| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
If your plan is to ride focus spells into combat and sparingly use spell slots after you have exhausted your focus spells, you are not very well off playing a wizard. You are stuck on the level 1 wizard focus spells, but I was talking about the 4th level wizard focus spells that play very well with casting spells out of spell slots. That is the wizards thing, and when they do it, they do it subtly better than other casters (if you have invested in the right wizard feats), and more times a day.
EDIT: with the well discussed exception of the Transmuter.
...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 thatEvery 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.
What you stated is why I don't go by personal experience. So much of it is based on feel. Then there is theory-craft in a white room. Then there is real data in gameplay situations.
Personal experience can make almost any option, even an inferior one of any class, seem fun to a person who going off subjective experience. They are having fun and that is all that matters even if they are not as mechanically effective. That is not relevant to them.
Theory-crafting is good for optimization. You can come up with a theoretical way to use an ability that seems powerful. You run numbers to see what it can possibly do.
Then the final check is gameplay data. What actually happens when you start playing? Does that theory you came up with work as intended? Is damage balanced? What is causing the reality not to fit the theory?
I know most people don't care about going this far. They want to play a class they like and not worry about how comparatively well they're doing. The ultimate goal is to have fun. A few of my players fall into this category as well where they make something they like conceptually and roll with it.
I don't believe pointing out mechanical issues with a class is bad for the game or inaccurate. Hopefully it will help at some point and have Paizo putting in some fixes at later time like skill feats that make crafting more effective and metamagic feats that provide some 1 action options that make you feel like you spent a feat on something really worthwhile.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...Its self evident that Wizards benefit more- they can afford to use such powerful spells more often, ergo the additionalEvery 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.
Why do you focus only on wizards in these number analyses when every class has good AOE capability? I do heavy AoE damage with my bard at higher level.
Casters (including wizards) deal a lot of damage in AOE situations at higher levels and it is quite impressive.
Casters do not at lower levels do near as much damage even in AoE situations.
Casters do not usually do much in single target BBEG situations.
This has been heavily discussed and proven mechanically other than some lucky missed saves in BBEG situations.
It becomes more based on another question: Do you think the wizard should be able to deal a substantial amount of damage consistently in single target BBEG situations or should he be mostly relegated to buffing and support for martials in those situations? Similar to a bard or cleric.
Second question, do you think the extra wizard slots make up for abilities like Dirge of Doom or Inspire Courage? Tempest Surge and an animal companion? Or healing font? I am not finding that it does.
For example, my bard preserves a lot of spell slots by just boosting the group with cantrip compositions. Then uses his spell slots to nova as needed. He doesn't even need the extra spell slots a wizard has to be equally if not more effective than the wizard since his cantrip compositions never fail.
My druid gets to use tempest surge once a combat most of the time. It's quite effective for setting up martials and doing damage. She also gets to use her animal companion all the time. And she can heal and do direct damage. Heals work regardless of the enemy.
More spell slots doesn't do much if they aren't better than focus abilities or innate abilities. They don't work half the time. And the combats don't long or aren't amenable to AOE opportunties.
| 1 person 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!
The question you should also ask yourself is are martials limited to just damage dealing now?
The champion in our group likes to use battle cry to open battles intimidating an enemy. She uses athletics to leap over targets and run up walls to get by them. She has assurance and can often burst doors and break out of holds.
The goblin alchemist uses create a diversion to hide almost every round with a high deception gaining the effects of an invisibility like power.
Fighter uses intimidating strike to do damage and keep a creature frightened, while having some bully ability that boosts his damage against frightened targets.
Dragon barbarian can fly and breathe dragon breath and give himself temporary hit points every round for 1 action.
Martials are less limited to just damage than they were. Then toss in multiclass casting ability. You can get some nice variation. It's easier for martials to grab good caster abilities than vice versa.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Deriven Firelion as firm as I am in the "there seems to be something off with the wizard" camp, please note that depending on the circumstances pure theoretical and empirical evidence might both be equally misleading.
White room data - as pointed out - usually does not take into account in-game problems like ease of application whereas individual empirical data usually does not use a standardized parameters for collecting said data.
Was the Wizard build properly (stats, feats, spells)? Was it played properly (daily spell selection, top-down vs conservative casting etc)? What was the party composition? Did the party play properly? What was the Wizards opposition (few high level monsters or many low level ones) and how tactical were they played (SWAT team skeletons)? How were hazzards and social encounters handled? etc. etc.
By the above alone table variation will be huge and probably also a reason why you have different observations and come to different conclusions than other people, e.g. @SuperBidi. Note that I do not doubt an inch of the data you have collected for your group(s), however please understand that we are missing almost all the other parameters in order to interpret the data.
However I think this is a good and valid idea so from now on I will also track damage figures for our group in order to compare the findings.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
It cannot be 'better' than those options, because Wizard can't have superior Focus spells AND 33%-100% more spell slots.
Its still really good - 1 action free damage on top of whatever else you do with your turn.
But you cannot use other classes a benchmark while ignoring that Wizards get significantly more magical resources than those classes.
More magic is what they do best, built in.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"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 think it is important to point out that people only wanted fewer spell slots on the witch and more interaction with hexes, because the witch was never going to be able to keep up with the wizard with spell slot casting, and the wizard already existed. The design space for "best at casting spells out of spell slots" already existed, and even with one more per day, the witch paled in comparison. People didn't vote for less spell slots because they thought it was a weak option. They voted for it because they wanted to the witch to be something different than the wizard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...Its self evident that Wizards benefit more- they can afford to use such powerful spellsEvery 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.
Mu ("the question is wrong"), my argument is that Wizards are very effective regardless of whether the source of that effectiveness is unique. This is an especially important point in 2e where no one has a raw numerical bonus that makes their casting accuracy better. When a Wizard is throwing a fireball, and a Sorcerer is throwing a Fireball, they're pretty much the same in terms of dc, damage and etc. Any modifications to the spell itself are going to be fairly small, if still useful.
Instead, the differences come from the rest of what they offer-- in this you are correct, Hexes, Compositions, focus spells, these are all examples. They have differing numbers of spell slots too, and interact with them in different ways, spontaneous and prepared and so forth. However, a big part of the Wizards kit is the raw volume of spell casting. The Druid can fireball (fireball here is being allowed to represent all big-damage spells) as well as the Wizard, but less often than the Wizard, and for many of us, that is every bit as powerful (if not more so.)
I also want to emphasize since someone brought it up earlier, single target casting isn't attack roll exclusive, and these AOE spells? I wouldn't hesitate to drop them on a single higher level target, the chance of chunking a creature we're racing to kill before it can kill us is too good to pass up. Buffing is great if you want to do it, but if you want to blast, I don't think it's actually worse-- but just avoid spell attacks if you aren't packing true strike.
In summary, you shouldn't have to buff but it's moot because you don't have to buff, you can deal great damage with saving throws as a single target or AOE often using the same spells, and the extra spell slots are absolutely worth giving up composition spells for-- nova is a hot commodity.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
PFS is still at its infancy, highest level adventures are for level 8 characters, so it has an impact. Statuses seem more common at higher level.
Still, I think all the fuss around Demoralize and combat maneuvers is a bit exagerated. Without feats to improve action economy, I don't see much people Demoralizing or using combat maneuvers. And I understand why considering the rare occasions I've seen people using them the effects were, at best, low and it sometimes completely screw their round by adding to their MAP. Dying 4 is the best status you can inflict.Also, I don't see casters supporting martials much. It may also be a big difference between our games. I don't remember seeing anyone casting Fear, ever.
Even at low level martials punch through resistances. Maybe they get easier to punch through at high level, but it doesn't seem so as resistances grow quite high and consistently.
Outsiders are clearly a problem for casters, they are the kind of enemies where you switch to martial support because they have crazy saves (and no low one).
Flanking is not hard to set up, clearly. But you need to set it up. First round, if noone starts next to an enemy, you can't flank. And then you have enemies dying which also screw with your flanking. And there are also the situations where flanking is impossible due to enemy positioning or where you have to Tumble Through to get to flanking position or where going to flanking position means being in the middle of all enemies and as such a nice snack for them. I mostly see flanking against single opponents. In that case, flanking is easy to set up. As soon as there are a small bunch of enemies, only Rogues continue to look for it, other martials tend to spread to cover more ground.
PFS parties are definitely less coordinated than fixed parties. But people are not completely stupid and most of the basic moves are common. It's more the specific combos (like a Demoralizer with a Dread Striker Rogue) that are hard to set up properly.
It's too late now regardless. Wizard is stuck with how it is because if any feats were to *fix* them, they'd be mandatory for anyone with a brain looking to be a good wizard.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Out of curiosity, do fighters in PF2 have thematic identity anymore? Aren't all combat style feats that were once fighter only now pretty much available to anyone through focused archetypes? I ask because it sort of feels like the wizard is being held to some unrealistic expectation of thematic/flavor identity that is largely the domain of archetypes now (post APG), with base classes really the domain of core mechanical features. Maybe not every class, but it is probably ok/should be expected for the Fighter, wizard, cleric and rogue to be pretty vanilla in their core class identity.
I think that casters have been left behind, MASSIVELY, in regards to what can be done with flavor and archetypes in comparison to martial characters, but I think we have pretty much gotten a commitment from the developers that the next major rules book is going to address this issue.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A high end martial can hammer like this in a good round. Other high end casters can do this.No, they can't. That's the point. The biggest, baddest, martialest martial that ever picked up an overly large pickaxe will not burst like that. Now they may be able to deal with a +3 monster in 3 turns, but under no circumstance will they simply enter a room, go first, and either kill or put the boss in 1-2 hit range.
A wizard can. At least, at level 20. The biggest turn I saw with Dangerous Sorcery added in was literally double that of the luckiest Barbarian turn. That's what tons of 'white-room' hits will do: show an accurate representation of what a 'good' turn looks like at a level play that no one plays enough to have a feel for.
Now there is luck involved certainly. But natural 1s exist. And the base damage is also great.
You seem to be under the impression that I went through the effort and have literally never seen a level 20 Wizard in practice. Let me tell you a story.
I converted Rise of the Runelords to 2E. My party finished the campaign, and leveled up to 20. Then, we speed-ran the end-books of most of the other APs. Some were combat scenarios against final bosses, others just 'what would you have done type things.'
One example is the boss at the end of Shattered Star. I converted said boss as a decently tough enemy for PF2 and thought it would be a decent fight at Level 23, with around 450 HP, 50 AC, 40-45 Saves. Round 1, the Wizard goes after the archery fighter. The fighter drew his bow and double-shot, hitting for roughly 100 damage. Solid.
The Wizard used True Strike + Disintegrate. They hit, and the boss rolled a natural 1. A high roll on the Disintegrate, and the boss died. Neither it, nor half the rest of the party had made an action.
This is flatly impossible for any other class to do. Again, that was literally the point of simulating 1000 attacks. Not only did the Wizard do more on...
Why are you stating an outright falsehood? Do you not know what other classes can do or are you deliberately avoiding comparison?
Bards can take disintegrate. So can a sorcerer. Both also have true strike. So those two classes can do the same trick. Given a roll of 1, you have other effects that can completely match that damage like rolling a 1 on cataclysm which would do 21d10 damage doubled.
Let's look at the same situation. A lucky round by a barbarian which you just stated they can't do. This will assume two critical since you got a critical hit and a critical fail.
Brutal Critical Barbarian with a 2-handed war pick. Scores a natural 20 critical hit with giant with +3 major striking greivious pick.
Here's his damage roll with Fatal d12 and brutal critical with Greivous and a 24 strength.
10d12+31+16=114 average x 2 is 228 in a round if he rolls average damage with a 2d12 bleed
Max damage for barbarian per hit: 167
334 with 2d12 bleed
Compared to your average disintegrate with dangerous sorcery.
20d10+10=120 damage or 240 on a critical fail with a critical hit.
Max damage 420.
So that's about a 60 point difference in max damage and a 12 point difference in average damage. This doesn't include any energy damage runes which would further close the cap. Toss in a couple of energy runes like fire or holy and you're adding another 14 average damage and 24 damage per hit.
That would bring the barbarian to 191 per hit with 2d12 bleed damage.
The barbarian might be hasted and get two more attacks. He can do this kind of damage all, round after round, with twice as many hit points as the wizard and a much higher save.
I haven't even showed you what my maxed out flurry ranger will do for damage at lvl 20 once he's tricked out with the weapons he wants. It's gonna be sick.
On top of that every class can use disintegrate with a lvl 10 slot with their version of wish.
Great story. Glad your wizard had a chance to shine. But don't think that is some unique ability of the wizard. It isn't. You sorely underestimate martial damage for those who know how to build for it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Out of curiosity, do fighters in PF2 have thematic identity anymore?by lore and mechanics warriors are the best with weapons.
So no, they don't have any thematic identity.
This is something I've thought about while I perused this whole dang thread. Wizards feel a lot like the "base spellcaster" (similar to a how a fighter is the "base martial") that the other classes have built off. If fighters did not get that bump in accuracy, they would be absolutely the least interesting martial, but since they can hit and crit more reliably, people put up with the standard-dress chassis long enough to see the fun value in mid to late game fighter feats. I feel like wizard is the same but instead of accuracy they just get spell slots--and clearly that doesn't seem to translate as well.
Anyways, I have no impact on this as no one ever plays wizards at my tables (nor at 5e tables I've played at--I played a wizard once and so did one other player, in a total of three years of play with a ton of character cycling). They just generally right now seem to suffer from being a little bit vanilla. I'm seeing lots of folks saying they work and lots of folks saying they don't, but most agree that you have to bring your own fun if you want a good flavor to run with. Nothing to fix that now.
I do wonder if the witch has officially come in and supplanted wizards as the lowest-tuned full caster class in the game.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is something I've thought about while I perused this whole dang thread. Wizards feel a lot like the "base spellcaster" (similar to a how a fighter is the "base martial") that the other classes have built off. If fighters did not get that bump in accuracy, they would be absolutely the least interesting martial, but since they can hit and crit more reliably, people put up with the standard-dress chassis long enough to see the fun value in mid to late game fighter feats. I feel like wizard is the same but instead of accuracy they just get spell slots--and clearly that doesn't seem to translate as well.
Anyways, I have no impact on this as no one ever plays wizards at my tables (nor at 5e tables I've played at--I played a wizard once and so did one other player, in a total of three years of play with a ton of character cycling). They just generally right now seem to suffer from being a little bit vanilla. I'm seeing lots of folks saying they work and lots of folks saying they don't, but most agree that you have to bring your own fun if you want a good flavor to run with. Nothing to fix that now.
I do wonder if the witch has officially come in and supplanted wizards as the lowest-tuned full caster class in the game.
If you feel that Fighters lack an identity, thats cool, let's get a thread going for them as well. The presence of two ill-identified classes doesn't resolve the problems of either.
There should be no generic "base" classes. All of them should have their own experiential niche and selling points which make them feel distinct. It's hardly like PF2 launched with an unwieldy number of classes.
It's too late now regardless. Wizard is stuck with how it is because if any feats were to *fix* them, they'd be mandatory for anyone with a brain looking to be a good wizard.
No its not. The existence of Mutagenic Flashback shows that Paizo are willing to add new class abilities in Errata notes.
Just throw the Wizard an interesting, meaningful, class ability which plays into their theme and allows them execute on their concept. That's all that's needed.
If you feel that Fighters lack an identity, thats cool, let's get a thread going for them as well. The presence of two ill-identified classes doesn't resolve the problems of either.
Sorry, yeah, wasn't trying to make that a part of any argument. Just an observation.
There's not really a need for a thread on anything like that. Wizards, fighters, witches all being less focused or weaker on identity is not something that will really ever change. The balance, maybe. Some class features getting tuned? Plausibly. But what's built in in terms of flavor, lore, and identity? Nah, we've got what we're getting, and that's okay. All three exist to cover a very broad spectrum of concepts, which I personally don't prefer but that's just my opinion on the thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What you stated is why I don't go by personal experience. Then there is real data in gameplay situations."Real data in gameplay situations" is personal experience until/unless your data sample is so large as to actually manage to be representative of at least a broad cross-section of the groups playing the game.
Because, as you say of personal experience "So much of it is based on feel." What actions each GM chooses, subtle table variations in rules interpretations, (and more factors which I could spend thousands of words talking about), and even what dice results happen will cause different "real data in gameplay situations" if two groups play through the same encounter even if the same party of characters were played and both groups began the encounter with the same parameters.
Because, for example, some groups will end up with a Severe encounter consisting of two monsters 1 level higher than the party, started with most of the party below half hit points and about half of the party's limited resources already spent, not resulting in any PC deaths (as happened in my own campaign earlier today) - and other groups in the same situation, or even facing the same encounter while freshly rested and prepared, could experience a TPK.
And just to tie in to the Wizard-specific topic of the thread, I'll mention that it was the wizard character in this encounter that a) never got hit and b) did some very useful things by casting hydraulic push to set up another PC stepping in to prevent flanking and using magic missile and force bolt amid their other actions to do as much assured damage as possible. I even just asked the player of that wizard if they felt useful during that encounter, and their answer was "<explitive deleted> yeah!" though, as is only natural, they wish that hydraulic push would have crit.
I've already changed some initial opinions based on the data. I illustrated this in earlier in the discussion. I'll outline those for you:
1. The wizard issue seems to be more of a low level problem for damage and effect. Around lvl 9 to 11 wizard or any caster can start dealing substantial damage. From lvl 9 to 11 casters start beasting it up more.
2. It is still much tougher to level a wizard or sorcerer up with far fewer good lower level action options compared to another caster class.
Yet they do not get a substantial advantage in casting ability for having this tough time at lower level. The higher number of spell slots does not tend to offset the better feats and focus spell options of other caster classes.
The APG provided them with an animal companion option, which should help some. It is highly recommended to multiclass as a wizard.
3. Incapacitation trait is not as bad an issue as I thought it was and it becomes a non-issue at the highest levels. A lvl 20 caster using an incapacitate spell can still mess things up.
The wizard is empirically a class that brings less to the table than other classes and doesn't feel very unique given all casters eventually become legendary with a plethora of highly useful spells and abilities on top of their very good innate abilities.
Just some simple examples;
Sorcerer: A better innate blaster than a wizard.
Druid: Better shapechanger than a wizard. Can build a shapechanger up to dragon form and have an animal companion to flank with more innate hit points.
What exactly does the wizard do well? Cast more spells per day? Is that their special power? How else can you build them in a unique way like you can other classes? Without multiclassing, what are the wizard builds that stand out as unique?
...Its self evident that Wizards benefit more- they canEvery 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.
Wizards can be effective. But they sure have a rough go of it at lower levels to get to those effective levels. While other classes are equally or more effective across all levels from 1 to 20.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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. 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.
PFS is still at its infancy, highest level adventures are for level 8 characters, so it has an impact. Statuses seem more common at higher level.
Still, I think all the fuss around Demoralize and combat maneuvers is a bit exagerated. Without feats to improve action economy, I don't see much people...
8th level. I see. I think Battle Cry requires master proficiency in intimidation which is a minimum of 7th level.
Dirge of Doom is lvl 6.
You might see more with Witches in play. Evil Eye is a nice hex.
I see now why you have the view you do. Once you see a little more optimization and higher level play, you'll see some crazy stuff.
My bard's current nova support round looks like this:
1. Mass Haste the group.
2. Target boss with synesthesia followed by a true target.
3. If it's still alive after that, Inspire Courage with Inspire Heroics and Dirge of Doom.
Use move action from haste to get in position as needed. I can sometimes shift a group's probability by 6 or more in a given round battle. If the synesthesia is still active, I may launch a reflex save spell or a telekinetic projectile.
High level casters can do some nasty things. A high level bard can shift probabilities a crazy amount in a round.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am just confused as to why intensely lore centered feats shouldn't be the purview of archetypes.
Mechanically, the wizard offers unparalleled access to spell slots, that is its niche. You get the most spells per day, the most flexible spell list, and prepared casting which lets you switch up your memorized spells every day. The vast majority of its feats relate to how you use spell slots. Most metamagic feats are about casting spells through spell slots. Most thesis options relate to how you cast spells through spell slots. School specializations primary benefit is giving you more spells you can cast out of spell slots every level. It is not quite as clean or direct as the fighter just getting better weapon proficiency, but it is the same in terms of its one track focus.
Even more, without this wizard focus on spell slots, anything like increased proficiencies or more blasty 2 action focus spells (the only kind that will provide the kind of damage output that people are asking for when they compare storm druid to evoker), would be a terrible trade off that reduces the wizards area of specialization, if they didn't just keep the same access to number of spells per day. If those things happen, it makes a lot more sense for them to come through archetypes that through the wizard base class options, because to do otherwise is to just give the wizard more, which is 100% about power and not theme or flavor.
Again, some specializations need more or better options, but those options should focus more around how the caster uses spell slots than in giving mega focus spells or all day/every day powers. The witch, the oracle, the druid and the bard are already the casters more focused on these kind of options.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Use move action from haste to get in position as needed. I can sometimes shift a group's probability by 6 or more in a given round battle. If the synesthesia is still active, I may launch a reflex save spell or a telekinetic projectile.
I completely agree. And it's in my opinion an issue, there shouldn't be such ways to shift the probabilities in a game where even a +1 is a big deal. But in PFS, there won't be a Bard always in my parties. So I should not see that always.
I also think having a Bard in a party strongly modifies damage repartition between martial and casters as you have a caster who's completely focused on support. That may also be a big thing: If you have a caster fully supporting martials (Bard or Cleric) then the numbers will shift toward martials. That's just basic logic. If you don't have any support caster, martials are on their own and numbers may be very different.PFS parties are very random, with strange combinations (I've sometimes seen pure caster parties for example, or a party with 2 Bards). These type of combinations don't exist in a party where players create their character together. It has an impact on play experience. In PFS, you have to be efficient on your own. It's nice to have support abilities, but if you only do support you may be sad the day you end up in a party with noone to support.
Going off of what SuperBidi said, I think a big part of the perceived disparity comes from the fact that every character does better with support, but it is far easier for casters to support martials than the other way around. Only counting actions available to any class, CRB martials could support casters by positioning to stay out of AoEs, Demoralizing to lower saves, and using maneuvers to impose flat footed. That's about it. But, as more books release, I think we'll see more ways to allow martials to support casters such as with the fantastic Bon Mot feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...30' range. Being that close to enemies isn't something most Wizards I've played, or seen, relish being.Where as being outside that range is something that I rarely see any character do because thus far my group has only played the published adventure and adventure path content, and most of the encounter areas the included maps present don't provide many opportunities to be further away and still have line of effect and line of sight.
Then we're playing different modules. I'm only playing Age of Ashes, we're about halfway through book 3, I believe, and there have been quite a few places (almost all of them) where I could be more than 30' away from an enemy and still cast on them. Heck, there have been several encounters where my Bard's 60' aura hasn't been able to reach every friendly combatant.
|
|
Then we're playing different modules. I'm only playing Age of Ashes, we're about halfway through book 3, I believe, and there have been quite a few places (almost all of them) where I could be more than 30' away from an enemy and still cast on them. Heck, there have been several encounters where my Bard's 60' aura hasn't been able to reach every friendly combatant....30' range. Being that close to enemies isn't something most Wizards I've played, or seen, relish being.Where as being outside that range is something that I rarely see any character do because thus far my group has only played the published adventure and adventure path content, and most of the encounter areas the included maps present don't provide many opportunities to be further away and still have line of effect and line of sight.
It gets claustrophobic in Age of Ashes as well. I saw that first hand as a wizard. It is why low saves is the really big problem for me with wizards. They are defensively weak at later levels without any good way to avoid spells or attacks. I was more often in spaces with too little distance than too much.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am just confused as to why intensely lore centered feats shouldn't be the purview of archetypes.
Mechanically, the wizard offers unparalleled access to spell slots, that is its niche. You get the most spells per day, the most flexible spell list, and prepared casting which lets you switch up your memorized spells every day. The vast majority of its feats relate to how you use spell slots. Most metamagic feats are about casting spells through spell slots. Most thesis options relate to how you cast spells through spell slots. School specializations primary benefit is giving you more spells you can cast out of spell slots every level. It is not quite as clean or direct as the fighter just getting better weapon proficiency, but it is the same in terms of its one track focus.
Even more, without this wizard focus on spell slots, anything like increased proficiencies or more blasty 2 action focus spells (the only kind that will provide the kind of damage output that people are asking for when they compare storm druid to evoker), would be a terrible trade off that reduces the wizards area of specialization, if they didn't just keep the same access to number of spells per day. If those things happen, it makes a lot more sense for them to come through archetypes that through the wizard base class options, because to do otherwise is to just give the wizard more, which is 100% about power and not theme or flavor.
Again, some specializations need more or better options, but those options should focus more around how the caster uses spell slots than in giving mega focus spells or all day/every day powers. The witch, the oracle, the druid and the bard are already the casters more focused on these kind of options.
Other than the spell slots, the Bard has better access to what you're talking about if you go down the Polymath feat chain.
Ends up with all four schools of magic available, changing signature spells, and re-picks daily. Heck, the Polymath even keeps them in a spellbook. I was honestly astounded that they weren't wizard feats.
Some of this is always going to be about power - you can't have a class that has trouble contributing the party at the same level as another class without addressing the fact that the class that is having trouble contributing is less powerful than one that doesn't. The why can be debated back and forth, but it another class is a better fit for a particular role then it is by nature more powerful at that particular thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It gets claustrophobic in Age of Ashes as well. I saw that first hand as a wizard. It is why low saves is the really big problem for me with wizards. They are defensively weak at later levels without any good way to avoid spells or attacks. I was more often in spaces with too little distance than too much.Then we're playing different modules. I'm only playing Age of Ashes, we're about halfway through book 3, I believe, and there have been quite a few places (almost all of them) where I could be more than 30' away from an enemy and still cast on them. Heck, there have been several encounters where my Bard's 60' aura hasn't been able to reach every friendly combatant....30' range. Being that close to enemies isn't something most Wizards I've played, or seen, relish being.Where as being outside that range is something that I rarely see any character do because thus far my group has only played the published adventure and adventure path content, and most of the encounter areas the included maps present don't provide many opportunities to be further away and still have line of effect and line of sight.
Interesting. I haven't gotten to those fights then, my problem was usually the opposite when it came to low saves: I was too close to the enemy if they succeeded to get far enough away.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am just confused as to why intensely lore centered feats shouldn't be the purview of archetypes.
Mechanically, the wizard offers unparalleled access to spell slots, that is its niche. You get the most spells per day, the most flexible spell list, and prepared casting which lets you switch up your memorized spells every day. The vast majority of its feats relate to how you use spell slots. Most metamagic feats are about casting spells through spell slots. Most thesis options relate to how you cast spells through spell slots. School specializations primary benefit is giving you more spells you can cast out of spell slots every level. It is not quite as clean or direct as the fighter just getting better weapon proficiency, but it is the same in terms of its one track focus.
Even more, without this wizard focus on spell slots, anything like increased proficiencies or more blasty 2 action focus spells (the only kind that will provide the kind of damage output that people are asking for when they compare storm druid to evoker), would be a terrible trade off that reduces the wizards area of specialization, if they didn't just keep the same access to number of spells per day. If those things happen, it makes a lot more sense for them to come through archetypes that through the wizard base class options, because to do otherwise is to just give the wizard more, which is 100% about power and not theme or flavor.
Again, some specializations need more or better options, but those options should focus more around how the caster uses spell slots than in giving mega focus spells or all day/every day powers. The witch, the oracle, the druid and the bard are already the casters more focused on these kind of options.
Other than the spell slots, the Bard has better access to what you're talking about if you go down the Polymath feat chain.
Ends up with all four schools of magic available, changing signature spells, and re-picks daily. Heck, the Polymath even keeps them in a...
Lets not over exaggerate the polymath abilities to say that they give the bard all the functionality of the wizard class. For the vast majority of the game, it is getting one spell to work like a prepared wizard spell, with a feat option to keep a previously memorized spell in the repertoire, and at the highest levels, allow it to be picked from any casting tradition. I think that is a pretty good option, and might give some folks enough of a wizard feel tacked on to the bard, but one or two flexible spells a day is not a wizard-enough feel for me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...A high end martial can hammer like this in a good round. Other high end casters can do this.No, they can't. That's the point. The biggest, baddest, martialest martial that ever picked up an overly large pickaxe will not burst like that. Now they may be able to deal with a +3 monster in 3 turns, but under no circumstance will they simply enter a room, go first, and either kill or put the boss in 1-2 hit range.
A wizard can. At least, at level 20. The biggest turn I saw with Dangerous Sorcery added in was literally double that of the luckiest Barbarian turn. That's what tons of 'white-room' hits will do: show an accurate representation of what a 'good' turn looks like at a level play that no one plays enough to have a feel for.
Now there is luck involved certainly. But natural 1s exist. And the base damage is also great.
You seem to be under the impression that I went through the effort and have literally never seen a level 20 Wizard in practice. Let me tell you a story.
I converted Rise of the Runelords to 2E. My party finished the campaign, and leveled up to 20. Then, we speed-ran the end-books of most of the other APs. Some were combat scenarios against final bosses, others just 'what would you have done type things.'p
One example is the boss at the end of Shattered Star. I converted said boss as a decently tough enemy for PF2 and thought it would be a decent fight at Level 23, with around 450 HP, 50 AC, 40-45 Saves. Round 1, the Wizard goes after the archery fighter. The fighter drew his bow and double-shot, hitting for roughly 100 damage. Solid.
The Wizard used True Strike + Disintegrate. They hit, and the boss rolled a natural 1. A high roll on the Disintegrate, and the boss died. Neither it, nor half the rest of the party had made an action.
This is flatly impossible for any other class to do. Again, that was literally the point
Ah I see. So the entire basis of his argument is at lvl 20, 1 level out of 20 the class can use one spell to do something amazing no one else can do.
That is a very good ability. I did not read that close enough.
I don't think it makes up for the other 19 levels, but definitely can do some insane damage.
Compared to your average disintegrate with dangerous sorcery.
20d10+10=120 damage or 240 on a critical fail with a critical hit.
Max damage 420.We are talking about the Wizard exclusive 32d10+16 Disintegrate via Spell Combination. It seems that got lost along the way.
That is what the other classes can't match, not a generic level 10 slot. Average damage of 384 on a critical fail, max damage 672. Over 500 average damage if you get super lucky and get a regular 20d10+10 Disintegrate to land and the boss to fail.
I'll forgive you for thinking I'm outright lying, given that important detail.
I also think your barbarian math has some extra doubled stats. Should be 2x(4d12+18+5+6)+2d12+16 P plus 2x(3d6) energy plus 2d12 persistent bleed. That is 160 average on critical hits before counting bleed, 230 max.
Which matches up with what I'm simulating and what I've experienced. It is hard for a Barbarian to do much better than critting twice or critting once and hitting twice, and neither of those go much beyond 300 damage a round. Even then, that is a 1/400 type of event. It is way more likely for the Wizard to get a high damage spell combination, even without Quickened Casting.
I see the spell combination now at lvl 20. I read it. That is a pretty potent ability. 32d10+8 (single slot so dangerous sorcery not added twice) changes the math to a maximum of 656 damage and an average 184 and 368 on a critical fail. This is using a lvl 10 Spell Combination slot at lvl 20 right for 2 8th level disintegrates in the slot? That is untouchable and I should have read that wizard ability closer. Looks like the best wizard feat.
I screwed up on the barbarian math. I made it too weak. No there was no doubling up.
I'll do this again for you as I've already worked it out as I'm playing a barbarian and plotting his damage. Flurry ranger can do even worse with up to 7 attacks a round.
Giant Instinct Barbarian with +3 Major Striking Grievous Thundering Holy Greatpick with Brutal Critical Feat and Apex Strength Item.
Critical Hit Greatpick
9d12 (Fatal d12 trait)
1d12 (Brutal Critical)
36 (giant damage doubled)
12 (specialization doubled)
14 (strength doubled)
2d6 (Thundering Crit)
2d6 (Holy Crit)
16 (Greivous Pick Crit)
10d12+4d6+78 damage on a critical.
Average Crit: 157
Max Damage: 222
If two crits, average damage 314 and max damage 444.
So at lvl 20 the wizard could definitely bring a stronger punch if he gets that lucky disintegrate Spell Combination Crit. Spell Combination is indeed very, very powerful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
See, that should've been Specialist Wizard ability instead of extra spell slot.
Instead, you may do this thing once for every spell level except the highest, but at least one of the two spells must be from your Specialization.
Hmm reading Spell Combination and now I am curious.
Is the effect of the combined spells the same spell level as the spell slot they were cast from, or are they 2 levels lower?
The feat says,
Each spell in the combination must be 2 or more spell levels below the slot’s level...Which to me sounds kind of like yes that spell slot might be capped at 2 8th level spells. But I am unsure.
I believe they would both be 6th level spell effects. So 24d10 for an 8th level slot.
But you could make a lvl 10 slot 8th lvl disintegrates, which would be 32d10.
It does clearly state both spells must be 2 levels lower. It doesn't state they gain power for heightening for using a higher level slot. The bonus of spell combination is being able to combine the power of spells, not heighten them as the same time.
So it would still take a 10th level slot for 8th level disintegrates.
And Dangerous Sorcery would only apply once as you are still using a single slot to cast two lower level spells combined.
...I am just confused as to why intensely lore centered feats shouldn't be the purview of archetypes.
Mechanically, the wizard offers unparalleled access to spell slots, that is its niche. You get the most spells per day, the most flexible spell list, and prepared casting which lets you switch up your memorized spells every day. The vast majority of its feats relate to how you use spell slots. Most metamagic feats are about casting spells through spell slots. Most thesis options relate to how you cast spells through spell slots. School specializations primary benefit is giving you more spells you can cast out of spell slots every level. It is not quite as clean or direct as the fighter just getting better weapon proficiency, but it is the same in terms of its one track focus.
Even more, without this wizard focus on spell slots, anything like increased proficiencies or more blasty 2 action focus spells (the only kind that will provide the kind of damage output that people are asking for when they compare storm druid to evoker), would be a terrible trade off that reduces the wizards area of specialization, if they didn't just keep the same access to number of spells per day. If those things happen, it makes a lot more sense for them to come through archetypes that through the wizard base class options, because to do otherwise is to just give the wizard more, which is 100% about power and not theme or flavor.
Again, some specializations need more or better options, but those options should focus more around how the caster uses spell slots than in giving mega focus spells or all day/every day powers. The witch, the oracle, the druid and the bard are already the casters more focused on these kind of options.
Other than the spell slots, the Bard has better access to what you're talking about if you go down the Polymath feat chain.
Ends up with all four schools of magic available, changing signature spells, and re-picks daily. Heck, the Polymath
And I feel like you're giving it too little credit when the Wizard is supposed to have the largest spell list available and the Polymath has all four lists available there.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...I am just confused as to why intensely lore centered feats shouldn't be the purview of archetypes.
Mechanically, the wizard offers unparalleled access to spell slots, that is its niche. You get the most spells per day, the most flexible spell list, and prepared casting which lets you switch up your memorized spells every day. The vast majority of its feats relate to how you use spell slots. Most metamagic feats are about casting spells through spell slots. Most thesis options relate to how you cast spells through spell slots. School specializations primary benefit is giving you more spells you can cast out of spell slots every level. It is not quite as clean or direct as the fighter just getting better weapon proficiency, but it is the same in terms of its one track focus.
Even more, without this wizard focus on spell slots, anything like increased proficiencies or more blasty 2 action focus spells (the only kind that will provide the kind of damage output that people are asking for when they compare storm druid to evoker), would be a terrible trade off that reduces the wizards area of specialization, if they didn't just keep the same access to number of spells per day. If those things happen, it makes a lot more sense for them to come through archetypes that through the wizard base class options, because to do otherwise is to just give the wizard more, which is 100% about power and not theme or flavor.
Again, some specializations need more or better options, but those options should focus more around how the caster uses spell slots than in giving mega focus spells or all day/every day powers. The witch, the oracle, the druid and the bard are already the casters more focused on these kind of options.
Other than the spell slots, the Bard has better access to what you're talking about if you go down the Polymath feat chain.
Ends up with all four schools of magic available, changing signature spells, and re-picks
The wizard spell list advantage is not all it's touted to be.
Primal and Arcane are about equal. Arcane has more of the illusion, force damage,teleport, and magicky things. Primal changes out the magicky things for healing and condition removal. Not sure which you would view as better as both primal and arcane have a lot of versatility.
Occult has lots of illusion, shadow, and enchantment. It gets a heal with soothe. Life drain powers. Lots of mental damage. It's not far behind Primal and Arcane.
Divine is the weakest spell list, best at doing alignment and positive energy damage.
The arcane spell list is not super advantageous, though it may become so as more books are released.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It gets claustrophobic in Age of Ashes as well. I saw that first hand as a wizard. It is why low saves is the really big problem for me with wizards. They are defensively weak at later levels without any good way to avoid spells or attacks. I was more often in spaces with too little distance than too much.Then we're playing different modules. I'm only playing Age of Ashes, we're about halfway through book 3, I believe, and there have been quite a few places (almost all of them) where I could be more than 30' away from an enemy and still cast on them. Heck, there have been several encounters where my Bard's 60' aura hasn't been able to reach every friendly combatant....30' range. Being that close to enemies isn't something most Wizards I've played, or seen, relish being.Where as being outside that range is something that I rarely see any character do because thus far my group has only played the published adventure and adventure path content, and most of the encounter areas the included maps present don't provide many opportunities to be further away and still have line of effect and line of sight.
You don't want to get attacked as a caster. Even my bard gets hammered if the enemies target him. Caster saves and hit points are low. I think they mostly get Resolve for the evasion-like ability for saves. And they can't usually focus on the saving throw stats.
I critical fail my saves against BBEGs a lot. Some creature hit me with an 8th level fireball. It took 130 damage. then got hit by dragon breath. Critically failed that. Lights out for the bard.
Caster life not easy against saves or AC.
So at lvl 20 if you take spell combination, your lvl 10 slot becomes a spell combination slot because it is the only one you have. I wonder if this was the intent by Paizo. Hopefully so as they did not write much on lvl 10 slots to determine how they interact with other abilities. So drain bonded item let's you cast the mega-disintegrate at least twice per day.
At least we know mega-disintegrate is something to look forward to as a lvl 20 wizard.