| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But having the best volume is not a bad thing.
I'm sorry, but volume by itself means nothing. I bring it up because that's their argument: Wizard has more spell slots per level than other casters.
Metamagic is available to other classes as well. Two other classes have the same spell list, too. Wizard is not unique, and the extra spell or two don't really make that much of a difference. They certainly don't make the flavour of the class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But having the best volume is not a bad thing.I'm sorry, but volume by itself means nothing. I bring it up because that's their argument: Wizard has more spell slots per level than other casters.
Metamagic is available to other classes as well. Two other classes have the same spell list, too. Wizard is not unique, and the extra spell or two don't really make that much of a difference. They certainly don't make the flavour of the class.
That's what makes the difference, though.
If it's not something you care, well, no class is for everyone. But clearly, nothing speaks about power like a Spell Blender Specialist.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm new to the forums (1st post!), but I've been following this thread for a while, and against my own hesitation, I'm playing a 2nd level evocation wizard. Focus Bolt is really nice so far for adding more damage on top of my normal evocation spells. I took the Spell Blending thesis and I'm excited for 5th level, when I can blend two 1st level spells to have five 3rd level spell slots (including Drain Bond). Most other casters would have only two 3rd level spell slots. Five chances to use my most powerful magic sounds fun to me.
I'm coming from D&D 5e (never played Pathfinder 1e) so my expectations might be different than Pathfinder 1e converts. But a 2nd level evocation wizard in 5e only has 3 spell slots and can get one back once per day. Meanwhile my 2e wizard has 4 spell slots, another slot with drain bond, and a short rest/encounter spell with force bolt. So my 2e wizard feels fun to play. Plus I can use Recall Knowledge (not a thing in 5e) fairly often as my 3rd action.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like spell blending, it is good. But I was more enticed by having a massive spellbook and spell substitution. The utility of "I have a spell for that" is great. Admittedly it does not work for immediate solution work, but if 10 minutes are available, the wizard is likely your solver.
I rarely play blaster casters. I find them boring. In 1e I played a mystic theurge. I prepared 3 blaster spells, in case I needed to be a blaster. Everything else was devoted to utility. Many people I played with thought that my theurge was weak and didn't do much. But when the poop hit the fan a quickened wall of force followed by a breath of life was invaluable. Or even just a well placed quickened silence, not always useful (but when it is...).
Some of you may scoff that more spell slots are meh. I will tell you that, as an avid wizard player, the only thing I want for wizard is more spells per day. I was/am crushed that PFS characters do not have access to rings of wizardry. I plan to rock the heck out of my staff of divination. I will dedicate into cleric for more spells (drain bond doesn't limit itself to only arcane spells :P, as a universalist [future bond conservationist]). If I had not previously dedicated into champion for character concept, I'd seriously consider dedicating into witch to get occult or primal spells as well.
Scoff all you like at my more spells per day. But the scoffing will be hollowed when my spells can answer almost every challenge while your focus spells only answer combat. With my INT based class and dedications, I have a respectable number of skills. My full plate wearing, switch hitting wizard is effective both in and out of combat.
You can turn into an animal to solve a problem?
1 sec...yeah, me too
You can sneak in, unlock the chest, retrieve the mcguffin, and sneak out?
1 sec...yeah, me too
The healer was ambushed and is down?
Temp HP going their way!
A wizard can do XA druid can do that too
A wizard can do YA bard can do that too
You see that and say that makes the wizard uninteresting. I see that as "look at all the roles that wizards can fill".
Only giving the stats on combat is disingenuous to everything a wizard can contribute. It is looking at about 1/3 of the entirety of a game. That is why I tend not to play blaster wizards. It feels like a waste of a perfectly good versatile class.
*cracks fingers*
"What roles am I filling today?"
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
flavorful
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it does.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you say so. I chose wizard as my base after looking at everything.
I'll agree that wizard feats below 8 are meh. Not terrible, just meh.
I cast haste on myself, so I don't know the action economy issue of which you speak.
My wizard is quite full of flavor. But I never saw character flavor stemming from a class. To me it was always dependent on the player...so if your wizards have no flavor...*trails off awkwardly*
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...I understand liking more spell slots, I really do.
However, that does not fix the fact that the Wizard feats, action economy, and flavor are very lacking. Just having more spells slots is not enough in this edition because slot based magic is a lot weaker then it was in PF1. While non slot based magic is a lot more reusable and flavorful.
I don't see wizards as having bad action economy unless you think thats true for all casters. As a low level wizard (2nd) with not many spells yet, I've used recall knowledge so many times as my third action. Unlike my martial buddies, I don't need to spend my action moving as much, which opens it for a 3 action magic missile, focus spell, shield cantrip, or recall knowledge. Since Wizards' prime stat is Intelligence, my character is really good at discovering lore on creatures in mid-combat. That plus all the lore skills I have makes my wizard feel like a really smart, well read character. That's very much wizardry flavor if you ask me.
I do think some Wizard feats are duds, but most classes have some duds IMO. As an evoker, I'm quite excited to pick up spell penetration, overwhelming energy, quicken spell, and forcible energy. Most of the later wizarding spells sound really cool. I almost played an Illusionist just to use Convincing Illusions feat on top of Conceal/Silent Spell.
Furthermore, I don't think we should be making comparisons to PF1e. I come from D&D5e and never played Pathfinder before. PF2e is a new game, so lets compare the Wizard to other options in the game, not the PF1e Wizard, which was well known as OP. Having more spell slots is a big strength of Wizards compared to other casters in this edition. If I play a Wizard, I want to cast spells, and being able to do it a lot is a huge win.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Flavor comes from both the class and the player. A flavorless class needs a very flavorful player to be fun. But a very flavorful class can be fun for everyone. Its the job of Paizo od making the classes interesting so that people want to play them. Its not the job of the players to try and squeeze what little flavor a class might have.
As for action economy, all casters have this problem to some extent because there are not enough action economy feats for casters. Casting buff on yourself is often the worst situation as a Martial is able to do a lot more with it that you ever could because of proficiency. Same with other buffs. It is almost always better to cast them on the martials so they can explode the enemy with their superior action economy and proficiencies.
As for knowledge. The most knowledgeable class in the game is the Bard. Given that Bardic Lore lets them get expert proficiency on all Knowledge Checks. While Polymath Muse lets then cast spells from any tradition.
Wizard does not even compare to the amount of knowledge the Bard is capable of obtaining.
*******************
P.S. There are usually three reasons to use recall knowledge: You want to know something; You are an Inquisitor; or you have nothing else to do (aka wasting an action).
I think you are undervaluing Recall Knowledge and overvaluing Bardic Lore. Sure a Bard CAN get Bardic Lore, but thats a class feat competing against 13 other 1st/2nd level feats. Enigma bards get it for free, but not all Bards go that muse. Meanwhile all Wizards are great at recall knowledge as their Int will be high and they gain a good amount of skills. It wasn't hard for me to get Occultism, Arcana, Religion, and several lore skills plus more skills to spare. Bardic Lore is nice, but not every Bard has it, and it only goes up to expert when you are legendary in Occultism. Bards are also not naturally Int focused characters, as they need high Cha for casting, and decent Dex/Con/Wis for saves, which leaves Int trailing behind.
I've had great success with Recall Knowledge to learn more about monsters we are facing in mid combat. I know this skill is table dependent (Paizo doesn't really exactly spell out how it works), but my party loves it. I feel like a well studied scholar when I play my Wizard as I can blast foes with magic quite often (more spell slots) and also quickly recall important information on enemies in mid combat. Out of combat, my various Int based skills make me a walking tome of knowledge.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is no question that Bards, followed by Int Rogues and Investigators, are the most knowledgeable classes in the game. There really is no contest.
Other than Loremaster Wizard, you mean.
A Loremaster on top of a Int based class with available third actions crushes Bardic Lore Bards on Recall Knowledge.
What are you even talking about Wizards/Sorcerers knowing more spells?
Clerics and Druid know all their spells no question asked, no rolls, no money expenditure. They just know their spells. Cleric and Druids are also prepared casters, so they can literally prepare any spell they want from their spell list.
In fact the Wizard, Witch, and Spontaneous casters have the fewest versatility day to day for the sole reason that they don't know all their spells. Which is the exact opposite thing you are speaking about.
And a Spell Blending Wizard having more high level spells slots doesnt make...
I was speaking of spontaneous "known".
And anyway, you miss my point. You can have as many spells as you want in your spell list, at a given moment, you can only cast those you prepared. So, you don't have a lot of spell choice. A Cleric can cast at most 4 different spells of his highest spell slot, one is Heal (from level 1 to 20) and the 3 others are just once per day. Wizard and Sorcerer have more choice.And Spell Blender is what a Wizard should be. I just don't get the other specializations (well, I get Spell Substitution, but not the three others which can easily be replaced by a few low level feats).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Being able to cast more spell doesn't show you're a master spellcaster.
Not by itself, no, but it's certainly a big part of it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is no question that Bards, followed by Int Rogues and Investigators, are the most knowledgeable classes in the game. There really is no contest.Other than Loremaster Wizard, you mean.
A Loremaster on top of a Int based class with available third actions crushes Bardic Lore Bards on Recall Knowledge.
Yes, Loremaster the archetype any class can take. Whose dedication happens to be the same as Bardic Lore. And who has 4 feats that are explicitly from Bards.
Loremaster's Etude, Assured Knowledge, Enigma's Knowledge, and True HypercognitionOh yes that Wizard is so much more knowledgeable than the bard (who got all these feats and more 2 levels earlier).
Bards are not Int based.
A Loremaster Wizard will likely have a flat bonus better than a Bards by +2, for most of the game and at endgame.
Bards also dont have the free actions they need to cast spells and be recalling knowledge- due to their cantrips.
Wizards are significantly better suited for this than Bards, and the cost (class feats) is essentially the same.
Discount stuff that isn't tagged as Wizard (but which they are well suited for) if you like, but at that point you're only spiting yourself.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is really awesome to see new people share their experiences with PF2 generally and playing a wizard specifically. Thank you Fanatic66!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
tbh most feats are weak enough that as a spell caster i can easily dedicate half my feats to taking another caster dedication and getting way more slots at a higher level to play with, then take spell blending.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting...
Many of the wizard abilities do not specify arcane spell slots, just prepared spell slots or just spell slots. As written, that has some great potential for dedication gained spellcasting.
EDIT: This must be an example of wizards being not that great.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well if your DM is doing one encounter adventuring days then yes that will mitigate an advantage of a Wizard. That is more an issue with your DM though than it is with the class. I do agree it’s a bit odd after PF1 where Sorcerer was the class who could do that but now it’s wizard. Then again wizards have always been about having silver bullets so having more spell slots does help them there.
Why do you think this?
My bard doesn't need to cast for most encounters. He can eat a sandwich, watch a television show, and harmonize spam Inspire Defense and Inspire Courage most of the times. Then sometimes he puts his sandwich down and nukes some people or synesthesia's a boss.
My druid launches a cantrip and sends the animal companion to attack most fights. launches a bow shot here or there. Saves her spell slots for healing and an occasional nuke or buff.
The only class that needs to blow off slots to keep up with everyone else is the wizard and druid. So it's a good thing they have some slots to try and keep up hoping for crappy saves by enemies.
| 2 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.
I did the following:
I exchanged a wizard for a bard. My effect on the game is far more prevalent and powerful. Even my party noticed and much prefer the bard over the wizard. Even though I find the bard boring to play.
I exchanged a sorcerer for a flurry ranger. The main thing the party misses from my Angel Sorcerer is the excellent healing. My ranger's contribution to victory is much higher than the sorcerer as far as taking down enemies. So they don't miss him too much. The flurry ranger is doing 3 times as much damage as the sorcerer who had dangerous sorcery.
I still want to try a sorcerer or wizard to higher level again at some point as I think you can really do some crazy stuff at lvl 11 and up. But as far as those first levels, I'm going to have to think of some way to make the sorcerer and wizard more useful and fun early on. Those levels are super painful compared to martials.
Even now I'm playing a lvl 6 Giant instinct barbarian. A Giant Instinct Barbarian at lvl 6 can go on a holy terror of damage dealing with a round of good rolls. Just wreck a group of enemies like I've only really seen a power attacking fighter do.
Though mega-disintegrate does seem like a fun, though limited option at lvl 20, for a wizard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
What are you even talking about Wizards/Sorcerers knowing more spells?
Clerics and Druid know all their spells no question asked, no rolls, no money expenditure. They just know their spells. Cleric and Druids are also prepared casters, so they can literally prepare any spell they want from their spell list.
In fact the Wizard, Witch, and Spontaneous casters have the fewest versatility day to day for the sole reason that they don't know all their spells. Which is the exact opposite thing you are speaking about.
And a Spell Blending Wizard having more high level spells slots doesnt make...
Remember with the new rules even druids and clerics have to learn uncommon spells to be able to prepare them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Flavor comes from both the class and the player. A flavorless class needs a very flavorful player to be fun. But a very flavorful class can be fun for everyone. Its the job of Paizo od making the classes interesting so that people want to play them. Its not the job of the players to try and squeeze what little flavor a class might have.
As for action economy, all casters have this problem to some extent because there are not enough action economy feats for casters. Casting buff on yourself is often the worst situation as a Martial is able to do a lot more with it that you ever could because of proficiency. Same with other buffs. It is almost always better to cast them on the martials so they can explode the enemy with their superior action economy and proficiencies.
As for knowledge. The most knowledgeable class in the game is the Bard. Given that Bardic Lore lets them get expert proficiency on all Knowledge Checks. While Polymath Muse lets then cast spells from any tradition.
Wizard does not even compare to the amount of knowledge the Bard is capable of obtaining.
*******************
P.S. There are usually three reasons to use recall knowledge: You want to know something; You are an Inquisitor; or you have nothing else to do (aka wasting an action).
I have seen Recall Knowledge helpful many times. But Druids, Clerics, and Bards can all recall knowledge. Religion and Nature both use Wisdom and cover a lot of bases. So you can't assume Recall Knowledge the wizard is best at as some skills have changed.
Recall knowledge Religion Cleric will likely be better.
Recall Knowledge Nature druid will likely be better.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Flavor comes from both the class and the player. A flavorless class needs a very flavorful player to be fun. But a very flavorful class can be fun for everyone. Its the job of Paizo od making the classes interesting so that people want to play them. Its not the job of the players to try and squeeze what little flavor a class might have.
As for action economy, all casters have this problem to some extent because there are not enough action economy feats for casters. Casting buff on yourself is often the worst situation as a Martial is able to do a lot more with it that you ever could because of proficiency. Same with other buffs. It is almost always better to cast them on the martials so they can explode the enemy with their superior action economy and proficiencies.
As for knowledge. The most knowledgeable class in the game is the Bard. Given that Bardic Lore lets them get expert proficiency on all Knowledge Checks. While Polymath Muse lets then cast spells from any tradition.
Wizard does not even compare to the amount of knowledge the Bard is capable of obtaining.
*******************
P.S. There are usually three reasons to use recall knowledge: You want to know something; You are an Inquisitor; or you have nothing else to do (aka wasting an action).
I have seen Recall Knowledge helpful many times. But Druids, Clerics, and Bards can all recall knowledge. Religion and Nature both use Wisdom and cover a lot of bases. So you can't assume Recall Knowledge the wizard is best at as some skills have changed.
Recall knowledge Religion Cleric will likely be better.
Recall Knowledge Nature druid will likely be better.
wizard could easily do arcana, occultism and crafting wich all 3 cover various forms of monsters.
and at 15 you can use arcane for most monster recall knowledge checks.
or be a mastermind rogue or investigator.
Flavor comes from both the class and the player. A flavorless class needs a very flavorful player to be fun. But a very flavorful class can be fun for everyone. Its the job of Paizo od making the classes interesting so that people want to play them. Its not the job of the players to try and squeeze what little flavor a class might have.
As for action economy, all casters have this problem to some extent because there are not enough action economy feats for casters. Casting buff on yourself is often the worst situation as a Martial is able to do a lot more with it that you ever could because of proficiency. Same with other buffs. It is almost always better to cast them on the martials so they can explode the enemy with their superior action economy and proficiencies.
As for knowledge. The most knowledgeable class in the game is the Bard. Given that Bardic Lore lets them get expert proficiency on all Knowledge Checks. While Polymath Muse lets then cast spells from any tradition.
Wizard does not even compare to the amount of knowledge the Bard is capable of obtaining.
*******************
P.S. There are usually three reasons to use recall knowledge: You want to know something; You are an Inquisitor; or you have nothing else to do (aka wasting an action).
I have seen Recall Knowledge helpful many times. But Druids, Clerics, and Bards can all recall knowledge. Religion and Nature both use Wisdom and cover a lot of bases. So you can't assume Recall Knowledge the wizard is best at as some skills have changed.
Recall knowledge Religion Cleric will likely be better.
Recall Knowledge Nature druid will likely be better.
While this is true, I do think Wizards are better at recall knowledge in general. Arcana, Occultism, Crafting, and Society are all Int based skills. Plus any relevant lore feats. If you're playing a fiend centric campaign, Fiend Lore would be good, and same with Dragon Lore for a Dragon centric campaign. Wizards will have more skills thanks to their high Intelligence, which means they have room to grab a number of knowledge related skills. I don't see Clerics grabbing Nature (unless you have a nature themed god) or Druids taking Religion, but they could. They are probably best at their respective skill though, which should be intended. The only caster classes that struggle in that regard are ones where their spellcasting ability doesn't align with their related skill (Bards and Occultism for example) In the end, I do think Wizards are generally better at recall knowledge, but a lot of this is build dependent. This makes sense as Wizards are scholarly and studious, so they should be really good at knowing things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
considering a gnome wizard witch dedication (free archetype) sometime soon, ill let you know how it goes.
and at 15 you can use arcane for most monster recall knowledge checks.
That's not what Unified Theory does. It lets you use Arcana instead of Nature/Religion/Occultism, but specifically on checks about the magic traditions. It doesn't let you identify Animals or Undead with Arcana.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
and at 15 you can use arcane for most monster recall knowledge checks.That's not what Unified Theory does. It lets you use Arcana instead of Nature/Religion/Occultism, but specifically on checks about the magic traditions. It doesn't let you identify Animals or Undead with Arcana.
i read that those creatures do have to do with your magic tradition since they are spawned from it.
so i disagree unless i can get some hard verbage against it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While this is true, I do think Wizards are better at recall knowledge in general. Arcana, Occultism, Crafting, and Society are all Int based skills. Plus any relevant lore feats. If you're playing a fiend centric campaign, Fiend Lore would be good, and same with Dragon Lore for a Dragon centric campaign....Flavor comes from both the class and the player. A flavorless class needs a very flavorful player to be fun. But a very flavorful class can be fun for everyone. Its the job of Paizo od making the classes interesting so that people want to play them. Its not the job of the players to try and squeeze what little flavor a class might have.
As for action economy, all casters have this problem to some extent because there are not enough action economy feats for casters. Casting buff on yourself is often the worst situation as a Martial is able to do a lot more with it that you ever could because of proficiency. Same with other buffs. It is almost always better to cast them on the martials so they can explode the enemy with their superior action economy and proficiencies.
As for knowledge. The most knowledgeable class in the game is the Bard. Given that Bardic Lore lets them get expert proficiency on all Knowledge Checks. While Polymath Muse lets then cast spells from any tradition.
Wizard does not even compare to the amount of knowledge the Bard is capable of obtaining.
*******************
P.S. There are usually three reasons to use recall knowledge: You want to know something; You are an Inquisitor; or you have nothing else to do (aka wasting an action).
I have seen Recall Knowledge helpful many times. But Druids, Clerics, and Bards can all recall knowledge. Religion and Nature both use Wisdom and cover a lot of bases. So you can't assume Recall Knowledge the wizard is best at as some skills have changed.
Recall knowledge Religion Cleric will likely be better.
Recall Knowledge Nature druid will likely be better.
I've have not found any class lacking in skills at this point. Acquiring skills is very easy. The main big skills cover a lot of the most important things.
The skills where a wizard would shine are Arcana and Occultism if they took it.
No one is beating a rogue for skills. And Lore skills are situationally useful. So having all those skills are ok, but not the advantage they were in PF1. In PF1 a wizard has a real advantage for recall knowledge skill that isn't near as great in PF2.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again, Wizards are only inferior at being knowledgeable if you make the choice to exclude Lorekeeper - for which they are uniquely suited.
Investigator is already action hungry, and Witches want to be using hexes/their familiar with their third action.
People are complaining about lacking good third actions for Wizards.
This is chocolate and peanut butter here.
If you exclude this from the discussion, you're shooting Wizards in the knees yourself.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, Wizards are only inferior at being knowledgeable if you make the choice to exclude Lorekeeper - for which they are uniquely suited.
Investigator is already action hungry, and Witches want to be using hexes/their familiar with their third action.
People are complaining about lacking good third actions for Wizards.
This is chocolate and peanut butter here.
If you exclude this from the discussion, you're shooting Wizards in the knees yourself.
Lorekeeper is not a wizard it is a Archetype so including it in the conversation about wizards is like saying a rogue who didn't take acrobat isn't a rogue.
It misses the point. If the class isn't doing it on its own, then it's not something the class excels at.
I've also played an investigator. They see not action starved and see better at recall knowledge than a wizard is.
And they see complaining about class specific third actions. Not universal ones. The wizard lacks class specific third action options on a base level that the class can get without taking x feat or y thesis.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again, Wizards are only inferior at being knowledgeable if you make the choice to exclude Lorekeeper - for which they are uniquely suited.
Investigator is already action hungry, and Witches want to be using hexes/their familiar with their third action.
People are complaining about lacking good third actions for Wizards.
This is chocolate and peanut butter here.
If you exclude this from the discussion, you're shooting Wizards in the knees yourself.
Lorekeeper is not a wizard it is a Archetype so including it in the conversation about wizards is like saying a rogue who didn't take acrobat isn't a rogue.
It misses the point. If the class isn't doing it on its own, then it's not something the class excels at.
I've also played an investigator. They see not action starved and see better at recall knowledge than a wizard is.
And they see complaining about class specific third actions. Not universal ones. The wizard lacks class specific third action options on a base level that the class can get without taking x feat or y thesis.
"Look at how bad Wizard is! It can't do ANYTHING when I deny it the options that the system assumes it has available!"
The idea that Wizard shouldn't be considered in light of archetypes is an artificial restriction. Yeah, its nice to think it should be 'independent', but neither you nor I has any real indication that was a design imperative.
If archetypes address the issues people have, then archetypes should absolutely be on the table.
ESPECIALLY when Wizards are the best fit for the archetype.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, Wizards are only inferior at being knowledgeable if you make the choice to exclude Lorekeeper - for which they are uniquely suited.
Investigator is already action hungry, and Witches want to be using hexes/their familiar with their third action.
People are complaining about lacking good third actions for Wizards.
This is chocolate and peanut butter here.
If you exclude this from the discussion, you're shooting Wizards in the knees yourself.
Lorekeeper is not a wizard it is a Archetype so including it in the conversation about wizards is like saying a rogue who didn't take acrobat isn't a rogue.
It misses the point. If the class isn't doing it on its own, then it's not something the class excels at.
I've also played an investigator. They see not action starved and see better at recall knowledge than a wizard is.
And they see complaining about class specific third actions. Not universal ones. The wizard lacks class specific third action options on a base level that the class can get without taking x feat or y thesis.
"Look at how bad Wizard is! It can't do ANYTHING when I deny it the options that the system assumes it has available!"
The idea that Wizard shouldn't be considered in light of archetypes is an artificial restriction. Yeah, its nice to think it should be 'independent', but neither you nor I has any real indication that was a design imperative.
If archetypes address the issues people have, then archetypes should absolutely be on the table.
Yes when building a character. I agree.
But not when discussing what a class is good at. A wizard doesn't overly excel at recall knowledge. A wizard lorekeeper does. Heck you could go a x lorekeeper is better at recall knowledge checks. You'd still be objectively accurate.
So you are missing the point of the discussion if you think it's still applicable.
If your only solution to wizard is don't take wizards class feats, then there is an issue with the wizard.
That said, I could see how recall knowledge could have been a flavorful niche for wizards. But they have it to the investigator as a core feature and have a lot of options for it to things like rogue, ranger and when a decent martial recall knowledge feat for fighter.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Investigators are better at Recall Knowledge than Wizards are, due to the Known Weaknesses Feat, which combines their already necessary Devise Stratagem with a free Recall Knowledge check (in addition to a bonus on the attack if it succeeds). That's like if Wizards got a Feat to do a Recall Knowledge check for free every time they cast a spell, it's gonna happen once a turn every turn and makes them undisputed kings in this area.
That said, Wizards are certainly also good at Recall Knowledge, but Investigators are a head and shoulders above literally everyone else in that area, Wizards included.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, Wizards are only inferior at being knowledgeable if you make the choice to exclude Lorekeeper - for which they are uniquely suited.
Investigator is already action hungry, and Witches want to be using hexes/their familiar with their third action.
People are complaining about lacking good third actions for Wizards.
This is chocolate and peanut butter here.
If you exclude this from the discussion, you're shooting Wizards in the knees yourself.
Lorekeeper is not a wizard it is a Archetype so including it in the conversation about wizards is like saying a rogue who didn't take acrobat isn't a rogue.
It misses the point. If the class isn't doing it on its own, then it's not something the class excels at.
I've also played an investigator. They see not action starved and see better at recall knowledge than a wizard is.
And they see complaining about class specific third actions. Not universal ones. The wizard lacks class specific third action options on a base level that the class can get without taking x feat or y thesis.
In reverse order:
What class specific 3rd action does Fighter get? Or Rogue? Or Cleric?
class specific 3rd action is not a universal thing at all. For many classes that have something like that, the experience in play becomes a repetitive combat routine, bard, I am especially looking at you. It is perfectly fine for some classes to have that, and other classes to not. Wizard is a class that literally cannot have a nearly mandatory 3rd action because that would eliminate their ability to apply metamagic to their spell slot casting. Metamagic feats that take actions are nearly impossible on a bard build.
It is awesome +++ that I don't need specialized wizard feats to be a lore master as a wizard. This was the entire point of archetypes, instead of replicating the same feat over and over again, with slight modifications that create unnecessary complications, lets just have archetypes that every character that doesn't get X base class ability can take to get something similar. This was an intentional and intelligent design decision. Not an accident that destroyed the wizard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again, Wizards are only inferior at being knowledgeable if you make the choice to exclude Lorekeeper - for which they are uniquely suited.
Investigator is already action hungry, and Witches want to be using hexes/their familiar with their third action.
People are complaining about lacking good third actions for Wizards.
This is chocolate and peanut butter here.
If you exclude this from the discussion, you're shooting Wizards in the knees yourself.
Lorekeeper is not a wizard it is a Archetype so including it in the conversation about wizards is like saying a rogue who didn't take acrobat isn't a rogue.
It misses the point. If the class isn't doing it on its own, then it's not something the class excels at.
I've also played an investigator. They see not action starved and see better at recall knowledge than a wizard is.
And they see complaining about class specific third actions. Not universal ones. The wizard lacks class specific third action options on a base level that the class can get without taking x feat or y thesis.
In reverse order:
What class specific 3rd action does Fighter get? Or Rogue? Or Cleric?
class specific 3rd action is not a universal thing at all. For many classes that have something like that, the experience in play becomes a repetitive combat routine, bard, I am especially looking at you. It is perfectly fine for some classes to have that, and other classes to not. Wizard is a class that literally cannot have a nearly mandatory 3rd action because that would eliminate their ability to apply metamagic to their spell slot casting. Metamagic feats that take actions are nearly impossible on a bard build.
It is awesome +++ that I don't need specialized wizard feats to be a lore master as a wizard. This was the entire point of archetypes, instead of replicating the same feat over and over again, with slight modifications that create unnecessary complications, lets just have archetypes that...
Characters that operate from a constrained interaction with the 3 action system should have them. Rogues and fighters interact fluidly and effectively.
Casters without a class specific 3rd action do not. That includes clerics.
It would not negate their ability to use an option. That is a silly concept to even consider. More options isn't bad. You just have to decide what you want to do.
I also didn't say loremaster destroyed the wizard or even that recall knowledge should or needs to be their thing. I'm just saying loremaster isn't an argument on what wizard actually is good at just as recall knowledge while The are serviceable in their niche, they dinner Excell at it beyond other classes beyond the fact they can have a optimal base chance for 3 of the recall knowledge monster checks because they have intelligence as their modifier.
Making them tied with witch.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm confused now what's the problem with Wizards vs other casters. Certain casters get their own unique things like focus cantrips, more focus spells (oracles), divine font, etc. to compensate for them not having 4 spell slots per spell level. Those special abilities are a trade off, which is why Wizards can enjoy an additional spell slot. The Wizard's strength is its versatility and magical power. Wizards can learn more spells and prepare whatever spells they want for that day, which is in direct opposition to the other 4 slot caster, Sorcerers. They have more spell slots than most casters with easy ways to also recharge spell slots (drain bond, familiars, certain class feats). Depending on your thesis, you can be even better at manipulating magic, getting even more powerful spell slots, increasing your versatility, and more.
If you don't think the trade off is worth it, then Witch is probably a better class for you as its similar to the Wizard, but sacrifices the Wizard's above strengths for hex cantrips and improved familiar. For my 2nd level evoker, I debated going Witch for backstory reason but ultimately landed on Wizard, because I didn't really care for familiars and hex cantrips weren't worth it to me. If I'm playing a caster, I want to cast spells often, and the Wizard does that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Making them tied with witch.
Witches traded spell slots for access to 1 action Cantrips, which theyre giving up if they want to Recall Knowledge and cast a spell in the same turn - meaning that the opportunity cost for following that path is higher.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Making them tied with witch.Witches traded spell slots for access to 1 action Cantrips, which theyre giving up if they want to Recall Knowledge and cast a spell in the same turn - meaning that the opportunity cost for following that path is higher.
Flatly untrue. It just means they have to decide what they are doing. Again, options are not a power decrease or options limiter. Never knew having to decide what to do on a round is a bad thing. Wizard has even less leeway in this regard if you want to compare say cackle that lets then free action sustain freeing up a recall knowledge and still cast a spell Wich a wizard just won't be able to do until high level.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Look at how bad Wizard is! It can't do ANYTHING when I deny it the options that the system assumes it has available!"
The idea that Wizard shouldn't be considered in light of archetypes is an artificial restriction. Yeah, its nice to think it should be 'independent', but neither you nor I has any real indication that was a design imperative.
If archetypes address the issues people have, then archetypes should absolutely be on the table.
ESPECIALLY when Wizards are the best fit for the archetype.
Sorry Krispy, but I think your argument is getting a little off the rails here.
Archetypes are an investment you have to make. They cost about 30% of all the class feats you'll ever get, generally have a higher bar of level gating, and restrict your other options. It's just not the same as having suitable options baked into the class itself.
That's all there is to it really.
The idea that Wizard shouldn't be considered in light of archetypes is an artificial restriction. Yeah, its nice to think it should be 'independent', but neither you nor I has any real indication that was a design imperative.
This whole sentiment is really weird to me. Why shouldn't a class be considered independent? The Wizard has been out for more than a year, Loremaster has been out for less than 3 weeks. What if it got scrapped or pushed back?
Even if you think it was a design approach, why is it so expensive then? Why is there no cheaper entry for "intended classes"? Why do you need to trade in 30+% of your Wizard class feats to be good at something you already meant to be good at?
None of this holds water.
They just didn't make the Wizard a knowledge class. I'm glad there is a way to make your character a knowledge character, but its nothing to do with your class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Look at how bad Wizard is! It can't do ANYTHING when I deny it the options that the system assumes it has available!"
The idea that Wizard shouldn't be considered in light of archetypes is an artificial restriction. Yeah, its nice to think it should be 'independent', but neither you nor I has any real indication that was a design imperative.
If archetypes address the issues people have, then archetypes should absolutely be on the table.
ESPECIALLY when Wizards are the best fit for the archetype.
Sorry Krispy, but I think your argument is getting a little off the rails here.
Archetypes are an investment you have to make. They cost about 30% of all the class feats you'll ever get, generally have a higher bar of level gating, and restrict your other options. It's just not the same as having suitable options baked into the class itself.
That's all there is to it really.
The idea that Wizard shouldn't be considered in light of archetypes is an artificial restriction. Yeah, its nice to think it should be 'independent', but neither you nor I has any real indication that was a design imperative.
This whole sentiment is really weird to me. Why shouldn't a class be considered independent? The Wizard has been out for more than a year, Loremaster has been out for less than 3 weeks. What if it got scrapped or pushed back?
Even if you think it was a design approach, why is it so expensive then? Why is there no cheaper entry for "intended classes"? Why do you need to trade in 30+% of your Wizard class feats to be good at something you already meant to be good at?
None of this holds water.
They just didn't make the Wizard a knowledge class. I'm glad there is a way to make your character a knowledge character, but its nothing to do with your class.
The Wizard is perfectly functional in the core rulebook - but one of the core complaints here earlier was that it lacked Interesting Options, which could be fair (I viewed its interesting options as being in its spell slots and thesis, which made the class all about its Spells, but that apparently doesn't work for others).
The APG provided a ton of Interesting Options - they just aren't labeled Wizard.
The solution is here, and in the open. The argument that this solution doesn't count because its not exclusive to one class is silly.
The current design paradigm is generally that a class is exclusively potent in one aspect, and the rest is shared with others. For Wizards, that's 25%-50% more spells than anyone else. Expecting additional areas where wizards are unique and superior is... not reasonable.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
At this point, I don't really understand the purpose of saying "the wizard should have been..."
It feels like the question should be "what can I make the wizard be?"
And it seems impossible to write archetypes out of any attempt to answer that question, because archetypes are a part of what any class can be.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In that regard, can't a wizard get a hold of any of the special 3rd action possibilities of other casters? A wizard could get inspire courage, or hex cantrips or druid focus powers. No one can get the wizard level of addition high level spells though.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Wizard is perfectly functional in the core rulebook - but one of the core complaints here earlier was that it lacked Interesting Options, which could be fair (I viewed its interesting options as being in its spell slots and thesis, which made the class all about its Spells, but that apparently doesn't work for others).
"Perfectly Functional" Very exciting!
The persistent complaint has been a lack of focus on Wizard themes and concepts driving a more bland play experience. They just don't have the same in-built charms of other classes.
Asking for a splash of Knowledge interaction or some Sciencey options to round the class out is such a small ask.
The APG provided a ton of Interesting Options - they just aren't labeled Wizard.
So you have to pay for additional flavour options. Those things already supposedly already being in your wheelhouse mean nothing.
The solution is here, and in the open. The argument that this solution doesn't count because its not exclusive to one class is silly.
Literally no one said this.
But since you keep bring it up, character options are not class options. Putting a coaster under the short leg of a table doesn't make the table legs equal.
If the topic of conversation is "Why is the table wonky?" "A lack of coasters" doesn't answer the question. Its a solution, sure, but doesn't fix the table.
I love the depth and variety of archetypes the game presents. They make for some reason interesting build options. I just wish Wizards didn't have to invest so much to get access to mechanical expression of their own concepts. "Eternal students" could use some scholarly interaction.
The current design paradigm is generally that a class is exclusively potent in one aspect, and the rest is shared with others. For Wizards, that's 25%-50% more spells than anyone else. Expecting additional areas where wizards are unique and superior is... not reasonable.
Thought you would just slip that "superior" in there did you? At over 1000 comments in this thread, asking to be superior hasn't been a serious topic of discussion once. Knock it off.
To your point though... It's just really disheartening to go over this over and over again. Additional spells are not "flavour", they don't make the class more interesting by default. They're great, amazing, love that they are there... but every class has its powerful "reason to play X" features PLUS additional flavour options on top of that as well.
Your argument could be applied just as equally to the Bard about their compositions or the Druid for their wildshapes. We don't have to however because they get to have their "big thing" and have flavour options on top of it.
____________
If we've really reached the point where we've boiled the discussion down to:
- "I'd like some added flavour please"
- "No. An extra spell slot per level is your flavour"
Then there isn't much else to talk about.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes when building a character. I agree.
But not when discussing what a class is good at. A wizard doesn't overly excel at recall knowledge. A wizard lorekeeper does. Heck you could go a x lorekeeper is better at recall knowledge checks. You'd still be objectively accurate.
So you are missing the point of the discussion if you think it's still applicable.
If your only solution to wizard is don't...
This is such an unserious approach to the discussion. The Loremaster archetype takes the same investment (level 2 class feat) as it takes a Polymath, Maestro or Warrior muse Bard to obtain the equivalent effect. It should absolutely be part of the discussion.
A Wizard is uniquely suited to recall knowledge because a plurality of non-Lore recall skills (Arcana, Occultism, Crafting, Society) and all Lores are Intelligence based. Even skipping the Loremaster archetype a Wizard remains competitive with an Enigma Bard investing in Untrained Improvisation alone.
If a Wizard chooses to invest just a little they can certainly become one of the best classes at general Recall Knowledge abilities.
But that's not the discussion. The discussion is what a wizard is good at. Not what a wizard with loremaster dedication is good at.
Investigator is better without investment and without need to take a dedication.