| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So the bard's exciting focus spell combo (as it takes a specific muse to get that option is a one action over turned buff to attacks and damage, followed up by using your actual focus point to allow you to roll for being able to maintain that for extra rounds?
It is not a weak option, and there are nice things about it, but almost all of the 1st level wizard focus spells are more interesting and exciting than lingering composition.
These claims that the wizard is fine balance-wise but boring in play feel false to me.
It seems like the wizard feels boring to theory craft with because its abilities are dependent upon how successfully they can be used in actual play, and there are a lot of ways that that can go wrong depending upon what is expected from the wizard by the rest of the table and how much the rest of the table is willing to support the wizard.
The bard on the other hand, knows it is going to be supporting allies 75%+ of the time, so it is a lot easier to have an effective turn, but it is a lot more difficult to do anything creative or interesting with.
meanwhile far too many martial characters get by assuming the thing they are supposed to do is rush in and attack as often as possible, and force the rest of the party into playing to keep them alive. Being a wizard in a party with one or two martial players like this is very difficult. It can still be done successfully, but it largely involves playing support caster/buffer, with a little potential for battlefield control. Your Martials are built to be big damage dealers so you are not going to compete with them for dealing the damage.
A barbarian with a two handed weapon requires another character providing healing every round to stay on their feat against a boss monster, as well as accuracy boosting to give them a decent chance to hit even once. Even if they drop the 2 hander and use a shield, they likely buy themself 1 additional turn on their feet per combat without nearly constant healing support.
Some monsters have good mobility and ranged options, but those are usually monsters that martial characters require spell caster support to keep up with anyway. Melee smasher monsters are usually capable of overpowering martial combatants and need to be kited by the whole team anyway.
The advantage of martials alone against powerful monsters in PF2 is wildly over blown. Bards help make them a lot better, so they can absolutely be a good team choice, but that party still probably requires a cleric or a heal focused Druid to survive the difficult fights they make for themselves. That is a lot of team resources into making Martials feel like powerhouses.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Reach flaming sphere is very nice, though the action economy on sustained spells can be tight on complex fights.
I actually feel like Flaming Sphere should have been a 1st-level spell with the same +1 heightening, because I think that could alleviate a lot of the awkwardness for a 1st- and 2nd-level evoker playstyle. But at any rate, hitting 3rd and opening up a "basic attack" like flaming sphere is, I've seen, super helpful for casters to feel like they're contributing without spending too many slots. But I digress.
Really, in my estimation, playing a Wizard means you're signing up for a toolkit class. The most effective day-to-day wizarding I've seen has included a wide variety of spells. Whether that's "correct" or what people actually want out of a Wizard is a different question, but I think Wizards are strongest when they can try to have a solution for a number of problems. They're assisted by how broad the Arcane tradition is, and in having an extra slot for their specialization, with Drain Bonded Item to let them have another cast of something on the spot.
Edit: Also, I feel like I need to comment on this:
These claims that the wizard is fine balance-wise but boring in play feel false to me.
I don't think Wizards as a whole are boring in play, but in the context of focus spells and class-specific mechanics or feats, I can see why many people can think they are very bland. Protective ward is not exciting. Augment summoning is not exciting. Force bolt is vanilla, while tempest surge is a visceral and attractive 1st-level focus spell. Wizard is, I think, a good class, but we don't have to pretend that stuff like Eschew Materials or Steady Spellcasting are rad, dynamic, exciting feats.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The advantage of martials alone against powerful monsters in PF2 is wildly over blown. Bards help make them a lot better, so they can absolutely be a good team choice, but that party still probably requires a cleric or a heal focused Druid to survive the difficult fights they make for themselves. That is a lot of team resources into making Martials feel like powerhouses.
So does the oft-touted "allow the fighter to hit on a 2" combo:
Flanking + Fear + Heroism + BlessAnd somehow that's accepted as being possible "multiple times per fight" but a Bard and Druid doing the things they're built to do? Too much work.
The advantage of martials alone against powerful monsters in PF2 is wildly over blown. Bards help make them a lot better, so they can absolutely be a good team choice, but that party still probably requires a cleric or a heal focused Druid to survive the difficult fights they make for themselves. That is a lot of team resources into making Martials feel like powerhouses.So does the oft-touted "allow the fighter to hit on a 2" combo:
Flanking + Fear + Heroism + BlessAnd somehow that's accepted as being possible "multiple times per fight" but a Bard and Druid doing the things they're built to do? Too much work.
I'm not clear what you're getting at here... the buff stack you're referencing (which needs to replace one of the status bonuses with a circumstance bonus) is repeatable typically with the components in place.
It does require resources and investment, but many of those components are renewable or non-consumable.
I'm not sure how that connects to Bards or Druids being too much work in what Unicore posted.
His point was that Martials aren't that amazing out of the box (which is true, see all the threads about people not being able to hit reliably) and that casters are extremely effective at making Martials shine. Which is true?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not clear what you're getting at here... the buff stack you're referencing (which needs to replace one of the status bonuses with a circumstance bonus) is repeatable typically with the components in place.
You're right about the status bonus, but still.
How many times? is the point I'm making. Yes, Heroism lasts 10 minutes (basically a cast-once lasts an encounter-or-two), but Fear lasts a round or two. How many times are you prepping Fear? Bless also lasts only a minute and covers no area unless concentrated on.
So again, for a single round of "fighter is amazing" you've spent at least two spell slots. You can't do that forever. And I'd contend that if you have Heroism up you're probably not going to worry about the Fear or whatever other condition you want to inflict.
So yes, you can get a fighter to hit on a 2, if you put a lot of effort into it, but that's not going to happen very often--if at all--much less multiple times in every encounter.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know its funny.
I mentioned that the only Wizard builds that kind of work are the AoE Blaster and God Wizard.
Then everyone started to say how the God Wizard is how you should play Wizards, even when they are Blasters.******************
* P.S. The reason I always liked Wizards was the feeling that I studied to become good at one thing and I adventured to become better at it.
I always loved how an Illusionists had mostly spells with 0 specific usage. But I could be creative and decide, "Hey why dont we hide behind an illusory rock?". Or, "Hey why dont I creat a fake wall to separate the enemies?". Now that experience is gone because magic has been nerfed. And Wizards have no way to make up for the lack of it.
In case you are wondering no, I dont think silent image and conceal spell help. My enjoyment was being smart about how I used my limited Illusion spells, not hiding my magic.
And Warped Terrain/Invisibility Cloak are meh for.
These complaints in particular are kindof confusing. Illusions in particular got a massive buff in PF2E - in your example of hiding behind a rock, your foes don't even get a save unless they have some sort of reason to interact with the rock. In fact, most illusions don't allow for Saves in their normal course of use.
Most aren't tagged as mental or emotion either, meaning most things aren't immune to them even if they're otherwise immune to manipulation effects.
Theyre among the most improved spells in 2E, easily.
I'm not clear what you're getting at here... the buff stack you're referencing (which needs to replace one of the status bonuses with a circumstance bonus) is repeatable typically with the components in place.You're right about the status bonus, but still.
How many times? is the point I'm making. Yes, Heroism lasts 10 minutes (basically a cast-once lasts an encounter-or-two), but Fear lasts a round or two. How many times are you prepping Fear? Bless also lasts only a minute and covers no area unless concentrated on.
So again, for a single round of "fighter is amazing" you've spent at least two spell slots. You can't do that forever. And I'd contend that if you have Heroism up you're probably not going to worry about the Fear or whatever other condition you want to inflict.
So yes, you can get a fighter to hit on a 2, if you put a lot of effort into it, but that's not going to happen very often--if at all--much less multiple times in every encounter.
Fear isn't a great example here, for two reasons.
One, you can cast Fear once and follow it with a non-spell, non consumable source of Frightened like Demoralize or Scare to Death.
Alternatively, well timed, your foe isn't likely to survive a round while being debuffed.
Or you can replace frightened with a more durable status penalty, like sickened.
And... thats really the only limitation. Most Status buffs last for the encounter, and flat footed and circumstance are free and nonmagical.
The other effects noted, like positioning, slowed, etc. too are great, and generally don't have an issue persisting or riding other effects for the duration of an encounter.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think the illusion experience is gone in P2e. Illusions have received some pretty potent buffs from 1e to 2e, not the least of which is a requirement on many spells that creatures spend actions to try and interact with the illusion before they get a check to disbelieve:
Sometimes illusions allow an affected creature a chance to disbelieve the spell, which lets the creature effectively ignore the spell if it succeeds at doing so. This usually happens when a creature Seeks or otherwise spends actions to engage with the illusion, comparing the result of its Perception check (or another check or saving throw, at the GM’s discretion) to the caster’s spell DC. Mental illusions typically provide rules in the spell’s description for disbelieving the effect (often allowing the affected creature to attempt a Will save).
If the illusion is visual, and a creature interacts with the illusion in a way that would prove it is not what it seems, the creature might know that an illusion is present, but it still can’t ignore the illusion without successfully disbelieving it. For instance, if a character is pushed through the illusion of a door, they will know that the door is an illusion, but they still can’t see through it. Disbelieving an illusion makes it and those things it blocks seem hazy and indistinct, so even in the case where a visual illusion is disbelieved, it may, at the GM’s discretion, block vision enough to make those on the other side concealed.
Maybe it's still DM-dependent, but if a Wizard uses illusory object to make a wall, that wall might as well be a wall of stone until something tries to shoot through it or walk through it or touch it.
Warped terrain is a bit boring, but I've seen it used to pretty solid effect (one of the Wizards I'm DMing for is an illusionist) because difficult terrain + something like grease or even tanglefoot can really shut down melee enemies if you're in a small enough area. If a creature wants to resist warped terrain they need to spend a Seek action, then if they're otherwise hit with a speed status debuff or grease that can suck up a lot of actions.
Warped terrain + grease has been a potent go-to combo for the illusionist.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think there may be a problem using the term "God wizard" to talk about a specific wizard build in PF2 because "wizard who can do whatever is needed in a specific situation" is, and always has been, just a wizard.
In fact it seems like a lot of different wizard builds are getting lumped together into broad categories, and then it is argued that there are not many different kinds of viable wizard.
Right now, the AoE blaster wizard is probably an Evoker, maybe a universalist (but that will be true of all the other categories so we'll stop mentioning it now).
A Buff wizard could be an abjurer, a diviner, a transmuter, or an illusionist by mid levels.
A Debuff wizard could be a necromancer, or an enchanter or a transmuter, or even a creatively applied conjurer. Really, almost every school has offerings here.
A battlefield controller wizard can be an illusionist, a conjurer, a necromancer pr even an enchanter at higher levels.
The recon wizard works as an illusionist, a diviner, a conjurer or an enchanter, or possibly even a necromancer, or any wizard with a familiar with a risk.
Then there is general utility casting which are spread out pretty well amongst all schools.
By level 5 most wizards, regardless of school, are probably doing 2 or even 3 of these things regularly very well, and if they have gotten access to a spell book or two, they could probably cover 4 or 5 of the categories with some preparation. Generally speaking, it is a bad idea to try to go all in on being able to do only one of these things with all of your spells per day, because some encounters can't be solved by damage, or by battlefield control, or by debuffing. Also, a lot of these categories overlap in PF2. There are ways to debuff and damage, battlefield control and damage, Buff and recon or provide utility, etc.
Figuring out what you want your wizard to do, and what spells will best help you do that in the wide array of encounters and environments you come across takes a lot of time and planning. (Hence my long standing argument that the wizard is a class with a lot of complexity). It doesn't require having access to every arcane spell in the game, but it does mean doing more than deciding, "I'm an evoker, I better pick AoE damage spells with every free spell I get from level 1 to 20."
| 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.
As an aside, I hope the new APG will give us something like the 1st Edition Sage Bloodline, something that lets sorcerers cast from Int instead of Cha. I always have preferred spontaneous casting over prepared casting, but I hate being the party face.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am super sad there's no Akashic bloodline yet!
I believe they've said they're not doing that sort of thing this edition. If you don't want to be the party face you could always just refuse to train your face skills and say "deal with it."As an aside, I hope the new APG will give us something like the 1st Edition Sage Bloodline, something that lets sorcerers cast from Int instead of Cha. I always have preferred spontaneous casting over prepared casting, but I hate being the party face.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.
That would be consistent with the fact that we appear to have covered those thematic angles with the default Bloodlines, and the idea behind Sorcerers having access to different spell lists.
Threatening Illusion is pretty cool, though I wonder how useful it would be in 2E since Illusory Creature already flanks as it is.
Blowing up your illusions for damage is something I wouldn't mind seeing either. Maybe there's enough design space you could make a Shadow Wizard class archetype or something.
cleric gets to eventually meet his deity on her plane and become a herald which means its pretty much guaranteed that you will go to Heaven/Nirvana/Elysium on death fulfilling his goal of becoming close to his deity and secure his afterlife
druid gets to become ageless unlike his old counterpart who would still die from old age, and can eventually shape-shift like crazy to the point where can shapeshift all day with incredible ease, forget his original form and even take the form of a kaiju essentially fulfilling his goal of being eternal guardians and a force of nature
bards are spontaneous but with a few feats they can not only learns spell but do so from every spell list and getting the additional muse grants you the bardic lore which is basically knowing absolutely everything fulfilling his goal of being a master of lore and i didn't even mention his buffing
sorcerer is basically a slightly worse bard
wizards don't get anything close they lost their ability to reach immortality and are a worse sorcerer and even worse bard everything the wizard he was supposed to be good at (knowledge, spell-list access, counter-spell) the bard or arcane sorcerer does better
if it was me balancing i would at least give him a level 14 feat like the monk and druid to stop aging because why the hell does a monk reach immortality and a wizard not?
i would make it so their arcane knowledge skill automatically develops since they are allegedly getting power from arcane knowledge it would feel weird to being a legendary wizard while not being legendary in arcane
and i would give then a level 20 capstone class skill to set them apart from sorcerer and bard mostly for flavor since this level is barely ever played at, maybe his own permanent resplendent mansion on the astral plane to be a story type reward like the cleric
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Immortality for wizards seems more likely to come about via rituals than feats.
Rituals are a highly under utilized space right now, and one that wizards can and should really shine in. Sorcerers, and bards really, will struggle to prioritize having a high enough occultism or Arcana check to make the really powerful rituals feel reliable. Wizards will be much more likely to have the attributes necessary to be really good at them.
Immortality for wizards seems more likely to come about via rituals than feats.
if they give the wizard rituals themed skills then yeah i agree that would most certainly set them apart
it would make sense in the theme that they are supposed to be good at skills due to high int and casting with the power of knowledge alone
maybe they could have a list of wizard school rituals the wizard learns as he levels up like spells
the universalist would lose none of the medium ones but would lose the best school ritual
i would still want for a immortality ritual to be available to all wizard via class progression cause i feel like any wizard worth his spell-book would seek for the cure of aging
Any non lawful wizard anyway. I could see some lawful wizards going all Dumbledore. "Everybody has to die someday, immortality is bad! Wanting to live forever is even worse than murder!"
But yeah, I was kind of upset about wizards not having the ability to stop their aging at some point. If it comes as a high level class feat that gives a ritual that would be great. It would raise the question of why Razmir hasn't discovered it while having the resources of an entire nation though, so maybe that's why it wasn't in the core rulebook.
that is just a cope out mechanism if were to make any of those people younger and them give them the option go back to being near death adn sick from old age none or at least only a small portion of would accept it, law is about control and order there is nothing lawful about having the equivalent of a clock bomb strapped to your chest that can go off at any minute and you cant see the times but you can feel it hurting you and making you sick, if you have the tendency to seek for order and planning that is likely the first thing you will want to get rid of
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The ability for Wizards to become immortal is from Ultimate Magic in PF1. UM did not come out for more than two years after the PF1 core rulebook. Expecting it back in PF2 with only the core rulebook out is perhaps not the most reasonable thing ever.
Heck, maybe it'll show up in the APG. That's out soon, after all.
I just was kind of hoping for it after seeing the upgrade to timeless body for both monk and druid but no path to eternal youth for the wizard, or the alchemist for that matter.
I mean, that's really weird, eternal youth was pretty much the entire goal of alchemy historically, and first edition alchemist came with it as a grand discovery.
Actually I blame the Sun Orchid Elixir for said Alchemist nerf. >:(
As a price of trying to stay in-LOCS-lore, the now decoupled so-called Elixir of Rejuvenation completely lost its ability to "rejuvenate" the drinker despite its name. What's all that money you coax out with your monthly Philosopher's Stone worth if you can't brew out effective immortality, hmm?In contrast, I'm not sure on agreeing with the woes of Wizard losing said ability. Wizards having a tough time gaining unlimited lifespans actually works better with the fact why the Lich metamorphosis (or whatever officially named) ritual procedure continues to exist.
I would say the lich thing is more about wizards who don't want to be interrupted by sleep or having to eat more so than not being able to achieve immortality through other means.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
This kind of post is, sadly, pretty pointless on these forums, because of quite a few simple factors.
On these forums, you have quite a few posters (they will recognize themselves), who absolutely loathe wizards. They will pretend wizards are ok, despite it not being the case, with little or no evidence to back that statement up, while gloating with schadenfreude. That is a sad fact.
Then you have a lot of posters who unapologetically love Paizo. For them, Paizo can do no wrong and must be defended at all costs, from any possible criticism, even when that criticism is founded.
The posters who have actually played wizards firsthand... Will only have done it once, because the class itself is a dumpster fire. You need only try to hit a ray spell with your pitiful, unmodifiable roll to hit and miss it it a few times in a row, therefore wasting both your actions and your spell, before you realize that.
I could list all the nerfs wizards have gotten, but it's pointless, because the attitude of the first category of posters is just to shove their fingers in their ears and go 'LALALA I can't hear you!' . The issue here not being that wizards did not need nerfs, because they did, but much more about compound nerfs.
Since apparently PF2 is being balanced the way certain MMORPGs or MOBAs are, then at the very least the concept of balance should be understood...
If you play LoL, and you nerf first a champion, and then their main rune, then you end up nerfing that champion not 2x, but 3x because the nerfs compound themselves.
Wizars now have fewer spell slots, no way to boost their save DCs, have to expend higher spell slots to get better effects... That is an exponential nerf, not a geometric one.
But ah well, what does it matter, no one plays casters anyway. All the martials need now is a healer, they can do it all on their own, much to the delight of the majority of posters on these boards.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This kind of post is, sadly, pretty pointless on these forums, because of quite a few simple factors.
On these forums, you have quite a few posters (they will recognize themselves), who absolutely loathe wizards. They will pretend wizards are ok, despite it not being the case, with little or no evidence to back that statement up, while gloating with schadenfreude. That is a sad fact.
Then you have a lot of posters who unapologetically love Paizo. For them, Paizo can do no wrong and must be defended at all costs, from any possible criticism, even when that criticism is founded.
The posters who have actually played wizards firsthand... Will only have done it once, because the class itself is a dumpster fire. You need only try to hit a ray spell with your pitiful, unmodifiable roll to hit and miss it it a few times in a row, therefore wasting both your actions and your spell, before you realize that.
I could list all the nerfs wizards have gotten, but it's pointless, because the attitude of the first category of posters is just to shove their fingers in their ears and go 'LALALA I can't hear you!' . The issue here not being that wizards did not need nerfs, because they did, but much more about compound nerfs.
Since apparently PF2 is being balanced the way certain MMORPGs or MOBAs are, then at the very least the concept of balance should be understood...
If you play LoL, and you nerf first a champion, and then their main rune, then you end up nerfing that champion not 2x, but 3x because the nerfs compound themselves.
Wizars now have fewer spell slots, no way to boost their save DCs, have to expend higher spell slots to get better effects... That is an exponential nerf, not a geometric one.
But ah well, what does it matter, no one plays casters anyway. All the martials need now is a healer, they can do it all on their own, much to the delight of the majority of posters on these boards.
A lot of your post is well reasoned. But was the bashing of segments of posters really required to make your points about the wizard?
If you have played it do you have proposed fixes? Perhaps an item that grants item bonus to spell attack (seen that in a houserule)
Perhaps that will come (albeit rather late) in next summer’s magic book? Might be one of the reasons that is coming next. To properly look at magic users
Granted it isn’t ideal that a whole book is needed to patch it but if that is what happens ...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I bashed those segments because, truth be told, they deserve bashing. I did not point any individuals out.
The premise of boards like these should be debate, and people should be open-minded, and willing to accept evidence of issues, and, if presented with enough evidence, perhaps have a honest change of heart.
Both categories I mentioned cannot, because the first category sees the current state of casters as desirable, and the second category refuses criticism on the ground that they love Paizo so much.
This is a systemic issue. You can't fix it with a new book. You would have to fix it with a massive errata, but that would mean actually accepting the fact that mistakes were made, which reading these boards does not seem to be the case.
I have accepted that PF2e will have weak casters, and that nothing will change it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This kind of post is, sadly, pretty pointless on these forums, because of quite a few simple factors.
On these forums, you have quite a few posters (they will recognize themselves), who absolutely loathe wizards. They will pretend wizards are ok, despite it not being the case, with little or no evidence to back that statement up, while gloating with schadenfreude. That is a sad fact.
totally agree its like trying to argue with corporate shills
i'm starting to get the feeling that their tactic is to derail any wizard critique with a lot of nonsense likely pre-written fallacies (even if they have been previously debunked) so no consensus can be reached
then again since the devs themselves nerfed the wizard into the ground like that i think that even if we managed to overcome that they still wouldn't fix it
its not even like it was an accident if it was they could fix it latter but even the wizard class feats added later are still garbage so it seems their mind is set
|
|
| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Andarr:
There's a difference between expressing disagreement with people, or even the belief that they are factually incorrect, and saying insulting things about their motivations in believing those things. You can express even factual disagreement without making such assumptions pretty readily if you choose to do so.
You didn't do that.
You, instead, pretty much literally said that the only reasons people could think Wizards were okay were either enjoying the suffering of others or believing that Paizo was incapable of mistakes. That's both insulting, and demonstrably false.
Even if we assume that your starting premise that Wizards are factually bad is true, that argument doesn't follow logically at all. There will inevitably be people who succeed with and enjoy playing even an inferior Class simply due to the laws of probability (and such people will often not have done the math to realize how unlikely their success is), to say nothing of those who have not played it but think it looks fine on paper. And that's all assuming your point about the Wizard's quality, which is a hell of an assumption given the data set at the moment (which is pretty limited).
By assuming other people's motivations are among the worst possible, you've insulted them to absolutely no purpose, so why do it? Seriously, do you think that somehow, magically, that will be the thing that convinces people you're right? Because it won't, and I see absolutely no reason people should have to put up with you insulting them to no purpose.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Every time I join a new table, it is with the intention of playing a wizard, only someone else is even more enthusiastic about playing the wizard than I am, so I end up having to play something else. This has happened to me 3 times. I GM 3 tables, with wizards at 2 of them and an arcane sorcerer at the other.
There has been a wizard in 4 out of the 5 PFS scenarios I have played in, which is all PbP so it is pretty slow going, but the wizard characters are having fun in PFS because they get a lot of skills and skill challenges are pretty common in PFS, as are nova fights where wizards tend to shine. Maybe I should just make a wizard myself for PFS, but I joined a table seeking players that was missing a martial presence, so I made a champion that I am particularly partial too, and I drawn into making a bard from a debate on these message boards, and am now partial to her personality. Maybe that is an excuse, but I think I am waiting to make a wizard for a longer running campaign. If anyone is needing one let me know.
I agree that it can be much easier to have a bad time playing a wizard than many other classes in PF2, especially martial characters. Spells have a lot of complexity to them compared to making martial attacks, and if you are consistently casting the wrong spells in combat situations, targeting strong defenses, getting no support from your allies, and not getting any information from your GM about future encounters, you will struggle.
I think there are some specializations that are underdeveloped and missing key components to make their shtick stick. Some, like the necromancer and enchanter, I don't really care about and don't really want to invest my time in trying to help make positive suggestions for. But some, like the abjurer, transmuter, evoker, diviner and illusionist I have been active since the playtest in discussing and supporting. Evoker, Diviner and illusionist are all in very good shape right now and keep getting better support to make even better. For example, people argued that single target damage on casters was too difficult to make happen and we got the spell sudden bolt. Others, like the transmuter in particular, still need some work and many of us are engaged in respectful conversations about trying to figure out exactly what kind of support will help make more character builds possible.
When you are able to listen to other people on the boards, and find out why they are having a good or bad time from their own experiences and then identify why, it can really improve your own ability to have fun with a class you are excited about, as well as help your friends who might be struggling with their characters. Maybe you have found an honest gap in what the game offers and being able to talk about your expectations in clear terms helps the developers and other players figure out if they share your expectations, agree there is a problem and try to fix it, or not, and don't want the game to reflect those expectations in its core rules and will suggest that you consider any number of house rules that people have been working hard on making to meet alternative expectations for.
For example: A lot of people have a problem with incapacitation, especially when they first encounter it at lower levels. The homebrew threads are full of ideas that people have come up with for writing it out, as well as coming to understand the dangers of doing so. With my experience as both a player of a caster (a cleric) and as a GM, I would never consider playing with any of them, because they all create way more problems than they "solve" and because I love what incapacitation brings to PF2 in terms of making higher level solo monster encounters a challenging threat. I will vocally defend what it adds to the game and argue vehemently against any efforts to remove it from the core rules, but will at the same time, also happily discuss ways to make house rules that can allow for lower level spells to dominate a high level boss encounter IF it is a expected goal of both the players and the GM...in a homebrew thread not a general discussion thread or rules thread.
I can support people's ability to adapt the game to their own needs even when they are different than my own, without having to argue that the game itself is horribly broken or calling a class a dumpster fire, just because I have some expectations for that class that the developers don't seem to share. I doubt anyone, even any one of the developers specifically thinks the entire game is exactly perfect as is, as the game is not any one person's vision of an RPG, but a collaboration of many people working together. It is also one of the most flexible D&D-like systems ever created and that commitment to making the components modular and open sourced is worthy of a lot of praise and support. There are few games with as much support for "If you don't like something about this system, fix it, and then share your fix, and then listen to feed back on what others think both about the problem you identified and your solution to it." If you have ideas for solutions though, and can't seem to find anyone willing to play with them, then you might want to reconsider what your underlying expectations for the game are and why you are struggling to find people that share those expectations.
It is also possible that the core underlying structure of the whole system is just not for you, but luckily you are existing in a golden age of support for game systems, so you should keep your eyes open for a system more in line with your expectations. When it comes to our hobbies and the things we do for fun, it is usually better to find the people who share our vision for what fun is, rather than spend time trying to argue and shoot down other people's fun. As a long time Wizard lover, I am super excited by the PF2 wizard. Magic with more clear limits and structure for how it can bend and reshape reality makes it much easier arbitrate and allow for that reality bending in play, without blowing up a campaign or turning the entire game into one character's power fantasy of getting to build an entire group's experience into their own character's image. I say this from the perspective of a long time PF1 wizard player who had to struggle not to do that when I basically had the power to learn everything about a future adventure and then completely rewrite the location and circumstances of the major encounters to best fit my party's strengths and exploit enemy weaknesses. It took a lot of work from everyone at the table for that to be an enjoyable experience and eventually we all got tired of doing it. If rewriting the entire narrative of an adventure is what is fun for you as a player, and your table as a whole, then there are some games with lighter rules that are more narratively driven that can probably accomplish that kind of fun with less work than any D&D derivative game.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have accepted that PF2e will have weak casters, and that nothing will change it.
This sole sentence proves you are not objective (or don't know what you're speaking about).
If I consider the voice of the community as objectivity, casters are fine. Wizard is actually the only caster who's considered weak. The only question being how weak between unplayable and balanced.
Your whole posts fit in the category that you feel deserves bashing, close-minded people who attack others instead of answering to arguments and providing useful return of experience.
Because as much as there are "Paizo lovers" there are "casters' bashers" who will just irrationally hate casters.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think there are some specializations that are underdeveloped and missing key components to make their shtick stick. Some, like the necromancer and enchanter, I don't really care about and don't really want to invest my time in trying to help make positive suggestions for.
I can't speak to Enchanters, but the APG (and, to a lesser extent, various AP backmatter) seems to have really helped Necromancers. One of the players in my upcoming age of Ashes game is planning on a Necromancer and we were just going over the Arcane Necromancy spells and what they do, and it's a pretty solid list at this point.
Animate Dead seems to have some very cool stuff you can do with it (minions are effectively immune to Slowed due to not having a turn, making zombie minions really good, and the Final Sacrifice spell synchronizes really well with it as well), which is very on-theme, and the offensive spells are pretty effective and nasty looking. Enervation in particular is horrifying.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Meant to write wizards, not casters.
But it's quite funny isn't it? Other casters who have other mechanics beside just... Well, casting spells, are now in a better shape that the class which is all about casting spells.
Meaning you either need to somehow add mechanics or buff to wizards as a class, but that can't be about making spells more powerful, because if you do you are also buffing other casters, who are already more or less fine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Meant to write wizards, not casters.
But it's quite funny isn't it? Other casters who have other mechanics beside just... Well, casting spells, are now in a better shape that the class which is all about casting spells.
Meaning you either need to somehow add mechanics or buff to wizards as a class, but that can't be about making spells more powerful, because if you do you are also buffing other casters, who are already more or less fine.
Sortof like adding a ton of familiar options to make familiars way more compelling - suddenly making the Wizard familiar thesis way more appealing by allowing wizard to both have the most top level spells alongside a familiar that is only slightly behind a Witch?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Meant to write wizards, not casters.
But it's quite funny isn't it? Other casters who have other mechanics beside just... Well, casting spells, are now in a better shape that the class which is all about casting spells.
Meaning you either need to somehow add mechanics or buff to wizards as a class, but that can't be about making spells more powerful, because if you do you are also buffing other casters, who are already more or less fine.
I can only speak of Sorcerer, my PFS one is nearly level 7. Sorcerer is just about casting spells, like Wizard. And I'm doing fine with it. When I say fine, I speak both of the fun I have and the fact that I'm a massive damage dealer. And as I play PFS, I play with many players playing many different classes. So I think I have a good overview of what being a massive damage dealer means.
I find that most of the time when someone's complaining about casters he's either complaining about low level casters (yes, levels 1-4 are a chore) or he just doesn't know how to properly play/build a caster.