| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
hyperbole is a tired internet trope
Please... this whole thread is hyperbolic. Saying there is a HUGE damage gap between the classes, when is only partially true in the more optimized side of things.
I thought this thread was "actual play" of the wizard. We play the thing, we like it, is fine for us. Of course I get is not like that for everyone. But don't come here to tell me that the class is terrible like some sort of fact, because it isn't, not to everyone.Some improvements like an item that gives a plus to spell attack could be good, or a cantrip that deals damage and is 1 action. That is some constructive thing
Sorry for entertaining myself with some hyperbole, but PLEASE the irony
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
hyperbole is a tired internet tropePlease... this whole thread is hyperbolic. Saying there is a HUGE damage gap between the classes, when is only partially true in the more optimized side of things.
I thought this thread was "actual play" of the wizard. We play the thing, we like it, is fine for us. Of course I get is not like that for everyone. But don't come here to tell me that the class is terrible like some sort of fact, because it isn't, not to everyone.
Some improvements like an item that gives a plus to spell attack could be good, or a cantrip that deals damage and is 1 action. That is some constructive thingSorry for entertaining myself with some hyperbole, but PLEASE the irony
there is no irony here unless you decided to take what i say and throw it in with the other 15 pages in this thread and generalize me to everyone else wich is a rude to me and a disservice to you.
i never mentioned anyone elses hyperbole of wich i am sure there is many.
and im not about to read 15 pages of it to be like..hey man..i get it, they are jerks, you should be too.
so if i reply to you, i hope you realize its just me replying, not the opposing body to your ideological senses.
im somewhere in the middle, i do think wizard and sorcerer, are two of the weaker spell casters and clerics/bards are the strongest with druids being ahead of oracle and witch. Sure. But there is a degree to that comment, weaker doesnt mean unplayable, or absolutely terrible no. just means i think they are worse by comparison.
i do look at what bards can do in terms of playing with the systems the game offers as the benchmark for a well made caster though. but again, thats me saying this, speaking for myself, not an entire opposing body.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, update on the first session with a wizard in the party, the player is already enjoying it a LOT more than witch. Went a spell blending universalist, and cast mostly damage spells because she had some opportunities to take advantage of vulnerabilities most of the party couldn't. She's particularly enjoying having a lot of top level slots and the versatility of Drain Bonded Item.
I'll be keeping an eye on her over the course of her adventures, but I wanted to mention that her first session was a great success for her.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
i am talking about their flexible use of their actions between spells and 1 action class specific cantrips, along with unique flavorful sub choice at creation that influences how you play through out the span of your character as opposed to what wizards get that just adjust your micromanagement activities.
Which is the role that metamagic or managing your familiar is supposed to fill, in class. Its unfortunate the raw power of these abilities doesn't satisfy folks. They maybe could stand to be a bit better, but too much better and they'd invalidate all of the non-class options you have for this.
Outside of your class, you can have Recall Knowledge or Demoralize or other skills, or an animal companion, etc. Several of these are really good, and shouldn't be dismissed just because they aren't tagged "Wizard".
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
i am talking about their flexible use of their actions between spells and 1 action class specific cantrips, along with unique flavorful sub choice at creation that influences how you play through out the span of your character as opposed to what wizards get that just adjust your micromanagement activities.
Which is the role that metamagic or managing your familiar is supposed to fill, in class. Its unfortunate the raw power of these abilities doesn't satisfy folks. They maybe could stand to be a bit better, but too much better and they'd invalidate all of the non-class options you have for this.
Outside of your class, you can have Recall Knowledge or Demoralize or other skills, or an animal companion, etc. Several of these are really good, and shouldn't be dismissed just because they aren't tagged "Wizard".
downgrading a 2 action spell to 3 actions isnt the same as casting a spell and doing an entirely seperate new action. it doesnt feel as good or as interesting.
and im not discussing the universal options that everyone can do, that is a non factor in my discussion. every caster can get a familiar or metamagic, that isnt unique, not every caster got something like compositions though, and those are u nique and interesting.
wich really ties into the argument again that wizard doesnt get much *unique* beyond maybe their thesis wich lets them micromanage their spells more.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
im somewhere in the middle, i do think wizard and sorcerer, are two of the weaker spell casters and clerics/bards are the strongest with druids being ahead of oracle and witch. Sure. But there is a degree to that comment, weaker doesnt mean unplayable, or absolutely terrible no. just means i think they are worse by comparison.i do look at what bards can do in terms of playing with the systems the game offers as the benchmark for a well made caster though. but again, thats me saying this, speaking for myself, not an entire opposing body.
I Agree. Sorry if I came like a total ass, but I dont know if you can notice, but there is a air of "hive mind" between the ones who dont like the thing, and it becomes us vs them, and it ends up being so pointless.
But yeah I agree, the wizard needs than "thing" that It can do without expending his spells. And thanks for clarifying| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
im somewhere in the middle, i do think wizard and sorcerer, are two of the weaker spell casters and clerics/bards are the strongest with druids being ahead of oracle and witch. Sure. But there is a degree to that comment, weaker doesnt mean unplayable, or absolutely terrible no. just means i think they are worse by comparison.i do look at what bards can do in terms of playing with the systems the game offers as the benchmark for a well made caster though. but again, thats me saying this, speaking for myself, not an entire opposing body.
I Agree. Sorry if I came like a total ass, but I dont know if you can notice, but there is a air of "hive mind" between the ones who dont like the thing, and it becomes us vs them, and it ends up being so pointless.
But yeah I agree, the wizard needs than "thing" that It can do without expending his spells. And thanks for clarifying
/thumbs up, always glad for discussion
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thats the problem the abilities that you get from not being a Wizard are way better than the abilities you do get from being a Wizard.
The Wizard ends up being pointless as any class can literally do better. Also no the Arcane list does not make up that difference, you barely even have access to it. Unlike Clerics or Druids, which both get much more interesting and powerful things.
Have you looked at the Cleric class feats?
I'm having a blast with my Cleric, but that's due to -
Fluff, reflected in the description of the class and the description of my character
Divine Font (better than Wizard class feature equivalents)
The Spells (worse than Wizard, significantly and notably both in variety and potency)
Having Complete Freedom to explore Archetypes because I'm not tied to the list of mostly extremely blegh class feats, barring a few notable standouts.
Now, some deities add more interesting implications because of domains, etc... but I'm currently ecstatic because I can go full Beastmaster without feeling like I'm losing anything from the Class.
The class feats there ain't much to speak of either.... again, barring a few standouts.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thats the problem the abilities that you get from not being a Wizard are way better than the abilities you do get from being a Wizard.
The Wizard ends up being pointless as any class can literally do better. Also no the Arcane list does not make up that difference, you barely even have access to it. Unlike Clerics or Druids, which both get much more interesting and powerful things.
i *like* the wizards thesis, some of them at least, i really like spell blending in particular.
im sure there are some things that a wizard can do better than others, but its going to pertain to how they mess with their spell slots i think.
not the most exciting at times vs turning into a large creature and temporarily getting close to martial prowess in combat like a druid.
or having an entirely seperate unique pool for spells (heal/harm for cleric)
or having unique focus cantrips that dont cost focus points to use and only last a round (bards)
etc.
what im saying is i half agree with you, but half dont. I think there is a bit of compromise between both parties on this as its not all roses or doom.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
i am talking about their flexible use of their actions between spells and 1 action class specific cantrips, along with unique flavorful sub choice at creation that influences how you play through out the span of your character as opposed to what wizards get that just adjust your micromanagement activities.
Which is the role that metamagic or managing your familiar is supposed to fill, in class. Its unfortunate the raw power of these abilities doesn't satisfy folks. They maybe could stand to be a bit better, but too much better and they'd invalidate all of the non-class options you have for this.
Outside of your class, you can have Recall Knowledge or Demoralize or other skills, or an animal companion, etc. Several of these are really good, and shouldn't be dismissed just because they aren't tagged "Wizard".
I'm not sure if you're responding to just Martial, but I brought this up as an issue as well and feel like you're missing the point.
Adding an action to a spell to use a metamagic effect to a spell is actually compounding the problem of a lack of interaction with the 3 action system. You've gone from using 2 actions (standard) to do the default wizard contribution in combat to three and in most cases you haven't added more than usual to the combat. A Bard (I have the most experience with them) can both sling a two action spell and then follow it up with a variety of 1 action cantrips that can be picked by situation. Courage, Defense, and Dirge are all single action effects with large AoE's that massively swing the scales (regardless of party size - more targets is a larger swing, but even with a single friend the cantrips are good) while still being unique to the Bard. What single action can the Wizard take that, without save or contested roll, can do the same thing?
All of your other listed items aren't being dismissed. They're just not included because, when talking about unique, class specific, methods of interacting with a system one doesn't include things that everyone can do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A Bard (I have the most experience with them) can both sling a two action spell and then follow it up with a variety of 1 action cantrips that can be picked by situation. Courage, Defense, and Dirge are all single action effects with large AoE's that massively swing the scales (regardless of party size - more targets is a larger swing, but even with a single friend the cantrips are good) while still being unique to the Bard. What single action can the Wizard take that, without save or contested roll, can do the same thing?
Cast a spell silently. Recall a spell they already cast but had run out of spell slots for. Then do it again the following round.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A Bard (I have the most experience with them) can both sling a two action spell and then follow it up with a variety of 1 action cantrips that can be picked by situation. Courage, Defense, and Dirge are all single action effects with large AoE's that massively swing the scales (regardless of party size - more targets is a larger swing, but even with a single friend the cantrips are good) while still being unique to the Bard. What single action can the Wizard take that, without save or contested roll, can do the same thing?
We're back to power.
You appear to be unhappy with the Wizard 1 action options, which are things like Metamagic or managing your familiar, because they compare unfavorably to the actions a bard can take.
As far as I'm concerned, that's extremely important- Bards themselves are overtuned and their one action compositions are probably more powerful than they should be because of how sensitive the system is to Math Manipulation. No one needs actions that powerful.
Asking for options as good as what Bards get is also missing the fact that bards get only 50-70% of the spellcasting of a Wizard...
Witch is probably what a "balanced" version of the Bard action economy looks like, and they are a much more equitable comparison to Wizards.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All I can really add to this thread is that I never really wanted to play a wizard until the apg came out. Now I can build a staff nexus wizard (with a rediculous number of true strike charges) and 6 spell slots for most spell levels by means of a witch dedication. That's a lot of accurate blasting. And as others have said, new archetypes like archer or beast master give good uses for third actions. The only downside is wizard becomes a class where to get the most enjoyment out of it you really can't take any wizard feats (imo)....which seems a little strange compared to other classes. Hell, even sorcerer has class feats that I would really want on a build. Wizard? Not so much.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not sure why. It isn't like I came to my conclusions by guessing or using theory-craft.
I have tracked damage on an excel spread sheet across multiple campaigns and tried or witness in play nearly every class including the sorcerer and wizard.
There are some general ideas that I have found to be true tracking damage data and in general play:
1. Low level casters do not do much damage. They do half to a third of the damage as martials even with occasional burst hits on a lucky bad save or a good AoE opportunity with a few bad saves. Even with these occasional hits, they usually end battles doing half to a third of martial damage.
Okay. Fine. I'll bite. But seriously, get off that direct damage obsession.
First of all: Casters not doing the kind of *direct* damage as the classes that are designed for dealing direct damage is, how shall I put it, the whole damn point.
But casters do deal a lot of damage, just not directly.
Someone else did the math, every die size increase of a weapon and every +1 to to-hit roughly equal a +12,5% in expected average damage output.
In other words, every +1 to to-hit the caster affords the damage dealers (that's their job, remember) increases their damage output by more then 10%. Likewise, every -1 a caster manages to inflict on an enemy drops their damage output by more then 10% and directly makes the entire party more durable.
Those extra 10% are damage that the caster dealt to the enemy. That is his damage output, even if it happens by proxy of the martial party members.
But there is one thing where I agree that casters should get help: Doing their thing.
From what I have seen so far, casters get to experience the critical effects of their spells happen far too rarely, even against sword fodder targets, for that to be fun. The incapacitation trait already prevents the 'I Win' button spells that plagued 3.x / PF 1 so much.
I say, let casters see critical successes more often. But how to go about that?
During the playtest, I asked if the devs considered to have a skill tier system for specialist Wizards the way Fighters had special training in a single weapon category. Like, if a Conjurer would get a higher skill rating just for conjuration spells sooner, or maybe if Wizards would only ever reach Legendary casting in their chosen school.
Jason Buhlman answered that they had considered it, but ultimately dropped the idea because they figured it was too much of a hassle.
Now from what I have seen, it appears to me as if monster saves vs. spells are about 2 points too high for casters to see reasonable amounts of critical effects. However, reducing the saves doesn't work, then things like Trip and Disarm would become too easy on the martial side.
But what if specialist Wizards could get a +2 on their to-hit rolls/save DCs for just their school spells? That would really make a difference for the schools, and since the bonus only applies to one kind of spells, I believe it would not be overpowered. Would still mean that certain schools would be 'mandatory' for certain concepts, but that would kinda be the point.
I am a bit unhappy that this would make some Wizards do more 'direct' damage, which is not their job and steps on the toes of the martials, but if it means that Wizards would really feel like they are masters of their chosen school, well, that would be worth it.
Thoughts?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A Bard (I have the most experience with them) can both sling a two action spell and then follow it up with a variety of 1 action cantrips that can be picked by situation. Courage, Defense, and Dirge are all single action effects with large AoE's that massively swing the scales (regardless of party size - more targets is a larger swing, but even with a single friend the cantrips are good) while still being unique to the Bard. What single action can the Wizard take that, without save or contested roll, can do the same thing?
We're back to power.
You appear to be unhappy with the Wizard 1 action options, which are things like Metamagic or managing your familiar, because they compare unfavorably to the actions a bard can take.
As far as I'm concerned, that's extremely important- Bards themselves are overtuned and their one action compositions are probably more powerful than they should be because of how sensitive the system is to Math Manipulation. No one needs actions that powerful.
Asking for options as good as what Bards get is also missing the fact that bards get only 50-70% of the spellcasting of a Wizard...
Witch is probably what a "balanced" version of the Bard action economy looks like, and they are a much more equitable comparison to Wizards.
I just can't help but disagree with you flatly about where the caster metric Lay's. Bard is an example of a good caster class and not too good or overpowered or even borderline. And I've yet to see how they could be construed as such without simply hating casters (this does not insinuate that is your feelings, rather that as of right now I that's the only logical conclusion I can think of and understand).
Witch is rather underwhelming, but I'd still consider a hair better than wizard.
A Bard (I have the most experience with them) can both sling a two action spell and then follow it up with a variety of 1 action cantrips that can be picked by situation. Courage, Defense, and Dirge are all single action effects with large AoE's that massively swing the scales (regardless of party size - more targets is a larger swing, but even with a single friend the cantrips are good) while still being unique to the Bard. What single action can the Wizard take that, without save or contested roll, can do the same thing?
We're back to power.
You appear to be unhappy with the Wizard 1 action options, which are things like Metamagic or managing your familiar, because they compare unfavorably to the actions a bard can take.
As far as I'm concerned, that's extremely important- Bards themselves are overtuned and their one action compositions are probably more powerful than they should be because of how sensitive the system is to Math Manipulation. No one needs actions that powerful.
Asking for options as good as what Bards get is also missing the fact that bards get only 50-70% of the spellcasting of a Wizard...
Witch is probably what a "balanced" version of the Bard action economy looks like, and they are a much more equitable comparison to Wizards.
I just can't help but disagree with you flatly about where the caster metric Lay's. Bard is an example of a good caster class and not too good or overpowered or even borderline. And I've yet to see how they could be construed as such without simply hating casters (this does not insinuate that is your feelings, rather that as of right now I that's the only logical conclusion I can think of and understand).
Witch is rather underwhelming, but I'd still consider a hair better than wizard.
I love casters. I never play anything else, when I get the chance.
But normally, I GM. And my observation has been that in the exactly same content, a 4 man party with a Bard, Fighter, Champion and an Alchemist (the best, and worse class in the game) outperforms a 5 person party with a Fighter, Barbarian, Champion, Druid, and Sorcerer. By a LOT. And not because the second party is bad, mind you - Bards just shift the math by that much and tend to make difficult encounters trivial.
That is not where I want the balance of casters to be. When I do get to play, I do not want to constantly be feeling like I'm stealing the show and winning encounters on my own. This is a team game, and the fact that Bards are team players is why their raw power isn't a super obvious issue.
But they still trivialize what should be difficult content.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Otherwise, as I've played more my Sorcerer since my first answer (and I think Sorcerer play experience is similar to Wizard play experience) here are the moments where I've been very happy to play him (PFS plays with 5-6 players parties most of the time):
- Fight against a bunch of swarms. The martials were serving as baits, then moving out of the swarms for me to launch a Fireball. 2 rounds fight, I did 70% of party damage.
- Fight against a bunch of plants. Round 1 the Rogue was already down. The Wizard and I were fireballing the plants while the martials were praying. The 2 of us did most of the damage, martials were just soaking hits.
- Fight against Poltergeists (tough one, some party failed it). I was casting 3 action Heals in the middle of the fight and despite being completely out leveled by everyone I've been a cornerstone of the combat.
- Fight against a giant flying insect (tough one, many parties failed it). The thing was moving at 120ft per round and was not there to kill us but just to get an item and run away. He spent only one round at melee range. He was vulnerable to fire... I only did one third of the damage because our Alchemist got a pretty impressive round when the monster fell on us.
- A whole adventure with 5 encounters and only 40 minutes of break. So Medecine was not enough to keep everyone on foot. Being an Angelic Sorcerer helped a lot.
- A scroll of Water Breathing allowing us to auto-succeed a bunch of skill checks and giving us the top reward at the quest.
- A monster that I one shotted with a True Striked Searing Light.This list only contains the situations where I've really shined. My Sorcerer is not even level 7, so most of these moments happened in the last 5 PFS adventures. And many of these moments were not specific to my Sorcerer, any Wizard would have been able to handle them as much as I did.
Overall, I like to play my Sorcerer. And he's neither weak nor boring.
No, a wizard could not play like this. They cannot heal and do not have access to the Divine Spell list. If you searing lighted a demon or undead, then I can see a one shot. Searing Light is inferior against non-undead or demon enemies.
I have played Angelic Sorcerer. Their ability to heal makes them stand out more than most wizards or sorcerers. They really shine against undead or fiends.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have been reading so many post on this same topic. Now that I have played 2 wizards. ( 9th level blaster ) ( 12th level Buff/Debuff ) I will list some of my observations and experiences. I don't plan to play these characters any further because I am usually the GM for our group.
I do not find the wizard to be broken, but I do think it lacks an Identity of it's own. I find this class very much wants to push you to take a dedication into another class and lacks an entertaining path of it's own. The groups I played with were trying hard to look at each class as individuals so we could evaluate them more plainly. We also played another series in which we all used dedications but I did not use a wizard in that run. My group generally agree that the wizard is lacking in a class of it's own and only our personal experience of roleplay seemed to give the character a unique flavor. Bottom line, we recommend wizard in a multiclass role but not a straight wizard build.
{ BLASTER } group also contained Champion/Cleric/Ranger/Rogue
This seemed the more effective wizard. Pure damage seemed to have a bigger effect on encounters. AOE attacks can be good if you can sneak up on a foe or win initiative so you can drop it before enemies close ranks and mix with your allies. Metamagic seemed mostly useless with the exception of Reach, usually combined with like Vampiric Touch. Lacking the ability to position myself in most cases kept me from using Metamagic or Abilities like Widen Spell would rarely make a difference if I could hit an additional target. Most enemies we would try to force to a bottleneck and let our champion and Cleric tank them and rogue get flanking. Most spells were more restrcted to a single target or 2 in most cases even if it was an AOE spells. later on the rogue in our group said it was OK to drop an early AOE that included him once he gained Evasion hoping that his Reflex would save him 60% of the time. I still do not prefer to use that tactic in any standard situation. We...
This is very similar to our experience.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I assume they're doing it to avoid humiliating you by pointing out how incomparable a special, limited double chance at One Big Thing is to doing a thing twice (at a falling chance of success) that is already balanced against the assumption that you're going to do it twice in most circumstances.You seem to be missing that rolling multiple times a round increases your chance of success versus living and dying on one saving throw or attack roll. I love how some of you tout things like True Strike as this amazing spell for casters, when martials basically get the equivalent of true strike every round as in multiple chances to succeed. When that is brought up, you try to downplay it.
There wouldn't be much humiliation since martials can and do do this every round, which feels real special when they're hitting for 80 to 90 point crits or have a real nice round with a few crits and a regular hit. I have to sit back and wonder when I see responses like this as to what game we're both playing. Martials blow crap up rolling multiple times per round which increases your random chance of a good roll. They can position to better improve their chance of success, which casters cannot do easily. And still you guys just keep on pretending that casters some how make up for this with spells. It's amusing.
Sorry, you're weak attempt to pretend martials don't do spectacular hits quite often isn't much of a response. Thanks for trying.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are 1-action options for Wizards.
Thanks to the APG, Animal Companions are no more limited to Druids and Rangers.
The Archer Dedication is also excellent to just get the Bow Proficiency (something that was heavily missing outside Ancestry feats).And, in my opinion, Magic Missile has always been the basic third action for a Wizard. It's true that I focus my casters on dealing damage, so I can hardly imagine a Wizard without Dangerous Sorcery. But with Dangerous Sorcery, 1-action Magic Missile is a massive damage dealer even when you use a lower level Missile.
For example, a 3rd level MM with Dangerous Sorcery deals 2d4 + 5 on one target or 2d4 + 8 on 2 targets (10/13 average damage) when a level 10 Greatsword Dragon Barbarian second attack deals 14 average damage against a same level enemy and a third attack 5.25 average damage. And a 3rd level spell at level 10 is no big resource use.
With a limited number of spells and no assurance as to when the adventuring day will end, you're going to blow off 1 action magic missile spells? My players would not do this unless they were sure the creature was going to die. They rarely cast a magic missile unless they get all three actions. Spells slots are limited. Goal is to maximize them as much as possible. That would be like spending a 1 action heal. Something my guys would only do in desperate circumstances.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thats the problem the abilities that you get from not being a Wizard are way better than the abilities you do get from being a Wizard.
The Wizard ends up being pointless as any class can literally do better. Also no the Arcane list does not make up that difference, you barely even have access to it. Unlike Clerics or Druids, which both get much more interesting and powerful things.
Have you looked at the Cleric class feats?
I'm having a blast with my Cleric, but that's due to -
Fluff, reflected in the description of the class and the description of my character
Divine Font (better than Wizard class feature equivalents)
The Spells (worse than Wizard, significantly and notably both in variety and potency)
Having Complete Freedom to explore Archetypes because I'm not tied to the list of mostly extremely blegh class feats, barring a few notable standouts.
Now, some deities add more interesting implications because of domains, etc... but I'm currently ecstatic because I can go full Beastmaster without feeling like I'm losing anything from the Class.
The class feats there ain't much to speak of either.... again, barring a few standouts.
True. My buddy plays a cleric. He spent most of his feats multiclassing. If you're not fighting undead or demons, cleric feats aren't much to write home about.
He's more unhappy his liberation domain power that requires 1 action doesn't seem to work against Swallow Whole creatures when he needs it. Would have been a lot better if it were a reaction.
If it weren't for Divine Font, clerics would be like wizards in their lack of a niche. The only reason to play a cleric right now is the super heals or if you're in an undead or fiend campaign. That might be fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With a limited number of spells and no assurance as to when the adventuring day will end, you're going to blow off 1 action magic missile spells? My players would not do this unless they were sure the creature was going to die. They rarely cast a magic missile unless they get all three actions. Spells slots are limited. Goal is to maximize them as much as possible. That would be like spending a 1 action heal. Something my guys would only do in desperate circumstances.There are 1-action options for Wizards.
Thanks to the APG, Animal Companions are no more limited to Druids and Rangers.
The Archer Dedication is also excellent to just get the Bow Proficiency (something that was heavily missing outside Ancestry feats).And, in my opinion, Magic Missile has always been the basic third action for a Wizard. It's true that I focus my casters on dealing damage, so I can hardly imagine a Wizard without Dangerous Sorcery. But with Dangerous Sorcery, 1-action Magic Missile is a massive damage dealer even when you use a lower level Missile.
For example, a 3rd level MM with Dangerous Sorcery deals 2d4 + 5 on one target or 2d4 + 8 on 2 targets (10/13 average damage) when a level 10 Greatsword Dragon Barbarian second attack deals 14 average damage against a same level enemy and a third attack 5.25 average damage. And a 3rd level spell at level 10 is no big resource use.
I dunno man, at mid to high levels, level -2-3 magic missiles would be great and easily available filler for that action and not competing with your 'important' big spells either.
Having this resource available fits with my experience... especially since a Wizard has a whopping 4 slots at each of those lower levels.
|
But what if specialist Wizards could get a +2 on their to-hit rolls/save DCs for just their school spells? That would really make a difference for the schools, and since the bonus only applies to one kind of spells, I believe it would not be overpowered. Would still mean that certain schools would be 'mandatory' for certain concepts, but that would kinda be the point.
I advise against this because it's unequal in application. Enchantment wizards and Evoker wizards get a huge buff from this, Conjurers and Abjurers get hardly anything. (Also what do universalists get?)
If we're saying the problem is all wizards are weak then this will just make it so some wizards are ok and the rest are still weak.
Also playing around with crit fail chances is a recipe for disaster - let me ask you a question. When I target the lowest save on a creature, how high of a % chance should I have to remove it from the fight completely?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not sure why. It isn't like I came to my conclusions by guessing or using theory-craft.
I have tracked damage on an excel spread sheet across multiple campaigns and tried or witness in play nearly every class including the sorcerer and wizard.
There are some general ideas that I have found to be true tracking damage data and in general play:
1. Low level casters do not do much damage. They do half to a third of the damage as martials even with occasional burst hits on a lucky bad save or a good AoE opportunity with a few bad saves. Even with these occasional hits, they usually end battles doing half to a third of martial damage.
Okay. Fine. I'll bite. But seriously, get off that direct damage obsession.
First of all: Casters not doing the kind of *direct* damage as the classes that are designed for dealing direct damage is, how shall I put it, the whole damn point.
But casters do deal a lot of damage, just not directly.
Someone else did the math, every die size increase of a weapon and every +1 to to-hit roughly equal a +12,5% in expected average damage output.
In other words, every +1 to to-hit the caster affords the damage dealers (that's their job, remember) increases their damage output by more then 10%. Likewise, every -1 a caster manages to inflict on an enemy drops their damage output by more then 10% and directly makes the entire party more durable.
Those extra 10% are damage that the caster dealt to the enemy. That is his damage output, even if it happens by proxy of the martial party members.
But there is one thing where I agree that casters should get help: Doing their thing.
From what I have seen so far, casters get to experience the critical effects of their spells happen far too rarely, even against sword fodder targets, for that to be fun. The incapacitation trait already prevents the 'I Win' button spells that plagued 3.x / PF 1 so much.
I say, let casters see critical...
Good to see you at least see some of the problems and have thought of a possible solution. Better than dismissing the situation as some do.
The main issue I see is the wizard and sorcerer need more to do their thing. Bard, druid, and cleric have some things they do very well. They really stand out. Bard composition cantrips are loved by martials for exactly the reason you stated above. The martials know it. Cleric also helps martials greatly by taking them from near dead to near full hit points in a single round. The druid has this plethora of abilities that helps them do their thing and feel useful in a variety of ways form healing, to flanking, to buffs.
The wizard seems to lack a schtick. He's the generic caster. His entire sense of identity relies on spellcasting, yet the only advantage he seems to have is more slots. This gives him casting endurance and versatility, but doesn't seem to make him a better caster than anyone else in the same way a fighter is better at attacking than anyone else.
For the spell versatility and endurance, it seems Paizo has made wizard's focus powers and action options lacking.
The reason I focus on lower level caster damage is because I've seen higher level caster damage and it is quite impressive. Even my bard drops the hammer on quite a few enemies with AoE spells. I can see a wizard doing similar damage.
So that leaves a situation where the problem seems to me is wizards and sorcerers to a lesser extent lack those low level perks like healing, composition cantrips, and the like that would make them more fun to play until they hit those levels where their spells are real game changers.
It seems like the wizard in particular if he was going to be heavily reliant on casting should do it better than anyone else in the same way the fighter is better at hitting than anyone else. But that doesn't seem to be the case. The wizard gets legendary casting at the same time as every other caster and yet seemingly has less interesting and useful class options and focus powers that aren't as compelling as other classes.
I think the ways to fix the wizard are:
1. Make the wizard better at casting than everyone else. Maybe start them off with Expert or at least Expert casting in their specialized school of magic and let them reach Legendary sooner.
Or
2. Make them some interesting 1 action school options that make them competitive with other classes. Some special school cantrips that don't require focus points.
I think either of those would make the wizard into a class with a schtick. Something that makes a player feel like they're playing a class that does something clearly differnt than someone else.
They did a great job making the Fighter stand out even though his schtick is basically swinging a weapon like every other martial. He swings that weapon better than everyone else bar none. It makes the fighter feel very special to have the best accuracy in the game.
Wizard though, he don't have that feeling in my opinion. His schtick seems to be spell versatility, but that versatility does not make him stand out compared to other classes who have class abilities that are truly (or were) truly unique and worth building the character around.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I play a Sorcerer, but I think both classes are similar on this part of the discussion.
I really disagree sorcerers are in a lot better state than Wizards are right now. Better focus spells, better metamagic feats, a lot of flavour through bloodlines not to mention dangerous sorcery. You use dangerous sorcery a lot in your examples, Wizards don't get this without MC into Sorc (min 2 class feat investment).
One of the biggests problem that Wizards have are ineffective spells. Whether ir Incapacitation or just middling DC. Not to mention that getting spells 1 level faster has a really big effect on what a Wizard can do.Not my experience. What I see sometimes is players casting one single lonely spell and feeling bad because the monster makes the save. But that's on the player. PF1 casting is over, now you have to cast a lot.
+ 1 to DC of saves versus spells is a lot else we would get +1 to spell DC magic items (which many reckon is too strong for a wizard).
The thread has talked a lot about it and one of the key aspects that people agree on is that Wizards are better vs low level creatures. Having an extra level over what the campaign expects thus means the Wizard is better able to make use of their spells.It's the exact opposite. Due to the 4 levels of success applied to spells and not to attacks, casters do fine when they are out leveled. I've played quite a few times while being the lowest level character and I've been able to shine and do things. In the same circumstances, a martial would have just watched everyone fighting the monsters. I've once faced a monster that a fully optimized Fighter would have hit on a 14 (16 for other martials), and as it was flying flanking was impossible. Being a caster, I was able to still do something by buffing/healing my comrades, thing that a martial can't do.
Martials interact with the 4 degrees of success with every swing (Crit hit, hit, miss, crit fail). Additionally some get additional benefits that can apply to every hit (there is certainly a ton of class feats for martials on crit hits) or get benefits when others crit fail to hit. Its blatantly untrue martials don't interact strongly with the 4 levels of success. Some even get feats to trigger off when they fail. Wizards get no real feat support for the 4 degrees of success.
You seem to miss how being higher level than the opposition greatly improves a martial. Both in survivability, damage and utility (as crit specialization happens a lot when you face lower level enemies).Casters are not good against lower level creatures, they are good against many creatures. So, unless you artificially change the characters' level, it means lower level monsters, too. But if you face a whole bunch of high level creatures, you still want a Wizard to blast them.
Everybody is better against lower level creatures but for casters its even more obvious on casters as they have more AoEs which tend to be where their 'big' damage comes from. More chances for crit fails on lower level creatures means more creatures at once they get double damage against or a stronger incap effect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With a limited number of spells and no assurance as to when the adventuring day will end, you're going to blow off 1 action magic missile spells?
As I already said in this topic, the day always end before my spells. If you think the day gonna be long, just take more spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I play a Sorcerer, but I think both classes are similar on this part of the discussion.I really disagree sorcerers are in a lot better state than Wizards are right now. Better focus spells, better metamagic feats, a lot of flavour through bloodlines not to mention dangerous sorcery. You use dangerous sorcery a lot in your examples, Wizards don't get this without MC into Sorc (min 2 class feat investment).
Dangerous Sorcery is a no brainer for me. It's the only feat that actually improves spell (without a cost like Metamagic feats). And it's a level 1 feat so easy to grab through dedication. This discussion is not about focus spells or metamagic but about spells. That's why I say Wizard and Sorcerer are similar on that part.
Not my experience. What I see sometimes is players casting one single lonely spell and feeling bad because the monster makes the save. But that's on the player. PF1 casting is over, now you have to cast a lot.+ 1 to DC of saves versus spells is a lot else we would get +1 to spell DC magic items (which many reckon is too strong for a wizard).
+1 to spell DC increases damage by 8%. +1 to attack increases damage by 12%. The fact that spells use the full 4 degrees of success makes them less reliant on spell DCs.
Martials interact with the 4 degrees of success with every swing (Crit hit, hit, miss, crit fail).
No they don't. They have just 3 levels of success: Crit hit, hit, crit fail.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I play a Sorcerer, but I think both classes are similar on this part of the discussion.I really disagree sorcerers are in a lot better state than Wizards are right now. Better focus spells, better metamagic feats, a lot of flavour through bloodlines not to mention dangerous sorcery. You use dangerous sorcery a lot in your examples, Wizards don't get this without MC into Sorc (min 2 class feat investment).Dangerous Sorcery is a no brainer for me. It's the only feat that actually improves spell (without a cost like Metamagic feats). And it's a level 1 feat so easy to grab through dedication. This discussion is not about focus spells or metamagic but about spells. That's why I say Wizard and Sorcerer are similar on that part.
Not my experience. What I see sometimes is players casting one single lonely spell and feeling bad because the monster makes the save. But that's on the player. PF1 casting is over, now you have to cast a lot.+ 1 to DC of saves versus spells is a lot else we would get +1 to spell DC magic items (which many reckon is too strong for a wizard).+1 to spell DC increases damage by 8%. +1 to attack increases damage by 12%. The fact that spells use the full 4 degrees of success makes them less reliant on spell DCs.
Martials interact with the 4 degrees of success with every swing (Crit hit, hit, miss, crit fail).No they don't. They have just 3 levels of success: Crit hit, hit, crit fail.
In which case Wizards only have 3 as well since Crit success on a save is pretty much always 'no effect' which is the same as fail for martials except martial get feat support for crits or when an enemy crit fails. Martials also get access to feats that allow them to do something on a fail to hit.
Dangerous Sorcery is not a wizard feat should not be included when examining core wizard - it applies equally to bards, druids etc by the same logic. You can't say damage is good for a wizard while always including it. Sorcerers are very very different to wizards in play, they have great feat support, better bloodline spells. Wizards do not.
Also since we are talking specifically wizards the 3 tiers of success for spell DCs (Crit success on a save is mostly no effect) it applies to every other caster not just wizards.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In which case Wizards only have 3 as well
No, they have 4: Crit success, success, fail, crit fail.
Martials have 3: Crit success, success, crit fail (as fail = crit fail).And the feats allowing to deal damage on a fail are extremely rare and limited. The only martials who really have a fail effect are Alchemists and Swashbucklers.
Dangerous Sorcery is not a wizard feat should not be included when examining core wizard
So we never take Monk Dedication into account for Wild Druids and Animal Barbarians?
When a Dedication is obvious, you have to take it into account. And the fact that it can be taken by other classes has nothing to do with Wizard.Sorcerers are very very different to wizards in play, they have great feat support, better bloodline spells.
I disagree. The main difference between Sorcerer and Wizard is Spontaneous casting. Sorcerer's feats are mostly the same than Wizard feats. Bloodline spells are just normal spells. And Focus Spells are not incredible either. You should look at the Sorcerer a bit more closely.
I'm ok to say that Sorcerer is different (it's obvious) but it's very similar to Wizard.Also since we are talking specifically wizards the 3 tiers of success for spell DCs (Crit success on a save is mostly no effect) it applies to every other caster not just wizards.
We were speaking of increasing the level of a martial vs increasing the level of a wizard. So other casters are not the point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the topic of dangerous sorcery, I think it's fine to have that be part of the discussion regarding wizards. Archetypes in this system are a very natural part of character progression, and I don't think it should be viewed as dirty or cheating to include it like multiclassing might have been in 5e or PF1. I personally haven't built a character of any class that didn't plan on taking an archetype at some point.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So we never take Monk Dedication into account for Wild Druids and Animal Barbarians? When a Dedication is obvious, you have to take it into account. And the fact that it can be taken by other classes has nothing to do with Wizard.
On the topic of dangerous sorcery, I think it's fine to have that be part of the discussion regarding wizards. Archetypes in this system are a very natural part of character progression, and I don't think it should be viewed as dirty or cheating to include it like multiclassing might have been in 5e or PF1. I personally haven't built a character of any class that didn't plan on taking an archetype at some point.
On this point I strongly disagree, however this amittedly also is a point of extreme personal preference.
For me any chasis must be able to "perform" on its own. Full stop. Unless of course the chasis has been specifically designed vanilla and dipping into other classes is the expected way of playing.
So it is Fighter, Rogue, Cleric or Wizard, level 1 to 20 without looking left or right, because in an ideal system all additions from other classes should rather be flavourful sidegrades, not straight mechanical upgrades (which admittedly would mandate strong class feats in order to make any decision difficult and meaningful).
That means that I don't care if a Wizard/Sorcerer/Bard/Powerfeatseeker is eventually performing well if a straight Wizard is not, because having released enough Archtypes to eventually make a dual or triple classed Wizard work is no excuse for a basic Wizard not working.
And I also don't like this argument because it is treading dangerously near min-maxing territory.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And I also don't like this argument because it is treading dangerously near min-maxing territory.
Using core mechanics exactly as intended is never min-maxing.
...its playing as designed. Literally.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
And I also don't like this argument because it is treading dangerously near min-maxing territory.
Using core mechanics exactly as intended is never min-maxing.
...its playing as designed. Literally.
Chosing archtypes for flavor or diversity is playing as intended, chosing archtypes because your own class has no equally strong choices to offer is certainly not playing as intended.
Also a beginner or casual player usually can't be bothered to master two or more classes, so single classing simply has to work starting from level 1.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I also don't like this argument because it is treading dangerously near min-maxing territory.
Using core mechanics exactly as intended is never min-maxing.
...its playing as designed. Literally.
Chosing archtypes for flavor or diversity is playing as intended, chosing archtypes because your own class has no equally strong choices to offer is certainly not playing as intended.
Also a beginner or casual player usually can't be bothered to master two or more classes, so single classing simply has to work starting from level 1.
Yes, but...
Its extremely debatable whether the class needs to support the "Loremaster Wizard" out of the box to be a functional class.
Same with any of the specialized niches that come from archetypes.
It just has to be functional as a Wizard - which as has been noted, is also extremely debatable.
Wizard comes out of the box with focus spells, metamagic, and familiars which are all useful things to do with your class features. The fact that people find this insufficiently powerful doesn't elicit a ton of sympathy from me, as the Wizards raw power is supposed to come from the fact that they can have 25-50% more spells per day than the next best class.
Which leaves aside the fact that peoples expectations for what you should be able to do with a third action or focus spells feels seriously out of whack. Bard cantrips put them at a fraction of the spell sustainability of a Wizard, are their signature feature and are as noted before at the very top of the power curve for the game. While some of the Wizard focus spells are meh, some are quite good. Like the ones for evocation, divination, and necromancy to name a few...
Familiars are also great.
Metamagic is the real issue, but I think that Paizo wants to be real careful about how much value you can add to a spell via a renewable or unlimited resource like "adding an action" - and thats a good thing. Metamagic is almost certainly a significant intended Wizard "third action" mechanic.
All of which is a TON to cover the basics for new players.
For advance players, there are archetypes.
I can't imagine a Wizard who, by the nature of the class, can't fit in something like Sorcerer, Loremaster, or Medic as a thematic and narrative fit. Animal Companions as an alternative "Familiar" are also pretty simple, see Nagini the Snake.
Theres a ton to do with Wizards now, and you're only working to cripple the class if you demand a huge number of their options be left off the table because they don't have the Wizard trait.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If every build you can easily take a dedication it means that class has some very unappealing levels.
Barbarian as example. I can't justify a dedication without free Archetype. Every level has multiple things I'd want for multiple builds.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If every build you can easily take a dedication it means that class has some very unappealing levels.
Don't ask my Cleric, who at level 7 has a total of four level 1 class feats (3 + Natural Ambition) and I still consider taking even less class feats but to multiclass at level 9 (via Human), 10 and 14.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some things to note:
Status bonuses to saving throws are very very common at medium to high levels. Spell penetration is a 6th level feat that is essentially a flavorful wizard exclusive way to get a +1 to DCs against the most powerful monsters you will face, but I have seen it disparaged in wizard threads time and again. I believe it is a much more flavorful way to give wizards the kind of power boost that people are asking for because it is not just a flat math feat (always a +1) but a demonstration of how the wizard has studied the most dangerous, spell resistant foes and learned to overcome their resistances.
Conceal spell turning into silent spell makes for the only caster in the game that can reasonably cast spells secretly, without having to make themselves the center of attention (like the bard being able to disguise spells within a performance).
Split slot is a feat that gives you significantly more versatility with your casting. It makes you better at doing the thing that wizards do best, having the right spell for the job when you need it.
Depending upon your specialization, advanced school spell can be a major power boost. In fact, all of the hate towards wizard focus spells should really evaporate at anyone looking at their advanced spell options. THe biggest problem that advanced school spells face is that they compete with with a feat that lets universalist pick up the most wizardly of all wizard approaches to focus spells, where they can literally choose which school's focus spell they want each day, and of course bond conservation, which is just, here is another free spell slot each day.
Past level 8 there are so many good wizard feats that you can't get all of them on one wizard, and many of them (like quickened casting vs Scroll savant) take the wizard in very different directions based on which one you chose.
I think a lot of "wizard feats are boring" is coming from people looking at lower level wizard feats, not getting excited by them, and then never considering how the interact with later feats and abilities because they have already moved on to the idea of Multi-classing.
An evoker choosing to MC into sorcerer has to have a 14 in CHA ( a second non-save attribute) and then is probably passing on widen spell and linked focus, to gain an extra casting per day of a solid 1 action attack focus spell that aways hits and does damage. At level 8, if you take bond conservation, that translates into a 3rd use of your level 1 focus spell or an extra use of your 4th level focus spell if you take advanced school. For many, that will be a fair trade off, but being able to widen you AoE blasting spells is often going to result in more damage than dangerous sorcery, and at the point that you are getting both, you are either a human with natural ambition, or else passing on a level 6 feat for a level 1 feat. At level 6, an evoker really should be looking at spell penetration as a must have feat.
Wizard feats might not be flashy, but they punch up your spell casting by quite a bit and allow you to cast spells in situations other casters often cannot, do so more often per day, and even do exactly what people are asking for, in casting spells that are harder to resist in the form of feats like spell penetration, convincing illusion, and forcible energy.
Not all of the wizard feats hit the mark. The transmutation specialization feat Form Retention is well discussed mess. Steady casting feels like something that should have been a class feature, because, while it can be incredibly useful, paying a class feat for an option that is only going to work 25% of the time, in situations that you actively try to avoid ever being in the first place, is really hard to justify. Why did eschew materials need to keep the free hand requirement? Is summoning a creature while keeping 2 hands on a staff or carrying a physical shield too powerful? Nobody is saying the situation with wizard feats is exactly perfect, and that there are not some real head scratchers, but there are absolutely enough strong options to build multiple interesting and different wizard builds from start to finish without Mutliclassing.
For instance, a hypothetical 'Grasping Spell' that makes any creature affected by the spell (damage, or forced to make a save) make a Fortitude Save or be 'grabbed' would be okay with a Cone of Cold, but way more thematic and interesting with Wall of Ice or Fire.
If this is an example of the relative level of power you're hoping for from Metamagic, I expect you to be disappointed long term.
Your example is essentially adding an initial round of Black Tentacles to another spell. Thats... pretty well outside the balance dynamics of the entire edition, not just one class.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
For me any chasis must be able to "perform" on its own. Full stop.
Dangerous Sorcery increases your damage by 14% on 2d6 damage per level spells. If there was a first level feat in any class giving a +1 to attack (12% damage increase) do you think anyone would think twice before taking it?
Dangerous Sorcery is plain overpowered. The only reason people don't scream about it is because they have a very strange image of the wizard doing wizardly stuff with no damage associated.
For me any chasis must be able to "perform" on its own. Full stop.Dangerous Sorcery increases your damage by 14% on 2d6 damage per level spells. If there was a first level feat in any class giving a +1 to attack (12% damage increase) do you think anyone would think twice before taking it?
Dangerous Sorcery is plain overpowered. The only reason people don't scream about it is because they have a very strange image of the wizard doing wizardly stuff with no damage associated.
Oh Absolutely. It is a no-brainer class splash for any spellcaster that wants to do spell damage.
Does it really BREAK anything? Nah... but it does firmly establish Sorcerers as the best blasters, with everyone else having to pay double the feats and give up their archetype to play ball...
Oh Absolutely. It is a no-brainer class splash for any spellcaster that wants to do spell damage.
So it's a no-brainer to a Wizard as they only do spell damage.