| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Split Slot is a great feat I wish I could take on any prepared caster, and Unicore has already talked about how great Silent Spell is. Convincing Illusion is fantastic for an illusionist or any other wizard that likes illusion spells. If you want to go into mid levels, Clever Counterspell is incredibly good in a campaign that features lots of casters and is so flavorful. Honestly, I have a far easier time picking out feats for my wizard than my champion.It starts appearing pretty regularly on level 8 monsters and higher. If you are fighting demons or devils in can start even earlier and it appears on aberrations, beasts and lots of other stuff too. I agree that it won’t appear as an obvious need at lower levels, and players that are not recalling knowledge might not realize how common magic resistance is, but it kicks in at mid level play pretty consistently (7-12).can't speak for others but i would never pick that feat and to be honest there is literally not a single feat on the wizard list i feel like i wouldn't trade for an archetype feat
no wonder you see nothing wrong with wizards if you think those feats are great i would never pick those even at gunpoint
we also must have vastly different visions of what a wizard is if you think those are flavorful
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Split Slot is a great feat I wish I could take on any prepared caster, and Unicore has already talked about how great Silent Spell is. Convincing Illusion is fantastic for an illusionist or any other wizard that likes illusion spells. If you want to go into mid levels, Clever Counterspell is incredibly good in a campaign that features lots of casters and is so flavorful. Honestly, I have a far easier time picking out feats for my wizard than my champion.It starts appearing pretty regularly on level 8 monsters and higher. If you are fighting demons or devils in can start even earlier and it appears on aberrations, beasts and lots of other stuff too. I agree that it won’t appear as an obvious need at lower levels, and players that are not recalling knowledge might not realize how common magic resistance is, but it kicks in at mid level play pretty consistently (7-12).can't speak for others but i would never pick that feat and to be honest there is literally not a single feat on the wizard list i feel like i wouldn't trade for an archetype featno wonder you see nothing wrong with wizards if you think those feats are great i would never pick those even at gunpoint
we also must have vastly different visions of what a wizard is if you think those are flavorful
I am having a really difficult time understanding what flavorful means if spell penetration doesn't qualify. It is a direct result of having studied the intricacies of magic and how some creatures are resistant to it. That feels like the essence of wizard flavor to me.
Honestly, I think a lot of people would rather see casting focused archetypes, similar to how we have combat style archetypes, that interact with multiple different base classes in interesting ways.
Like some folks seem to pretty much just want a kineticist/elemental blaster and seem disappointed that the wizard can't fulfill that role. Well, beyond the sorcerer that is literally that, I'd rather see an elementalist archetype (or 4) on the secrets of magic book that builds on that theme specifically, and then keep base wizard feats centered on expanding the bread and butter of the wizard class, rather than having to come up with a whole ton of feats to slip into the wizard base class for it. Same with a shifter/polymorph caster archetype. I probably would have preferred this for every specialist school of wizardry, with a base wizard being a universalist and all wizard feats focusing on general spell slot casting support, but that ship has already sailed.
But beyond these ideas, it would be really helpful if people could describe what they mean by an adjective like "flavorful" when they are saying that it is absent in wizard feats, because metamagic feats, ways to cast more and more different spells, and ways to cast existing spells better all feel like the heart of the wizard class to me, and are the feats the wizard currently gets. I agree that certain specializations are hurting for feat support, but lumping that generally into "wizard feats suck" doesn't really help establish what we want to see in future material.
I am having a really difficult time understanding what flavorful means
what do you become a wizard for?
as a bard you can learn every spell in the game specially after you get access to the 4 spell lists but you also keep spontaneous casting and you get a lore skill that works for nearly everything that while ignoring the singing skills
as a arcane sorcerer you get access to familiar counter-spell you can learn spells with arcane evolution you can get access to some spells from other bloodlines with cross blooded and with bloodline metamorphosis you can eventually change your repertoire to be whatever you want
also now witch has a far better ability to use familiars improved familiar incredible familiar familiar eyes as well as baba yaga's ability with a animated object makes it a better familiar class than wizard
all those classes can do everything of cool the wizard can do but far better
being able to do something boring like more spell slots or spells hitting better isn't a flavor
wizard feats feel like they are trying to mitigate him not being a sorcerer or giving generic boring bonuses to the spellchecking that everyone has
pointing one more time to the wizard exclusive captsones
reclaim spells - reuse a low level spell
spell combination - unnecessarily complicated extremely situational overall garbage
spell mastery - so more spells slots but fixed and without the spell book
is this supposed to be the BIG DEAL of the wizard cause if so i might as well abandon this class all together
the cleric gets to meet his god, the druid becomes a immortal kaju, the bard gets every single spell in the world and i get this sort of stuff (more spell slots) and you cant understand why i say it lacks flavor?
i didn't want to become a wizard because of more spell slots or because they have better chance to hit dragons i wanted to becomes a wizard because its literally the single 10th level spell caster that is not beholden to anyone or anything
wizards are famous for screwing the rules of the universe and going so far that gods need to put a stop to then [remember that lich that b@~+% slapped aroden's herald so hard they had to create achaekek] did the mantis god kill all creative wizards at birth is that why all of then are boring now?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The flavor of a Wizard is that he is a spellcaster who casts spells based on research, intellect and knowledge as opposed to divine power, natural connection, or bloodline.
That flavor is "fulfilled" in its entirety by being an Intelligence based Spellcaster with a spellbook. And you're better at magic than all those other posers, by virtue of having way more mojo than them and access to things like spell penetration.
Everything else on top of that is icing and customization.
What you're asking for, Archsage, is more raw in game power in the name of flavor, ignoring all of the flavor and customization options that already exist because they aren't "good" enough for you.
All of which has also ignored that its your responsibility as a player to bring some of the flavor to your characrer - not just the game.
|
I see what you are saying and can agree. The wizard capstones don't have too much innate favor. Essentially, flavor must be derived from them as opposed to the flavor of phenomenally powerful, being the base and mechanics derived from that concept.
To be fair though, the concept of a wizard (in my mind) is a little more subtle. As a wizard you learn how magic works, at its very core. A capstone based on that looks like the Bard's. Or it looks like the spell combination. I think most of the wizard feats post 10 are very appropriate to a wizard. Personally, I think a feat that is missing in the wizard repertoire is being able to change energy types (I may have completely missed it).
Metamagic Mastery is reaaallly cool if you focused on metamagic feats going up. You can apply as many metamagics as the spell can fit as free actions. That is some phenomenal action economy.
But again, you are right. The wizard may have powerful options, but none of them have the gravitas of transforming into a kaiju.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
You are literally playing the 2nd worse class for the off chance that maybe you will have fun in the few level 19-20 sessions you play. If the game even reaches that far.
YOU may have this issue - but I've seen several people (and know a couple in person now) that have had no issue playing Wizards at low level.
Also, you do this thing several times where you compare Wizard things to other classes abilities, without considering they are different in role.
Example - you compare Force Bolt and Tempest Surge.
Tempest Surge is a better than a cantrip attack option to help druids mitigate their lack of spell slots.
Force Bolt is a third action for Evokers that lets them cast a big spell and add a little extra on top, helping ensure that Evokers end up being the best nukers around.
Those abilities don't fill the same roles - its a square peg/round hole issue if you're expecting one to do the same thing as the other.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I disagree with some of Temperans points (although I do agree with them that Wizards need a rework), I'd like to point out that Force Bolt is a 30' range. Being that close to enemies isn't something most Wizards I've played, or seen, relish being.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are literally playing the 2nd worse class for the off chance that maybe you will have fun in the few level 19-20 sessions you play. If the game even reaches that far.YOU may have this issue - but I've seen several people (and know a couple in person now) that have had no issue playing Wizards at low level.
Also, you do this thing several times where you compare Wizard things to other classes abilities, without considering they are different in role.
Example - you compare Force Bolt and Tempest Surge.
Tempest Surge is a better than a cantrip attack option to help druids mitigate their lack of spell slots.
Force Bolt is a third action for Evokers that lets them cast a big spell and add a little extra on top, helping ensure that Evokers end up being the best nukers around.
Those abilities don't fill the same roles - its a square peg/round hole issue if you're expecting one to do the same thing as the other.
The person said Wizards have more 10th level, that includes Force Bolt for
Evokers. But my point was that other classes have more/better 10th level spell options. That includes the fact that Force Bolt is weaker than Tempest Surge, and the fact the Druids are able to recover a lot more focus points.A Druid can cast 3 Tempest Surge at high level and still have all their spell slots. Rest 10 minutes, and then cast another 3 Tempest Surge. Then repeat that again for another 3 Tempest Surge. Thats 9 10th level spells with more power than the Wizard's option on top of whatever spell slots they have.
Aka more spells slots are meaningless when you have repeatable high power options.
Sorry, Tempest Surge? The 10d12 damage spell to a single target (and clumsy 2, which is good).
Might I point out that 8th level chain lightning is 10d12 until someone crit succeeds? And then evocation wizards can add on 5d4+5 force (aka even level+4 enemies are taking this) as a third action for two rounds.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow. This is surprising. You're the guy claiming 20 to 25% damage increase for a swashbuckler isn't worth an action or that big a deal, but are now arguing 14% on a 2d6 spell is a big deal?As Pounce said, 20-25% damage for an action is not worth it. 14% damage for free is. It's better than a +1 to attack on a martial. So, I think it's completely crazy considering that nothing gives you a +1 to attack for free.
Even up to fireball it's not great to let the caster nuke rather than let the martials attack. No use holding back for peanut damage.At level 5-6, any enemy failing their save against a Dangerous Sorcery Fireball takes 80% of the average damage a Greatsword Dragon Barbarian does with 2 attacks. Maybe you consider a Greatsword Dragon Barbarian does peanut damage.
As I already stated before, you have a way to strong opinion of martials. You should start counting damage of each martials individualy. Because it looks to me that when you speak of martials you always speak of the one making critical hits and forget about the one having a bad round of misses.
In the parties I've played in (PFS so random guys), I've been quite surprised to see that people were telling me to fireball even when one martial was in the radius. So, it looks like on that your experience is different from mine.
I track damage on an excel spreadsheet in real game circumstances for each class individually. I don't track martials in the aggregate. The numbers I'm getting are numbers from play. Not theory-crafting. I did not expect to find this martial versus wizard disparity in damage. It was quite surprising when the data confirmed the disparity and how substantial it was.
I can even confirm the fighter does the highest single target martial damage due to his accuracy. Every other martial class seems relatively close including the swashbuckler over the course of a battle. Thee monk is the weakest martial damage dealer on a battle by battle basis. Battles meaning combats against a particular enemy or group of enemies lasting multiple rounds.
Why are these numbers like they are? I will break it down for you:
1. It is far easier for martials to position for an advantage, flanking being most common for AC and reach for those who build around AoOs for reach.
2. Frightened is a fairly common modifier applied to a creature and can be done with one action with Demoralize to set up an attack. With flanking and frightened you have a very common 3 point probability shift for martials.
3. Item bonuses. Item bonuses from magic weapons further shift martial probabilities in a way that casters cannot.
4. Status bonuses such as from Inspire Courage improve martial chance to hit, but not improving failure chance on save for casters.
The first four factors are fairly common effects that shift a martial's chance for success in a group environment by up to 5 points increasing chance of second action success and critical hits.
5. Adding specialization and weapon traits to damage. Forceful adds decent damage on a hit that improves with higher striking weapons. Deadly is a nice little addition to damage on a crit. Both easy to obtain. No such item exists for casters.
6. Multiple attack rolls improves chance for a success each round, especially when adding in the first four factors.
7. Feats that improve action economy are easy to obtain for martials. Abilities that allow a caster to use a third useful action are common for every class but the wizard and sorcerer.
8. Feats that improve some aspect of fighting are common martial feats.
Swipe: When this feat works for a barbarian with a sweep weapon, he attacks two targets with one roll with +1 from the sweep weapon on top of the other modifiers for quite a large improvement chance for success. He also usually has a hero point to really make that chance of a big swipe nice for those times when he misses.
Double Slice: This improves chance of two hits with two weapons along with other modifers as it reduces the chance of failure on the second action.
9. Initiative Order: Combats often take place in tight quarters or close distances. A caster wanting to use an AoE spell needs the monsters to set up perfectly to hit them all while avoiding hitting his own party. Suffice it to say in real play, this doesn't happen all that often.
Monsters may go first and close the distance or spread out. Or a martial will go first and move in to the AoE area. So it can ruin AoE opportunities that would give the caster a chance to spike his damage.
10. Resistances and Immunities: Immunity to some element is more common than immunity to physical damage. Fire is one of the more common immunities or resistances. Alchemist also suffer from this. Magic resistance providing a +1 save against all magic is common as well, especially on many common BBEG monsters like dragons and demons further shifting caster probability in a negative way.
11. Saves versus AC: It's much easier to gain advantages to hit a high AC than to lower high saves.
12. Caster weapon proficiency advances faster than caster casting proficiency further improving martial chance for success across all levels.
Where do casters shine?
1. Buffing martials. A fly spell against a flying enemy confounding a melee martial is huge. An energy resistance spell against a damaging aura is hugely helpful. Healing. Not a unique wizard schtick, but a wizard can do everything but the healing. The bard, druid, and cleric can do everything and the healing.
2. Higher level AoE damage in the 9 to 11 level and above range. At this level it really pays off for the party to set up a caster to use AoE damage. The AoE damage spells do much more damage and there seems to be more of them in many designed encounters.
3. Providing the modifiers that shift probability. The wizard isn't even close to the best at doing this.
Phantasmal Killer is a fantastic spell for applying a modifier and doing some damage with no incap trait. Bard casting this while using Inspire Courage is usually a 2 to 4 point shift in probability for martial attacks all by itself not including flanking.
Druid can usually hit the target with something and send in pet to flank.
A lot of caster actions are spent improving martial chance of success and the wizard is not as good at doing this as the other caster classes and his cost for doing so is higher as well.
This is what I have seen in actual game play that makes the wizard a mechanically less desirable class. It's why their numbers are often lower than other classes. And why they don't bring as much to the table as other classes.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its self evident that Wizards benefit more- they can afford to use such powerful spells more often, ergo the additional power goes further. It's also been adequately demonstrated that such spells are far from situational, being very reliable damage in...Every caster class has AoE spells for those opportunities when AoE is a good option. This is not unique to the wizard. A few extra spells to cast AoE damage has not proven to spike DPR up to say lvl 9 or thereabouts. Once casters pick up some of those big dog AoE spells at about lvl 9, damage spikes for all casters with AoE spells.They make up for it in other things they can do, but if casting different spells for different situations is what you want from a character, there is not another character close to the wizard in filling that function.Wizard is additionally now the go to class for "all I Really want to do is burn things", since a Wizard can sacrifice all that versatility and just bring more fireballs (or whatever specific spell you like) than anyone else by a numerically significant margin.I've been thinking this the entire time I've been lurking this thread, people are weirdly underrating the additional casts, having to conserve less translates straight into higher DPR. For a relatively straightforward "I want to drop fireballs and other such spells" build, the Wizard can't be beat, if you wanna get really spicy, spell blending for even more high end slots will really make the engine purr.
Like, people are back to talking about "buffs are the only useful thing a caster can do" and I'm just blinking like "we're past this multiple threads ago, I have a post detailing success chances on saving throw blast spells from back then that covered it" where spellcasters are able to rack up way more damage (across multiple targets) or chunk reliably (against higher level targets) by using saving throw blast spells.
It is not self-evident at my table. A bard or druid are quite happy relying on cantrips with an animal companion in easy fights to add a little bit of a damage, then blow up when they need to. It works quite fine. They never or rarely run out of slots.
I would like to see more people with detailed tracking proving what you say to be true that the higher number of wizard slots is translating into increased power equivalent to what other classes like a bard or druid bring to the table.
I have seen clearly that higher level caster AOE damage is quite impressive. What I have not seen is that it works very well against powerful single target or 2 to 3 target fights. These fights are quite common at higher level in Paizo APs in end module fights. These are the fights where the glory seems to be disproportionately in favor of martials or caster classes able to shift the probability of a fast defeat in favor of the group. Wizard are not in a good spot for that situation compared to other classes.
no idea why people keep using archetypes to justify why the wizard doesn't need any change its almost like the class isn't supposed to have any appealing featsI made a pretty lengthy post just yesterday walking through wizard feats up to level 10 showing that a single class wizard has plenty of good feats, more than one wizard can take and that MCing is not an assumed or necessary choice. No one has yet responded to the fact that spell penetration is a unique wizard feat that gives the mythical +1 to save DCs against your most powerful enemies, and should be in the same conversations as dangerous sorcery as “essential offensive casting feats.” Note it works with all spells so blaster druids, sorcerers and even bards would do well to MC into wizard and pick it up at 12th level. By then you are facing a lot of enemies with that bonus.
This is a more useful feat than I thought it was as I am seeing that +1 bonus is extremely common fighting the most powerful creatures.
A level 20 wizard can (if they build for it),
cast 4 level 10 spells per day
Looks to the other spellcasters with pity, "I am sorry your patrons limit your power."
how so? are suggesting that you can use stuff like drain bonded item with a 10th level spell? if so they should make it more clear do i don't have to be a rule lawyer with my gm cause i can definitely seem him saying "no they probably just forgot to add the text"
also when i mentioned the whispering tyrant beating arazni wasnt to point at raw power
do you think she got defeated because Tar-Baphon has more spell slots than her or because he negated her +1 bonus against magic?
you could give then something cool like being able to cast in effects like dead magic zones or similar
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
spell combination - unnecessarily complicated extremely situational overall garbageI'd be cautious of making snap judgments. Spell combination is unnecessary verbose, but it isn't:
extremely situational
overall garbage
unthematic
replicable Spell combination is arguably the best feat in the game. Between it and Indestructibility/Staff of the Magi, I'd guess that a Wizard could reliably clear a Severe or Extreme encounter at level 20 by themselves, something no other class can speak of.
Nothing is situational about two Disintegrates for the price of one. From a pure nova perspective, it turns a level 9 Disintegrate (18d10, 99 damage) into two level 7 Disintegrates (28d10, 154 damage). Or in other words, at a basic level its a 50% damage increase for the price one feat that requires no setup. action economy losses, or extra resources.
The verbosity certainly cuts down on shenanigans, but its level 20. You can probably convince your GM to allow Mislead + Mirror Image, 2XContingency, etc. If you have access to other lists, it theoretically can splice things like Heroism and Invisibility together or let you use two polymorph spells (Fiery Body + Dragon Form, for instance).
No other caster can do anything similar, either numerically or thematically.
But arguing about level 20 capstones is effectively being mad at the options while window shopping. Not only are such arguments not likely to come from experience, but they are focusing a laser-narrow section of the game that really won't apply to 99.9% of the a player's game time with a class.
It is far more important to have effective and thematic options at early levels than to become the right flavor of overpowered at level 20. This is doubly the case for casters, as the lower levels of any Vancian magic system are struggles for resources. 2E does the best job of the systems I've seen at addressing this with meaningful cantrips and focus spells, but many have still seen a...
You do realize 154 damage at lvl 20 with two spells is not ending any encounters? My flurry ranger did 110 points of damage including an AoO attack at lvl 10. 154 points won't even kill a lot of lvl 12 minions.
The best outcome for what you listed is the wizard using Quickened Casting for those two disintegrates and getting at least one critical hit with a critical save fail with a regular fail. Now that would be truly impressive. He could do that one time a day, while a martial character could output in excess of a 100 points a round fairly easily at lvl 20 over and over and over again. His critical hits are going to be pretty insane.
A basic lvl 20 giant instinct barbarian hit at lvl 20 is 57 points for 1 action. A brutal critical 120 points and 2d12 bleed damage. And he blasts through 10 points of physical damage on top of that. He gets to swing so often he will crit likely more often.
Everyone at lvl 20 is doing very impressive feats against single targets.
What would be more impressive is a wizard obliterating an army with cataclysm four or five times. Martial can't touch that. No other caster class can cast that many lvl 10 slots. Be invisible, flying in the air, some huge army outside a city, you head out there and drop five cataclysm. Army all done. Maybe only a druid could come close to some crazy thing like this.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Druids are also have access to chain lightning, and they have their own 3rd action abilities. Like commanding their Companion or activating their sustained focus spell.Sorry, Tempest Surge? The 10d12 damage spell to a single target (and clumsy 2, which is good).
Might I point out that 8th level chain lightning is 10d12 until someone crit succeeds? And then evocation wizards can add on 5d4+5 force (aka even level+4 enemies are taking this) as a third action for...
And the wizard has an additional level 8, 9, and two level 10 slots, which they'd have to burn to get down to druid level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And the wizard has an additional level 8, 9, and two level 10 slots, which they'd have to burn to get down to druid level.Druids are also have access to chain lightning, and they have their own 3rd action abilities. Like commanding their Companion or activating their sustained focus spell.Sorry, Tempest Surge? The 10d12 damage spell to a single target (and clumsy 2, which is good).
Might I point out that 8th level chain lightning is 10d12 until someone crit succeeds? And then evocation wizards can add on 5d4+5 force (aka even level+4 enemies are taking this) as a third action for...
Storm Lord is a really nice focus spell.
A level 20 wizard can (if they build for it),
cast 4 level 10 spells per day
Looks to the other spellcasters with pity, "I am sorry your patrons limit your power."
5: 1 base, 1 feat, 1 school, 1 spell blending, 1 bond.
But I think I'd take spell mastery over an extra 10th.
Another neat thing is, they get 4 by level 19 (all but the feat).
Edit: but clerics get more (8 with feat, counting font).
is this intended/legal? because to me it legitimately sounds like a bug/oversight but if its true i guess i would accept it as something going for wizard, 5 casts of wish every day as a diviner would be something cool
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow. This is surprising. You're the guy claiming 20 to 25% damage increase for a swashbuckler isn't worth an action or that big a deal, but are now arguing 14% on a 2d6 spell is a big deal?As Pounce said, 20-25% damage for an action is not worth it. 14% damage for free is. It's better than a +1 to attack on a martial. So, I think it's completely crazy considering that nothing gives you a +1 to attack for free.
You are basically saying that if you can spend your action to what instead of doing 20 to 25% extra damage? Why would someone do this when the option is not spend the action to do 20 to 25% less damage per round? I don't much get your analytics on this. It certainly isn't optimal play.
is this intended/legal? because to me it legitimately sounds like a bug/oversight but if its true i guess i would accept it as something going for wizard, 5 casts of wish every day as a diviner would be something coolA level 20 wizard can (if they build for it),
cast 4 level 10 spells per day
Looks to the other spellcasters with pity, "I am sorry your patrons limit your power."
5: 1 base, 1 feat, 1 school, 1 spell blending, 1 bond.
But I think I'd take spell mastery over an extra 10th.
Another neat thing is, they get 4 by level 19 (all but the feat).
Edit: but clerics get more (8 with feat, counting font).
Well. Seems to be rules as written.
1 10th level spell.1 Feat for 2nd 10th level spell.
1 Use Spell Blending to combine 2 5th th level of equivalent slots.
1 Use Bonded Item
1 School spell.
Do you see anything written in a way to disallow it?
is this intended/legal? because to me it legitimately sounds like a bug/oversight but if its true i guess i would accept it as something going for wizard, 5 casts of wish every day as a diviner would be something coolA level 20 wizard can (if they build for it),
cast 4 level 10 spells per day
Looks to the other spellcasters with pity, "I am sorry your patrons limit your power."
5: 1 base, 1 feat, 1 school, 1 spell blending, 1 bond.
But I think I'd take spell mastery over an extra 10th.
Another neat thing is, they get 4 by level 19 (all but the feat).
Edit: but clerics get more (8 with feat, counting font).
Well. Seems to be rules as written.
1 10th level spell.
1 Feat for 2nd 10th level spell.
1 Use Spell Blending to combine 2 5th th level of equivalent slots.
1 Use Bonded Item
1 School spell.Do you see anything written in a way to disallow it?
typically you have a text like:
"Unlike with other spell slots, these spell slots can't be used for abilities that let you cast spells without expending spell slots or abilities that give you more spell slots. You don't gain more 10th-level spells as you level up, though you can take the"
the text in the wizard case its not there but the fact its not explicitly states makes it sound like they forgot to print it
i would say that is too vague to convince a gm that you are allowed to do it they should at least change so it says its a feature and not an oversight
its not good to have a feature if you constantly doubt if it will get patched at any moment
also " you can trade two spell slots of the same level for a bonus spell slot of up to 2 levels higher than the traded spell slots"
my understanding is that you would trade 2 8th level slots not 5th maybe i'm reading wrong
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
All of these wizard threads are making me worry that my wizard I just created isn't going to feel powerful D:
I'd say play it anyways. Try to ignore what people online are saying and form an opinion on your own. And if you don't end up liking it, then I'd recommend a rebuild.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All of these wizard threads are making me worry that my wizard I just created isn't going to feel powerful D:I'd say play it anyways. Try to ignore what people online are saying and form an opinion on your own. And if you don't end up liking it, then I'd recommend a rebuild.
Best advice I've seen all day.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Looking back over the wizard focus spells, I am at a complete loss for why anyone thinks the Wizard focus spells are universally bad. Some of the lower level ones are a challenge to make useful, but did anyone else notice that neither of the Evoker focus spells require an attack roll, or allow a save to prevent the damage? There is definitely no better automatic damage character in the game than the wizard evoker. By the time the storm druid even gets storm lord, the evoker can nova hard and throw down a level 9 sudden bolt at a level +4 enemy, probably only do half damage (so .5x11d12), but then stack 9d6 more electricity with no save on top of that. for an average of 71.5+31.5= 103 damage, total to the super boss when the enemy succeeds on a save, but you also hit all other foes within 10ft of you. How is this boring or flavorless?
It is a power you get to start playing with at level 8 and it keeps the wizard focus of building off of casting spells out of your spell slots, which is the Wizard theme and niche. Pair that with all the different.
What about if instead of one level 9 sudden bolt, you had used spell combination to stack 2 level 7 sudden bolts on top of each other for 18d12 electrical damage? (and that is like the blandest thing I can think of to do with spell combination, literally the most thematically wizardly and creative player focused feat I could even imagine, but this is a side track.
The idea that a level 8+ wizard has nothing to do with a 3rd action in combat is a player build mistake, not a class design flaw. There will never be a one action attack/damage cantrip that can rival what your would be able to do with a decent ranged weapon anyway, and if you are finding yourself casting your highest level spells without adding a punishing metamagic feat to it, then there is a good chance that you are not optimizing what you can do.
I really think that what a lot of people really want out of the wizard, when they complain that it is flavorless, is specific thematic archetypes that synergize very well with a wizard base class. The wizard base class itself is already super flexible and waiting to exploited by creative characters. Specific thematic archetypes will help direct players that get lost in the options, the same way that having combat specific archetypes can help martial players who know that they just want to be really good at using X weapon.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I track damage on an excel spreadsheet in real game circumstances for each class individually. I don't track martials in the aggregate. The numbers I'm getting are numbers from play. Not theory-crafting. I did not expect to find this martial versus wizard disparity in damage. It was quite surprising when the data confirmed the disparity and how substantial it was.
I can even confirm the fighter does the highest single target martial damage due to his accuracy. Every other martial class seems relatively close including the swashbuckler over the course of a battle. Thee monk is the weakest martial damage dealer on a...
Reading you, I feel that our disagreement comes from a very different play experience (certainly due to different adventures and parties, I play mostly PFS).
First, in PFS adventure, you face many different number of enemies. Sometimes solo monsters, sometimes big group of enemies. And tough fights are quite well spread among all these categories.
Second, I rarely see bonuses for martials. The most common one is Inspire Courage as Bard are quite common. Flanking is not rare, but in tough fights you don't get it easily (unless we fight a single stupid monster). Getting flank bonus is dangerous, and those taking it very often goes down before really using it. Frightened is hyper rare, trip happens sometimes when you have someone built for it.
Third, martials sometimes face resistances. And when they do, they don't have much choice than to face them for the whole fight. Casters mostly face weaknesses. Weaknesses to elements are quite common when weaknesses to physical is close to inexistant (zombies mostly). Sometimes, you face a resistance, but you just have to switch spell and it's fine.
Also, in my parties, when a martial has the initiative, he often waits for casters (especially if monsters are close to each other). Martials even accept to take the damage of a Fireball when they are in the middle of the radius.
So, I don't have your experience and it looks like it's the reason of our disagreement.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In every roleplaying game that offers lots of options, there have always been some that are better than others. It is unfortunate that some existing ones, like transmutation specialists, have gotten such a raw deal, and I don't think anyone is arguing that every wizard option is amazing.
Especially in the world of videogames, it can feel like the solution is to go back and keep tinkering with what should be better, but in the world of publishing, the much more likely scenario is new material that is more aligned with player expectations.
Options that don't feel good now to any one of us personally, are very unlikely to be changed. The question becomes, do any of the options look exciting? And if the answer is not enough, then help direct the developers towards what you want.
The base wizard class, is about versatility and bending what you can do with your spell slots. Play a wizard if you want to primarily cast spells out of your spell slots, and be able to change what spells you are casting each day. Specialization is about narrowing that down a little bit into general categories and flavor, but even the specialist base wizard will primarily be defined as: picking and manipulating the right spell for the job.
WOuldn't it be a lot cooler if hyper focused specialization in certain kinds of magic was more open to more than one base class, and each class could do it in their own way? Like how two handed weapon fighting looks different if you are a fighter or a barbarian or a champion, but any one of those three could still pick up the mauler archetype and make it into its own interesting thing?
So if we got an illusion master archetype, a bard or a witch might pick it because it has a few generically useful feats for deception magic, and one or two that play off of using focus powers, while a wizard might take it for an additional one or two feats that are particularly focused off of casting illusions out of spell slots. Then the fantasy of being the master illusionist is fulfillable based off of how you want to approach it mechanically, but the narrative/thematic/flavor of it can be hyper focused on learning to manipulate illusions most effectively.
Some schools, like diviner, basically got their archetypes already, (in the form of the loremaster) but if there were a bunch of archetypes open to many different classes of caster that focused on doing cool school focused things, I think that everyone would be able to have their cake with the wizard.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...Its self evident that Wizards benefit more- they can afford to use such powerful spells more often, ergo the additional power goes further. It's also been adequately demonstrated that such spells are far fromEvery caster class has AoE spells for those opportunities when AoE is a good option. This is not unique to the wizard. A few extra spells to cast AoE damage has not proven to spike DPR up to say lvl 9 or thereabouts. Once casters pick up some of those big dog AoE spells at about lvl 9, damage spikes for all casters with AoE spells.They make up for it in other things they can do, but if casting different spells for different situations is what you want from a character, there is not another character close to the wizard in filling that function.Wizard is additionally now the go to class for "all I Really want to do is burn things", since a Wizard can sacrifice all that versatility and just bring more fireballs (or whatever specific spell you like) than anyone else by a numerically significant margin.I've been thinking this the entire time I've been lurking this thread, people are weirdly underrating the additional casts, having to conserve less translates straight into higher DPR. For a relatively straightforward "I want to drop fireballs and other such spells" build, the Wizard can't be beat, if you wanna get really spicy, spell blending for even more high end slots will really make the engine purr.
Like, people are back to talking about "buffs are the only useful thing a caster can do" and I'm just blinking like "we're past this multiple threads ago, I have a post detailing success chances on saving throw blast spells from back then that covered it" where spellcasters are able to rack up way more damage (across multiple targets) or chunk reliably (against higher level targets) by using saving throw blast spells.
There's a concept called PEMN, basically (Personal Experience Means Nothing, and I mean this in the nicest way possible) when discussing something like this since everything in the game is designed to vary so much.
If in the handful of encounters at any given level the dice are unkind, the martial dice are extra kind, the GM designs their encounters idiosyncratically in a way that disadvantages casters (I believe there's a discussion about normal ranges in this thread?), or the player playing the caster has a lower degree of system mastery, or the party is tilted such that the martials get a lot of support while the casters get none it would distort your findings, your data has no context.
Now if more people *did* do it, and then we took everyone's data and aggregated them, with the expectation that the large sample size would minimize the effect of that aforementioned table variance, then that might be somewhat more definitive. But it also probably wouldn't show them as being overly weak, given that there are plenty of other people with similar anecdotal evidence of Wizards being powerful.
For example, at my table, having the resources to be more liberal with the fireball spell, right around level 7 or so against three Fiends was huge to that encounter. At another point we had big scary severe encounters with swarms of Shadows and Greater Shadows, in which those AOEs were very powerful. In our earlier fight against a wyvern at a much lower level, and again against a dragon much later, using such spells in single target situations for their high chance of having some effect was also very decisive.
In fact if anything, I'd say my party's biggest flaw tactically is blowing slots on buffing martials who then grind their way slowly through large encounters, when dropping the hammer on like 5 targets at once, twice, would have been very very powerful.
None of this is to suggest that my experience is arbitrarily right and yours wrong, but simply to illustrate why personal experience doesn't mean much.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
...Its self evident that Wizards benefit more- they can afford to use such powerful spells more often, ergo the additional power goes further. It's alsoEvery caster class has AoE spells for those opportunities when AoE is a good option. This is not unique to the wizard. A few extra spells to cast AoE damage has not proven to spike DPR up to say lvl 9 or thereabouts. Once casters pick up some of those big dog AoE spells at about lvl 9, damage spikes for all casters with AoE spells.They make up for it in other things they can do, but if casting different spells for different situations is what you want from a character, there is not another character close to the wizard in filling that function.Wizard is additionally now the go to class for "all I Really want to do is burn things", since a Wizard can sacrifice all that versatility and just bring more fireballs (or whatever specific spell you like) than anyone else by a numerically significant margin.I've been thinking this the entire time I've been lurking this thread, people are weirdly underrating the additional casts, having to conserve less translates straight into higher DPR. For a relatively straightforward "I want to drop fireballs and other such spells" build, the Wizard can't be beat, if you wanna get really spicy, spell blending for even more high end slots will really make the engine purr.
Like, people are back to talking about "buffs are the only useful thing a caster can do" and I'm just blinking like "we're past this multiple threads ago, I have a post detailing success chances on saving throw blast spells from back then that covered it" where spellcasters are able to rack up way more damage (across multiple targets) or chunk reliably (against higher level targets) by using saving throw blast spells.
That is not what the math has shown us at all, https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42ny5&page=32?Did-wizards-get-nerfed#1580 I run it here before people go back to arguing the same stuff a few pages later.
The Wizard (and indeed other casting characters) using saving throws to blast do substantial damage, especially across multiple targets, and have an extremely high chance of chunking for at least half (which is pretty much on par for their chance of chunking for full) that makes them valuable even against single targets.
These spells are more effective than martial swings, and the Wizard is the caster that can commit the most resources to actually doing damage, I'm confident that their DPA (Damage-per-Action) holds up just fine when half damage is taken into account, and even more so when we factor in options like spell blending, force bolt, Staff Nexus, and so forth.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
The math shows that for single target damage they are equal or worse. For AoE they have a chance to multiply it, because AoE. Spells are also reliant on targeting the right save which the math shows can fail often.
Also it does not diminish the fact Wizards have, less interaction with action economy, less interaction with spell effects, weaker chassis, less interesting feats, etc.
"less interaction with the action economy" is very dependent upon player expectation. Wizards most often use their third action in relationship to casting a spell out of a spell slot in their turn. By using a third action to do so, they can usually get a pretty decent effect out of doing so (see Evoker using Elemental Tempest, especially after setting it up the round before with forcible energy). You feel like this is less interaction with the action economy, because, for you, action economy is just "number of different independently consequential actions." It is perfectly ok to look for this, but wizards were never the masters of this, hence why the magus class got invented in the first place.
"Less interactions with spell effects:" I don't really understand what this means. It seems factually contradicted by sheer quantity of spells wizards get in relationship to anyone else in the game. They cast the most spells, so they have the most interactions with spell effects. They can also have the best chances of getting desirable critical failures on powerful enemies (through spell penetration) so I bet one of us math experts can quantifiably show that wizards most often get better results on saving throw targeting spells than other casters vs the most dangerous opposition, especially when you factor in the volume of spells that wizards can cast. I am not sure how to show it, but this one feels squarely quantifiable.
"weaker chasis:" this one is true...if number of spells per day is a low value element to a class. That is a pretty subjective position though and it appears the developers, as well as many players, would argue that number of spell slots per level per day, is a significant factor in building a class chassis.
"Less interesting feats:" Obviously, this one is far too subjective to counter. If you are less interested in wizard feats than other casters' class feats, then it is true. However, I believe that wizard feats empower creative players to do very interesting and unique things that other casters can only dream about. That feels incredibly thematic and rich with wizard flavor, because that is what wizards do. They get the same set of parameters for how magic works as everyone else in the world, they learn it, and then they find ways to combine spells, cast spells that have clear and obvious magical manifestations without being noticed, apply existing weaknesses or penetrate existing strengths, all on their own, through their own study of the cosmos. The existing wizard feats allow wizards to do that. Coming up with cool ways to exploit that feels like it should be the player's job and not the developers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Less interactions with spell effects:" I don't really understand what this means. It seems factually contradicted by sheer quantity of spells wizards get in relationship to anyone else in the game. The cast the most spells, so they have the most interactions with spell effects. They can also have the best chances of getting desirable critical failures on powerful enemies (through spell penetration) so I bet one of us math experts can quantifiably show that wizards most often get better results on saving throw targeting spells than other casters vs the most dangerous opposition, especially when you factor in the volume of spells that wizards can cast. I am not sure how to show it, but this one feels squarely quantifiable.
I think you don't understand his point. Casting more spells isn't interacting with spell effects.
Being able to dispel earlier, with generic spell (or hmmm, maybe a Focus spell?) would be interacting with magic effects.
Being able to change what magic does or adapt it, much like many Metamagic and Archetype feats do, is interacting with magic effects. Sadly, even though wizard gets a fair number of Metamagic, only a few are truly useful and/or interesting.
"weaker chasis:" this one is true...if number of spells per day is a low value element to a class. That is a pretty subjective position though and it appears the developers, as well as many players, would argue that number of spell slots per level per day, is a significant factor in building a class chassis.
And at least as many, and to my eye more players are pointing out that number of spells is a low value element.
In fact, given the results of the Witch playtest, I will argue it's way more players who don't see "more spells per day" as valuable chassis element.
Not to mention it's pure spell slots. Other classes get way more powers, in addition to proficiencies.
I believe that wizard feats empower creative players to do very interesting and unique things that other casters can only dream about.
I'm sorry, but what? Reduce enemy saves by 1 point is "incredibly rich in flavour"?
You know what would be incredibly rich in flavour feat? If you succeed on Recall Knowledge, reduce save vs magic bonus by 1, or all on Crit Success.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
The math shows that for single target damage they are equal or worse.
Equal or worse to what? The martial classes? The ones that have dealing damage as their thing?
Yeah, they damn well better!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You do realize 154 damage at lvl 20 with two spells is not ending any encounters? My flurry ranger did 110 points of damage including an AoO attack at lvl 10. 154 points won't even kill a lot of lvl 12 minions.
The best outcome for what you listed is the wizard using Quickened Casting for those two disintegrates and getting at least one critical hit with a critical save fail with a regular fail. Now that would be truly impressive. He could do that one time a day, while a martial character could output in excess of a 100 points a round fairly easily at lvl 20 over and over and over again. His critical hits are going to be pretty insane.
A basic lvl 20 giant instinct barbarian hit at lvl 20 is 57 points for 1 action. A brutal critical 120 points and 2d12 bleed damage. And he blasts through 10 points of physical damage on top of that. He gets to swing so often he will crit likely more often.
The more applicable combo is True Strike + 10th level Disintegrate + True Strike + 9th level Disintegrate, into True Strike + 8th level. So 3 times per day. You could of course go 10th (32d10) + regular 9th (18d10) as well.
Comparing novas, consider the medium case of True Strike + 9th level vs 3 Strikes from a Giant Instinct, Giantpick Barbarian. I ran a simulation of 1000 hits of each vs a CR 23 foe (50 AC, 41 Fort).
The disintegrate did 97 damage on average, but 348 max. The barbarian did 70 damage on average, vs 312 max. The max is what I'm talking about. It isn't a 'mere' 154 average, but a huge burst that can virtually destroy the majority of anything's healthbar. And this is with the more reliable True Strike variant, and against a high fortitude foe.
Going for a nuke (Quickened Casting), the disintegrate spam's max damage went to 580. Now, I'm skeptical as to whether this is better, but it is something worth noting. That is well more than enough to erase just about anything.
This not counting in Dangerous Sorcery. With that, the maximum damage for...
I'm not sure what this theory-craft absent counter-attacks by a high level enemy +2 is supposed to show.
So the wizard blows off his disintegrate, then gets attacked by some high level creatures that are going to rip him apart with low AC, hit points, and saves?
This is the type of theory-craft that doesn't do much. I don't understand what you're trying to show except that a wizard casting a really high level attack spell can take something big out. That was never in dispute. A high end martial can hammer like this in a good round. Other high end casters can do this.
Then once those high level monsters start moving they have a high chance of ripping the wizard apart in one round. His AC is amongst the weakest. He will have to have a full array of defensive spells up, then hope the monster he's facing doesn't have true seeing or a counter act ability. Then if he gets hit by disintegrate with his far lower save than what he is fighting, he'll die before the creature he's hitting.
You're painting a white room situation absent a particular enemy. I don't know what it is trying to show. Many Lvl 20 plus creatures will murder a caster if he goes in their alone.
All of these wizard threads are making me worry that my wizard I just created isn't going to feel powerful D:
If you can last past the low levels, you'll start to feel more powerful around lvl 11. Level 6 spells and up are a pretty big jump in power. Some lower level spells are ok. And you'll be expert and above on casting.
No one is saying it's impossible to play a wizard effectively. We're just saying other classes have really nice class abilities and feats that make the wizard's abilities seem not so good.
PF1 wizard was very clearly the best at a few things like Crafting and metamagic in a way that it is not now. Part of the reason for these things though is that metamagic has been weakened and limited and crafting no longer provides a substantial mechanical advantage unless you have huge amounts of downtime and are making substantially lower level items.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Looking back over the wizard focus spells, I am at a complete loss for why anyone thinks the Wizard focus spells are universally bad. Some of the lower level ones are a challenge to make useful, but did anyone else notice that neither of the Evoker focus spells require an attack roll, or allow a save to prevent the damage? There is definitely no better automatic damage character in the game than the wizard evoker. By the time the storm druid even gets storm lord, the evoker can nova hard and throw down a level 9 sudden bolt at a level +4 enemy, probably only do half damage (so .5x11d12), but then stack 9d6 more electricity with no save on top of that. for an average of 71.5+31.5= 103 damage, total to the super boss when the enemy succeeds on a save, but you also hit all other foes within 10ft of you. How is this boring or flavorless?
It is a power you get to start playing with at level 8 and it keeps the wizard focus of building off of casting spells out of your spell slots, which is the Wizard theme and niche. Pair that with all the different.
What about if instead of one level 9 sudden bolt, you had used spell combination to stack 2 level 7 sudden bolts on top of each other for 18d12 electrical damage? (and that is like the blandest thing I can think of to do with spell combination, literally the most thematically wizardly and creative player focused feat I could even imagine, but this is a side track.
The idea that a level 8+ wizard has nothing to do with a 3rd action in combat is a player build mistake, not a class design flaw. There will never be a one action attack/damage cantrip that can rival what your would be able to do with a decent ranged weapon anyway, and if you are finding yourself casting your highest level spells without adding a punishing metamagic feat to it, then there is a good chance that you are not optimizing what you can do.
I really think that what a lot of people really want out of the wizard, when they complain that it is flavorless, is specific thematic archetypes that...
1 focus point for a 1 action magic missile. That's what the evoker wizard gets. It's not bad, but is it better than an animal companion or composition cantrips? I don't think so myself, but maybe you do.
Sure, if you build for a weapon or a animal companion now, your 3rd action is better. Or multiclass.
How about this for a druid since you're bringing these things up?
A tempest surge while sending in an animal companion to flank and attack once. This is basically an automatically heightened sudden bolt with a rider that will help the animal companion attack more.
So your druid with this combo heightened to lvl 9 has the following possibility:
1. 9d12 electrical damage plus 9 persistent electrical damage
2. Clumsy 2 rider
3. Animal companion flank getting to roll a hit roll for 3d8+7 damage with the enemy set up for -4 AC due to flank and clumsy.
Why do some of you keep posting scenarios that are not unique to the wizard? The druid refocuses and does this once every battle, maybe twice once they get Primal Wellspring.
Every battle, no spell slot needed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I track damage on an excel spreadsheet in real game circumstances for each class individually. I don't track martials in the aggregate. The numbers I'm getting are numbers from play. Not theory-crafting. I did not expect to find this martial versus wizard disparity in damage. It was quite surprising when the data confirmed the disparity and how substantial it was.
I can even confirm the fighter does the highest single target martial damage due to his accuracy. Every other martial class seems relatively close including the swashbuckler over the course of a battle. Thee monk is the weakest martial damage dealer on a...
Reading you, I feel that our disagreement comes from a very different play experience (certainly due to different adventures and parties, I play mostly PFS).
First, in PFS adventure, you face many different number of enemies. Sometimes solo monsters, sometimes big group of enemies. And tough fights are quite well spread among all these categories.
Second, I rarely see bonuses for martials. The most common one is Inspire Courage as Bard are quite common. Flanking is not rare, but in tough fights you don't get it easily (unless we fight a single stupid monster). Getting flank bonus is dangerous, and those taking it very often goes down before really using it. Frightened is hyper rare, trip happens sometimes when you have someone built for it.
Third, martials sometimes face resistances. And when they do, they don't have much choice than to face them for the whole fight. Casters mostly face weaknesses. Weaknesses to elements are quite common when weaknesses to physical is close to inexistant (zombies mostly). Sometimes, you face a resistance, but you just have to switch spell and it's fine.
Also, in my parties, when a martial has the initiative, he often waits for casters (especially if monsters are close to each other). Martials even accept to take the damage of a Fireball when they are in the middle of the radius.So, I don't have your experience and...
We do all kinds of different fights as well. But there is at the end of any adventure or section usually a BBEG who is tougher than than rest, usually a challenge above the party, and very high AC and saves. This is in designed Pathfinder APs.
Why would they go down moving to flank unless they are low level?
Why is frightened so rare? No martials are building to intimidate or with intimdating strike? No bard with Dirge of Doom? It's one action for a good shift in hit probability and saves as well as reducing their combat effectiveness. Surprised you don't have more players building to apply frightened considering it is so easy to do with skills now. Even fear is one of the better low level arcane and occult spells. [i]Phantasmal Killer/i] is great because it does damage and applies a fear rider.
Martials do face resistances. At low level these resistances can be rough. At higher level they usually have a high enough striking weapon to punch through. At low level casters run into resistances and they are rough. Immunity is the worst. Golems immune unless you have the right magic. Devils immune to fire. Dragons immune to at least one element usually. Lots of fiends with high saves. I've found casters have a rougher time with resistances, saves, and immunity than martials.
Not sure what level you play at or the coordination level of your parties. Suffice to say in a well-coordinated party, these bonuses are quite common. Frightened is one of the easier conditions to apply. Flanking isn't that hard to set up either, rogues very much rely on flanking as do Flurry Rangers. It gets easier and easier to apply beneficial modifiers that help martials as you level up.