessly into a redundancy that your party has covered. If you compare your wizard without the polymorph to your wizard with it, they will be much better at combat with it, but not better than a martial. But what is the alternative really?
Make them equal to mid-level? I mean, it shouldn't be *that* hard in this new bounded edition.
But I actually have little complain to Polymorph spell functionality. The problem there is different:
The transmuter has some minor issues that need fixed (a cantrip, for example), but it is at the very high end of magical versatility.
And a "minor" issue of not having any meaningful polymorph spells until character level 7.
Most of the complaints I am seeing voiced here now seem more targeted at fun equals being able to dominate high level solo monsters with any spell I might chose to cast. That is a wildly unrealistic expectation that flies in the face of everyone saying wizards aren’t terribly under powered, they are just “boring.”
Then you are reading wrong. While there is sure some people complaining about damage output, they are certainly not asking to dominate high level solo monsters, just to be able to meaningfully contribute.
I think PF2 is becoming “the martial” edition because martial characters are expecting casters to focus on making them play better without making any efforts to return the favor. Martials can do a lot of damage, but often require spending actions moving directly into harms way and then having to survive for multiple rounds giving the enemy full rounds of...
And yet Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer all have something more fun to do that being the Wizard.
Again, this is reducing Wizard to a single trope championed by KrispyXIV: get all the spells and hope you have prepared just the right situational spell to dominate the encounter, or sit in the back and throw cantrips while others do the work.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The entire alleged point of a wizard is that they have either attained mastery of magic(universalist) or mastery within a school of magic(specialist).That allegation, which oddly I've only actually seen in the context of people saying that a wizard doesn't feel like it is that, doesn't mesh well with what the Pathfinder book actually says about the wizard class.
Which, to summarize, is: eternal student; use your mastery to cast powerful and devastating spells (contextual use of "mastery" here not meaning the same thing as it does in the phrase "I have attained mastery of magic" - it's more like how my mastery of the English language is being used to write this post); treat magic like a science; study a lot... and then some specific quotes:
"Yet magical theory is vast, and there's no way you can study it all." Which directly counters the wizards-as-absolute-masters allegation.
And that's just looking at the single italicized paragraph at the top of the wizard class description.
The simple fact is wizards are not very good class right now, plain and simple.Stating that your opinion is a fact doesn't make it true, and in fact makes it less likely that you're going to convince someone your opinion has merit.
...correct in your assertion that all that is needed is for wizards to just memorize the same three spells every level...And last, but not least - don't put words in my mouth.
I only repeated what you stated, if you don't like your own arguement then dont make it. There have now been multiple 500+ post threads about the problems of the wizard. there is quite a factual basis supporting my assertion that wizards are not very good class right now.
Just to be clear, i am not advocating for spells to buffed, that would ruin the game. The problem is the class and specifically it's spell casting mechanism are unsuitable for the spell balance in this game - a balance i agree with and support.
Being a prepared caster has only worked in AD&D because spells esp arcane spells were grossly overpowered. This game magic system is very similar in design to an MMO's when it comes to balance. Spells are very narrowly designed, in fact the incapacitation trait was first used 20 years ago in EQ (which itself was a distillation of muds which were a distillation of D&D). It isnt reasonable to expect a player to guess the correct type and number of spell they are going to need.
I will say it again, if you are saying that the wizard should just be buffing, then i will ask why are not playing a sorcerer? A sorcerer is always going to be a superior pure buffer to a wizard, 100% of the time.
In the current system there simple no way for a wizard to effectively leverage what is suppose to his defining features, either mastery of vast array of magic or specialization in a school.
Knowing all the spells makes no difference if you don't have the means to effectively leverage that knowledge
wizards are like having the largest collection of race cars, but you dont get to know what kind of race and terrain you will be racing. So you just pick the most generic cars that will work on most things. Which defeats the very purpose of having the largest race car collection, makes the point of having the largest collection of race cars irrelevant.
While I do really like pest form as a spell, I'd be down for something similar to animal form to bridge the gap for early polymorph strategies. I'm not 100% sure what that would/should be (though to be honest, I think animal form should have been an arcane spell to begin with, I get that it's pretty primal flavored but it's kind of the perfect low-level polymorph and the arcane list does get animal related spells).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I do really like pest form as a spell, I'd be down for something similar to animal form to bridge the gap for early polymorph strategies. I'm not 100% sure what that would/should be (though to be honest, I think animal form should have been an arcane spell to begin with, I get that it's pretty primal flavored but it's kind of the perfect low-level polymorph and the arcane list does get animal related spells).
Animal Form not being an Arcane spell feels like a legitimate and perplexing issue. Theres not balance issue with it being Arcane, and Wizards turning into animals is well within their idiom.
Transmuters at least should have access, and a feat to grant it (as well as access to any other similar missing battle-shape spells) would be a pretty easy patch.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
wizards are like having the largest collection of race cars, but you don't get to know what kind of race and terrain you will be racing. So you just pick the most generic cars that will work on most things. Which defeats the very purpose of having the largest race car collection, makes the point of having the largest collection of race cars irrelevant.
At the very worst, this is a GM dependent situation, but it would be a pretty terrible GM that never gives their players any kind of sense of what adventures lie ahead. It is certainly not the case in any Paizo AP I have ever played that the party never has any kind of idea about what encounters lie ahead, and by mid levels most parties have multiple ways of doing some minor scouting ahead, at least enough to buy half an hour or an hour of prep. SO if you are really struggling to have the right spells for the encounter, there is a thesis specifically designed for your situation.
@Nemo, so it sounds like if there was a 2nd level polymorph and a transmutation cantrip, your primary issues with the wizard would be addressed, that is fairly reasonable and I wouldn't be shocked to see it relatively soon. Even if it isn't maybe your GM would let your character research a version of Animal form that could be useable by your wizard?
As far as wizards being able to meaningfully contribute to boss encounters, I strongly believe the issue here is the tactical approach of the party. It is much harder for the wizard to take advantage of their strengths when the rest of the party wants to roll initiative and rush into melee combat, and then expect the casters to keep them from dying when that turns out to be a bad tactic. As soon as the battle turns into a damage race to the finish, against a powerful, difficult to hit enemy, the options for the wizard's contribution quickly diminish in scope. However the arcane list has one of the best and most reliable spells for causing consistent damage, and it can be cast from distances that can allow wizards to actually trivialize difficult encounters if the rest of the party isn't running around in melee with the brute getting destroyed: Magic Missile.
Also, I am really, really confused as to why people think battlefield control = debuffing = boring in actual combat. Especially in comparison to anything a bard does in a combat round. Throwing down effects that force the enemy to move out of favorable positions and waste actions doing so is way more fun then dropping an enemy's HP by 30% in one round, and leaving yourself exposed to getting KO'd with the enemy's next turn. If you do that with a stinking cloud, you even leave your martials in a positon to be able to shove the creature back in the cloud, or get an AoO when they try to move out of it
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Nemo, so it sounds like if there was a 2nd level polymorph and a transmutation cantrip, your primary issues with the wizard would be addressed, that is fairly reasonable and I wouldn't be shocked to see it relatively soon. Even if it isn't maybe your GM would let your character research a version of Animal form that could be useable by your wizard?
First of all, I play in PFS primarily at this moment, so no, researching Animal Form for myself isn't an option.
On your proposal, a decent cantrip and a 2nd level polymorph would make a Transmuter playable as Transmuter. I don't think it would solve the issues.Overall, I would prefer a non-Animal Form for Transmuters. Not because I mind Animal Form, but it would be cool to have something special. Also, a decent Focus spell - I've been bending over backwards (to the point of building a muscle Wizard) to use it in PFS and so far, I might as well not have it.
I guess, for me and Transmuters, easy solution would be to make a decent polymorphing 1st level Focus spell.
As far as wizards being able to meaningfully contribute to boss encounters, I strongly believe the issue here is the tactical approach of the party. It is much harder for the wizard to take advantage of their strengths when the rest of the party wants to roll initiative and rush into melee combat, and then expect the casters to keep them from dying when that turns out to be a bad tactic. As soon as the battle turns into a damage race to the finish, against a powerful, difficult to hit enemy, the options for the wizard's contribution quickly diminish in scope. However the arcane list has one of the best and most reliable spells for causing consistent damage, and it can be cast from distances that can allow wizards to actually trivialize difficult encounters if the rest of the party isn't running around in melee with the brute getting destroyed: Magic Missile.
Personally, I really dislike Magic Missile, much like I dislike Fireball. If you want to be doing damage in this form, play a Sorcerer.
I would prefer if they made some effort in putting "clever" magical damage spells. Maybe something that takes some effort to cast but if successful grants bonus?
I guess one big issue with damaging spells people have is that they are so unsatisfying. Sure, if you can land them, then they do damage (but again, not a ridiculous amount), but more than often, you can't land them because your bonus to hit is lower than comparable martial. And no, True Strike is not a solution. For one, again, it feels bad needing to spend whole round on an okay damage, not to mention using yet another spell slot (especially on lower levels, where you do have use for 1st level slots besides True Strike).
But... I'm the wrong person to talk about that. I'm more of a buff/debuff wizard (or polymorphers at heart).
Also, I am really, really confused as to why people think battlefield control = debuffing = boring in actual combat. Especially in comparison to anything a bard does in a combat round.it
Here's the thing. Bard gets off his buff with one action, potentially for up to 4 rounds. Not using his spell slots. And then they have a choice whether to continue with spells or fighting directly.
First, Wizard doesn't have the choice: it's spells or bust (I'm not complaining they don't have the choice, but trying to explain why they are unsatisfying to play).
Then, Wizard proceeds to use his spells slots. Which tend to either effectively finish an encounter, or be a minor inconvenience to an enemy. And often, you're not the one rolling for it. So overall it's just a lack of interactivity for me, not to mention falling into that old trap of save-or-suck.
Hm. Just had a brilliant idea for Magical Weapon (as an example). Change it to 1-3 actions: 1 action is touch range 1 weapon, 2 actions is 30ft range 1 weapon, 3 actions is 10ft circle all weapons. And allow it to be put on already magical weapons, where it may simply override weapon innate magical properties to reset it to +1 Striking. Does not affect enemy or cursed.
Personally, I really dislike Magic Missile, much like I dislike Fireball. If you want to be doing damage in this form, play a Sorcerer.
I want to do damage in this form, but I wanted to play a high Int scholar instead of a high Cha face. Which is why I am playing an Evoker.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess one big issue with damaging spells people have is that they are so unsatisfying.
And this is ultimately where a difference in perception happens. Most of my players find the damage spells they've used like Flaming Sphere, Lightning Bolt, and Crisis of Faith to be incredibly satisfying. But most of my players look at the incredibly popular Inspire Courage and other bard cantrips and find it dull to just cast the same couple buffs round after round.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I really dislike Magic Missile, much like I dislike Fireball. If you want to be doing damage in this form, play a Sorcerer.I want to do damage in this form, but I wanted to play a high Int scholar instead of a high Cha face. Which is why I am playing an Evoker.
I honestly feel like an Evoker (possibly with a MC for Dangerous Sorcery) makes a stronger blaster in general, because it opens the door to being better at the non-blasting side of things too, and gives you an option to adjust if your Fire Wizard finds out that tommorow is the trip into the heart of Fire-Death Mountain Where Everything is Immune to Fire. A Fire Sorc is left to make the best of a challenging situation, the Evoker just rolls with it.
Since you likely don't want to cast more than 2 top tier or top minus one tier spells per encounter anyway, you can easily meet this need throughout the adventuring day via either Spell Substitution (prepare utility and phase it out as you go) or Spell Blending (Moar Spells!).
I dont really see what Sorcerer adds to this build or concept.
I honestly feel like an Evoker (possibly with a MC for Dangerous Sorcery) makes a stronger blaster in general, because it opens the door to being better at the non-blasting side of things too, and gives you an option to adjust if your Fire Wizard finds out that tommorow is the trip into the heart of Fire-Death Mountain Where Everything is Immune to Fire. A Fire Sorc is left to make the best of a challenging situation, the Evoker just rolls with it.
Since you likely don't want to cast more than 2 top tier or top minus one tier spells per encounter anyway, you can easily meet this need throughout the adventuring day via either Spell Substitution (prepare utility and phase it out as you go) or Spell Blending (Moar Spells!).
I dont really see what Sorcerer adds to this build or concept.
I mean, a Sorcerer will have different strengths and weaknesses. Yes, a full-on Fire All The Time Sorcerer will have a rough go at Fire Mountain. If i were to build a Sorcerer for damage, I suspect I would make Magic Missile one of my Signature Spells, and always have that as a fallback. It would be a little boring to just cast that same spell over and over, but I guess that’s the point of having a safety net.
But yes, I’ve had missions where we knew we would be going underwater later in the day/ the next day and it was easy enough to prep Air Bubble or Water Breathing in the low level utility slots, instead of my normal load out there.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Most of my players find the damage spells they've used like Flaming Sphere
Just so we're clear, you and your players are aware that the sphere can never be more than 30 feet from the caster, right? That puts the caster 1 move action away from whomever he just hit with it.
Most of my players find the damage spells they've used like Flaming SphereJust so we're clear, you and your players are aware that the sphere can never be more than 30 feet from the caster, right? That puts the caster 1 move action away from whomever he just hit with it.
Not if you cast it with Reach Spell. ;)
Reach Spell has so many absolutely disgusting combos. Flaming Sphere is one of them, 3rd level fear is another. Basically anything that lets you target multiple creatures without being an AoE spell is fantastic with Reach Spell.
Most of my players find the damage spells they've used like Flaming SphereJust so we're clear, you and your players are aware that the sphere can never be more than 30 feet from the caster, right? That puts the caster 1 move action away from whomever he just hit with it.
Yeah, but there's usually a raging barbarian between her and the sphere.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, but there's usually a raging barbarian between her and the sphere.Most of my players find the damage spells they've used like Flaming SphereJust so we're clear, you and your players are aware that the sphere can never be more than 30 feet from the caster, right? That puts the caster 1 move action away from whomever he just hit with it.
Doesn't actually stop them from moving. The barbarian doesn't get to whack people when they move (before level 6), all the barbarian can do is follow after them.
And it doesn't mean that enemies KNOW that the barbarian can do those things either.