| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Deriven Firelion
By my count, of the last 100 posts, 25 were yours. I appreciate that you like Wizards and want them to be good, but you start to look like a 'loud minority' of your own. Maybe not the best position to be in to garner support. :(
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Deriven Firelion
By my count, of the last 100 posts, 25 were yours. I appreciate that you like Wizards and want them to be good, but you start to look like a 'loud minority' of your own. Maybe not the best position to be in to garner support. :(
You do realize he made this thread right?
Him replying to his own thread is too much?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So instead of making its own thread that could be somewhat redundant though not entirely.
I'll pose this question here.
Why do you think, that all the d6 casters, are considered the bottom of the power spectrum in comparison to other casters?
Does this mean the spell slot difference (and whatever the witch gets) isn't a desirable bonus as an average player? That extra slot? In comparison to the unique and class defining features other casters get?
I think this is worth thought in a general sense. Obviously some players (especially on here) seem to argue that those slots are fairly huge. But many seen to disregard them completely.
I don't think it's fair to say they are just blind to the value. I think it's simply less attractive to more players.
I think that is a valid concern. Like I don't jive with champions, but that's flavor issue. Has nothing to do with their identity or power. I like wizards more, but their few unique benefits speak little to the imagination.
I don't know how to fix this. What is the identity of a Pathfinder wizard? Just someone who studies magic a lot? Sorcerer have it in their blood as nearly a curse or a blessing. Clerics gain their powers from the gods. Druids speak to the very nature and gain power from it.
Wizard reads a lot.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just watched the Gen Con panel "Ask the Experts" where the developers talked about the direction of future books, including the Secrets of Magic. They talked about how they will be introducing new subsystems for doing things like having an elemental spell list and feats that interact with these subsystems, and that should provide a ton of very deep lore/narrative options that connect to specific aspects of magic that wizards will be able to tap into.
It sounds like everything will be different after that book. It sounds like all of it will require you to work with your GM, but I think a lot of our conversation right now is probably shaping things to come, but also might be speaking of issues that are being addressed in ways we can't even imagine.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The best gauge for playability of classes would probably be a survey on how much people play certain classes but one of those that can actually get a random sample of PF2e players is not easy. A PFS class survey might not be a bad idea to get a feel for the dynamic right now but even then that's going to be the most dedicated and experienced group of players.
Yes, it would be nice to see a little more wide ranging data such as pfs #s with a breakdown of PCs by classes played, lvls, deaths, etc.
One thing that I see from players that I wish I had more wide ranging data for is when players give up on a class. In my personally small dataset I've seen multiple players be excited to play warpriests and alchemists but then be unhappy with them and switch to something else (usually fighter and sometimes cloistered for warpriest and anything for alchemist).
Additionally, it would also be interesting to see if players switch back to classes (like casters) after they know the system better.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So instead of making its own thread that could be somewhat redundant though not entirely.
I'll pose this question here.
Why do you think, that all the d6 casters, are considered the bottom of the power spectrum in comparison to other casters?
I don't think they are considered the bottom of the power spectrum by most players, there's no real way to tell.
I think there's a small but very vocal and active group of posters that think those casters and/or casting in general is weak and like the gripe about it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The best gauge for playability of classes would probably be a survey on how much people play certain classes but one of those that can actually get a random sample of PF2e players is not easy. A PFS class survey might not be a bad idea to get a feel for the dynamic right now but even then that's going to be the most dedicated and experienced group of players.Yes, it would be nice to see a little more wide ranging data such as pfs #s with a breakdown of PCs by classes played, lvls, deaths, etc.
One thing that I see from players that I wish I had more wide ranging data for is when players give up on a class. In my personally small dataset I've seen multiple players be excited to play warpriests and alchemists but then be unhappy with them and switch to something else (usually fighter and sometimes cloistered for warpriest and anything for alchemist).
Additionally, it would also be interesting to see if players switch back to classes (like casters) after they know the system better.
I'd enjoy this as well. Though I imagine it would be skewed to martials as even in PF1 even when not as powerful people loved playing martials.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So instead of making its own thread that could be somewhat redundant though not entirely.
I'll pose this question here.
Why do you think, that all the d6 casters, are considered the bottom of the power spectrum in comparison to other casters?
I don't think they are considered the bottom of the power spectrum by most players, there's no real way to tell.
I think there's a small but very vocal and active group of posters that think those casters and/or casting in general is weak and like the gripe about it.
Within the confines of a pro Pathfinder 2e forum I agree. Problem is I see them become the majority outside of said forums.
Which is why I often mention that a caster is fine if the GM doesn't target them.
A caster that gets targeted is unlikely to live long.
*sigh*
I have at least one GM who is of the mind that every sentient being can automatically recognize a spellcaster and is desirous to "shank them immediately" before they can prove dangerous.
And yes, spellcasters don't often last long when specifically targeted.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So instead of making its own thread that could be somewhat redundant though not entirely.
I'll pose this question here.
Why do you think, that all the d6 casters, are considered the bottom of the power spectrum in comparison to other casters?
I don't think they are considered the bottom of the power spectrum by most players, there's no real way to tell.
I think there's a small but very vocal and active group of posters that think those casters and/or casting in general is weak and like the gripe about it.
Within the confines of a pro Pathfinder 2e forum I agree. Problem is I see them become the majority outside of said forums.
Your anecdotal evidence is not proof of anything, I could just as easily point out I've heard no complaints in my games regarding casters. And that most of the complaints I do see are from the same few posters here or on the pf2 subreddit trotting out the same arguments or trying to poison the well any time somebody asks or talks about casters.
Like I said there's no way to answer your question as you assume something as fact when it is simply your opinion that "d6 casters are the bottom of the power spectrum"
You don't even define what power is in this context, do you mean damage? General usefulness to a party? Ability to do things in social situations? In combat utility? Out of combat utility?
What is the "power spectrum" you refer to?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just watched the Gen Con panel "Ask the Experts" where the developers talked about the direction of future books, including the Secrets of Magic. They talked about how they will be introducing new subsystems for doing things like having an elemental spell list and feats that interact with these subsystems, and that should provide a ton of very deep lore/narrative options that connect to specific aspects of magic that wizards will be able to tap into.
It sounds like everything will be different after that book. It sounds like all of it will require you to work with your GM, but I think a lot of our conversation right now is probably shaping things to come, but also might be speaking of issues that are being addressed in ways we can't even imagine.
"Thank goodness the Lost Omens Character Guide is coming out, that'll smooth over all these rough edges."
"Man, the Gamemastery Guide is really going to solve all these problems we're having."
"Man, once the Advanced Player's Guide is released, its going to fix all these issues."
Etc. Etc. ad infinitum
I never heard anyone claiming those first two books would fix casters, and the APG added a lot for casters. And I think a book centered entirely on magic is fair to expect some good things for magic classes from.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wizards are going to have to accept that until they hit 9 to 11th level or so, they are going to be weaker than other classes. They have weaker lower level feat choices and options and nothing much going for them until they hit the higher levels.
Even as a DM running caster NPCs against groups, they get absolutely destroyed until they hit that sort of midpoint when their spells start becoming sick damage on critical fails. And they have enough slots to use lower level slots for defensive and utility options, while blowing off the high slots on big damaging spells.
They don't have many repeatable, focus cantrip type options to fill the gap for the lower level spell weakness compared to hit points.
And CapnZapp proved that Crafting isn't really worthwhile unless your DM is denying you earn income opportunities and access to cities with items you want. So wizards have no real advantage crafting in most circumstances as crafting is a weak option absent tons of downtime. It's just another way to use downtime Earn Income without having to worry about the DM telling you what you can and cannot buy or earn.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then we're playing different modules. I'm only playing Age of Ashes...Well, no, as it turns out. Our memory of the same module series is just focused on different parts.
My group that was playing Age of Ashes fell apart as we were going through book 2 (where there were some more open areas, but the terrain made getting a clear shot a lot easier within 30' of the target so that's where most of the range-using characters stayed) - but almost the entirety of book 1 happens in areas that aren't even 30' across.
We just opened up the doors and used them as extra large areas to fight in. Different approaches.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just watched the Gen Con panel "Ask the Experts" where the developers talked about the direction of future books, including the Secrets of Magic. They talked about how they will be introducing new subsystems for doing things like having an elemental spell list and feats that interact with these subsystems, and that should provide a ton of very deep lore/narrative options that connect to specific aspects of magic that wizards will be able to tap into.
It sounds like everything will be different after that book. It sounds like all of it will require you to work with your GM, but I think a lot of our conversation right now is probably shaping things to come, but also might be speaking of issues that are being addressed in ways we can't even imagine.
"Thank goodness the Lost Omens Character Guide is coming out, that'll smooth over all these rough edges."
"Man, the Gamemastery Guide is really going to solve all these problems we're having."
"Man, once the Advanced Player's Guide is released, its going to fix all these issues."
Etc. Etc. ad infinitum
On the contrary. I think there are a fair number of people for whom the PF2 wizard will never be what they want it to be. Some of the options in the APG were right on the money for wizards. Some missed the mark. The developers have made it clear that they do read these boards and that it influences their design process. Would we be getting a secrets of magic book next year if people were just glowing about casting and wizards? Probably not. All I am saying is the new book sounds like it is going to be chock full of ways to make magic rich with flavorful options. They basically said that they are stepping away from any "Ultimate" lines of products from here on out and providing options for material that tells the best stories for Golarion. That should be good news for the "ok, but flavorless folks.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hit dice is relevant because that is how the game calculates it. Otherwise we vould have other numbers.
The Core rulebook never uses the word hit dice. I don't think trying to frame discussions of PF2 around past games terminology will help make anything clearer to anyone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do have a question about 10th level slots.
As far as I can tell Wizards should (without archmage's might feat) only ever have 1 10th level slot and shouldn't:
- get a bonus slot from specialisation
- be able to interact with arcane bond
- combine spells using thesis to get more 10th level slots
The language to me seems quiet exclusive (although the sorcerer bloodline paragon equivalent ability is a lot more specific on restrictions in the description).
I think this is a good question to ask Paizo as it is a little bit grey in my opinion and generally not something I would assume.
I know Pathbuilder (while an independent product) does not give a bonus 10th level slot for specialisation.
This doesn't fix the inherit issues with low level wizards being reduced to cantrip spam very quickly while having the least survivable chassis and worst weapon proficiencies in the game. I still think at the very least something for low level wizards needs to be adjusted so people who enjoy playing wizards don't get a terrible first impression of the game by playing one with the promise of 'but at level 9 you will be okay and might be a little better at level 19 and 20' is not a good value trade. Low levels matter, a lot of games don't get past lower levels. This is slightly less of an issue for a sorcerer as spontaneous casting and signature spells help a lot at lower levels.
I think even making 'Linked Focus' a baseline ability would do a lot to help wizards. I still can't quite fathom why wizards lost their first level feat. Its not like they have been tearing up low level game play.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another part of the problem is that arcane is touted as the biggest and broadest spell list, but its dominance is actually dwindling a bit in that category. Occult got five or so more spells in the APG than did arcane and primal (we'll ignore divine here). I'm hoping the releases this year, culminating in the ever-tantalizing Secrets of Magic, help wizards out by bolstering their spell list with greater numbers and some truly unique offerings that other traditions can't do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do have a question about 10th level slots.
As far as I can tell Wizards should (without archmage's might feat) only ever have 1 10th level slot and shouldn't:
- get a bonus slot from specialisation
- be able to interact with arcane bond
- combine spells using thesis to get more 10th level slotsThe language to me seems quiet exclusive (although the sorcerer bloodline paragon equivalent ability is a lot more specific on restrictions in the description).
I think this is a good question to ask Paizo as it is a little bit grey in my opinion and generally not something I would assume.
I know Pathbuilder (while an independent product) does not give a bonus 10th level slot for specialisation.
This doesn't fix the inherit issues with low level wizards being reduced to cantrip spam very quickly while having the least survivable chassis and worst weapon proficiencies in the game. I still think at the very least something for low level wizards needs to be adjusted so people who enjoy playing wizards don't get a terrible first impression of the game by playing one with the promise of 'but at level 9 you will be okay and might be a little better at level 19 and 20' is not a good value trade. Low levels matter, a lot of games don't get past lower levels. This is slightly less of an issue for a sorcerer as spontaneous casting and signature spells help a lot at lower levels.
I think even making 'Linked Focus' a baseline ability would do a lot to help wizards. I still can't quite fathom why wizards lost their first level feat. Its not like they have been tearing up low level game play.
I wonder about the intent of 10th level slots as well. Nowhere does it state you gain a 10th level school slot, but nowhere does it say you don't either. It specifically states you get a single 10th level slot and that's it unless you take Archwizard's Might. Perhaps people are being too loose with it allowing an additional school slot and arcane bond to work with it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Cyder: By the rules as written, as a specialist wizard with spell blending you:
- do not gain more 10th level spell slots as you level up
- gain an extra spell slot for each level of spell you can cast. You can prepare only spells of your chosen arcane school in these extra slots (specialization)
- gain the ability to cast one spell you prepared today and already cast, without spending a spell slot (bond)
- 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 (blending)Nothing that I know of says otherwise, or discludes 10th level slots from being used with these abilities.
I can't pretend to know what's intended. They have language in sorcerer which prevents you from using feats and such to cast more 10th level spells. They don't in wizard. Oversight? Intentional? But as written, the rules are clear (unless you know of a rule that does address bond, specialization, and spell blending, to prevent wizard from using them for 10th level slots).
None of those abilities impart more spell slots as you level up. They all kick in at 19, but even if they didn't, they aren't granted by leveling up.
Edit: one might point at the lack of illusion or enchantment 10th level spells, but then, you could equally point at the lack of transmutation cantrips.
I've read it several times now. I can't see how this isn't right. Seems the wizard is the ultimate 10th level spell caster. I don't know what was intended or if they'll change, but as it is written Wizard's can cast a lot of 10th level spells. That is a pretty cool, powerful, and unique ability. Not sure many wizards will see it, but my group usually plays to 20 and a wizard will see that mass of 10th level slots.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think it's right because sponts and preps have different wording for some indescribable reason otherwise, and now the witch has this wording too
Your patron grants you the power to command incredible works of magic. You gain a single 10th-level spell slot and can prepare a spell in that slot using witch spellcasting. 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 Patron's Truth feat to gain a second slot.
Given that both the witch and oracle have this wording in a newer printed book (along with sorc & bard) it seems clear to me that the intent is for this to apply to all casters and that extra 10ths can't be gained by any method aside from the 20th feat is the intent.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm ok with more 10ths for the wizard. Gives the wizard something to hang his hat on, though not many people will see it.
To be fair, grease is quite solid. But very early on, Occult and Arcane plays pretty similarly as both have access to a similar selection from the good 1st level spells. They start diverging at 2nd level spells, and I think arcane fully pulls ahead by 3rd.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I for one like the notion that wizards are master spellcasters, able to do a handful of things with spells that no other caster can, and that clerics can cast 10th-level healing spells through their font.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I for one like the notion that wizards are master spellcasters, able to do a handful of things with spells that no other caster can
Assuming that more 10th level slots show Wizards are master spellcasters (which I don't agree, but that's a separate point):
Nice. So Wizards are master spellcaster 2 last levels out of 20 of play. Good class design.
Also, other classes can cast 10th level spells for sure. Wizards just can throw a few more than others per day. That's your "master" spellcaster?
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I for one like the notion that wizards are master spellcasters, able to do a handful of things with spells that no other caster canAssuming that more 10th level slots show Wizards are master spellcasters (which I don't agree, but that's a separate point):
Nice. So Wizards are master spellcaster 2 last levels out of 20 of play. Good class design.
Also, other classes can cast 10th level spells for sure. Wizards just can throw a few more than others per day. That's your "master" spellcaster?
I mean, its not really just true at 20th level. 25-50% more top level spells than the next best class is true at level 1.
That is a significant feature, even if some people disagree. It means Wizards are the only caster who can safely burn a max-level slot in every encounter during a long adventuring day (5-6 encounters), or two during a short-medium day (2-3 encounters).
That is positively huge, if Spellcasting is what you want to do. While everyone else is rationing resources, the Wizard is casting spells.
That is a Master Spellcaster.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, its not really just true at 20th level. 25-50% more top level spells than the next best class is true at level 1.
That is a significant feature, even if some people disagree. It means Wizards are the only caster who can safely burn a max-level slot in every encounter during a long adventuring day (5-6 encounters), or two during a short-medium day (2-3 encounters).
That is positively huge, if Spellcasting is what you want to do. While everyone else is rationing resources, the Wizard is casting spells.
That is a Master Spellcaster.
Again, spamming more spells is not a master spellcaster. Firing a gatling gun does not make you a sniper, or even a good marksman.
Furthermore, this "25-50%" slots per day is only true if you ignore useful Focus spells. I will guarantee you other classes end up casting more spells, with equal or more effect on the game, during the play day.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, spamming more spells is not a master spellcaster. Firing a gatling gun does not make you a sniper, or even a good marksman.Furthermore, this "25-50%" slots per day is only true if you ignore useful Focus spells. I will guarantee you other classes end up casting more spells, with equal or more effect on the game, during the play day.
"Guarantee" is a strong word here, as most Focus spells aren't really equal to a Top level -1 spell from a spell slot, and I have a hard time imagining a Wizard running out of Top and Top -1 slots in a given (realistic) day.
Also, i'm aware that an extremely limited number of focus spells are proper spells - like wildshape - but those hardly have the instant effectiveness of a top level nuke, debuff or illusion and instead open up new options for play.
Tempest Surge is good, but its not a level -1 Sudden Bolt, fireball, or chain lightning.
I've seen non-Wizards run out of good slots and have to rely on Focus spells. Its absolutely a drop in effectiveness compared to their best spells, and it takes much longer for the Wizard to hit that drop in effectiveness.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Guarantee" is a strong word here, as most Focus spells aren't really equal to a Top level -1 spell from a spell slot, and I have a hard time imagining a Wizard running out of Top and Top -1 slots in a given (realistic) day.
Also, i'm aware that an extremely limited number of focus spells are proper spells - like wildshape - but those hardly have the instant effectiveness of a top level nuke, debuff or illusion and instead open up new options for play.
No, those Focus spells provide a reliable and quality character to your character. Having more "top level" nuke, debuff, or illusion is whatever. It's a rare case to run out of non-healing spells in any case.
Tempest Surge is good, but its not a level -1 Sudden Bolt, fireball, or chain lightning.
I'm sorry, but chance to put Clumsy 2 is way better than extra 2d12 damage. Especially as level goes higher, Tempest Surge stays more and more relevant compared to Sudden Bolt. Damage is not everything, you know.
Fireball and Chain Lighting are different type of spells. Neither is as generally useful as a single target spell unless your campaign is all about fighting huge numbers of very low level creatures.
I've seen non-Wizards run out of good slots and have to rely on Focus spells. Its absolutely a drop in effectiveness compared to their best spells, and it takes much longer for the Wizard to hit that drop in effectiveness.
Only spells I've ever seen a party run out is healing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, its not really just true at 20th level. 25-50% more top level spells than the next best class is true at level 1.
That is a significant feature, even if some people disagree. It means Wizards are the only caster who can safely burn a max-level slot in every encounter during a long adventuring day (5-6 encounters), or two during a short-medium day (2-3 encounters).
That is positively huge, if Spellcasting is what you want to do. While everyone else is rationing resources, the Wizard is casting spells.
That is a Master Spellcaster.
Couldn't have said it better myself, KrispyXIV.
Again, spamming more spells is not a master spellcaster. Firing a gatling gun does not make you a sniper, or even a good marksman.Furthermore, this "25-50%" slots per day is only true if you ignore useful Focus spells. I will guarantee you other classes end up casting more spells, with equal or more effect on the game, during the play day.
A marksman is more dangerous with a gatling gun than a blind man, sure. So what?
Everything in this game takes a bit of thought to pull off well. The fact of the matter is that having more or better resources to work with makes it easier to play a character that ends up something that resembles a master in their field. It raises the floor, so to speak.
I work as a graphic designer by trade. Do you know the primary difference between a GD out of college and a 20-year master? The ability to do more in less time.
It's a facet that exists among numerous professions and classes. Why would a wizard be any different?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A marksman is more dangerous with a gatling gun than a blind man, sure. So what?
Not that much more dangerous. Point is that a gatling gun doesn't make a blind man a marksman.
Everything in this game takes a bit of thought to pull off well. The fact of the matter is that having more or better resources to work with makes it easier to play a character that ends up something that resembles a master in their field. It raises the floor, so to speak.
I have no idea why that would resemble a master in the field.
I work as a graphic designer by trade. Do you know the primary difference between a GD out of college and a 20-year master? The ability to do more in less time.
Note the "in less time". I'm a software engineer by profession. I know multiple people who barely finished high school who can write way more code than I can in same amount of time, but no competent company ever checks the pure speed of coding.
Being able to cast more spell doesn't show you're a master spellcaster.
It's a facet that exists among numerous professions and classes. Why would a wizard be any different?
Wizard is no different, and that is why they are not master spellcasters. They're just glorified Wands.
Wizard should've been able to manipulate spells to make them more interesting, do more with them. Not just spam more of them.
Wizard should've been able to manipulate spells to make them more interesting, do more with them. Not just spam more of them.
Which is covered by the Wizards ability to divine the future/scout ahead, and wake up for the Adventuring day and prepare a custom spell list to deal with unique challenges in the most effective way possible.
In what way is a daily custom spell list not manipulating your magic and spells to be more interesting and do more with them?
Yeah, Clerics and Druids have some of that - to the tune of having half the prepared spells and therefore half the potential range of spells, not to mention inherently limited spell lists without the same range of options.
A Wizard can wake up in the morning and do anything Magical any other caster can do (save healing, unless Medic in which case that too sans magic) on demand with more longevity than that other caster.
That is a master of magic.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think you can compare the relationship of Wizard (and Sorcerer) with spells to the relationship other classes have with spells.
Ok, Druid has nice focus spells, Bard has nice compositions, Cleric has nice Heals, but they are extremely limited to these spells. You want something else? You have to grab it through your spell slots.
Wizard and Sorcerer have their whole spell list to choose from. No spell that you will have to use over and over from level 1 to 20 because you're stuck with it. Their focus spells are a decoration, their thing is choosing among a big spell list and cast whatever spell they want.
They have more spells prepared/know/cast. I agree that more spell cast doesn't mean that they can last longer as focus points get replenished. But more spells known and prepared means they have more choice of spells to cast at a specific moment.
That's it, in fact. Druid can cast 2-3 spells of his higher level + one or 2 fixed Focus Spell. Wizard can cast 3-6 spells of his higher level + one or 2 fixed Focus Spells. And these spells, you prepare them every morning, so if you want to change or adapt to a specific situation, if you want to tune your spell list either to the adventure or just in general, you can.
In my opinion, this feeling of having really a lot of available spells is what makes playing a "full" caster worth it. I would hardly exchange my Sorcerer spell list for a 3 spells know/cast per level and my Wizard (still first level) is a Spell Blending Specialist, because moar spells is what I want from a Wizard. I feel powerful when I have a full list of high level spells to back me up, not when I'm a one-trick poney casting for the third time of the day Heal, Inspire Courage or Tempest Surge.