| 3 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.
Taking an Archetype to make the character good or interesting is fine. Not it's not the discussion at hand either. Dunno why people think taking non wizard things is the solution to wizard problems. It's not.
| 1 person 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.
And the answer is that Wizards can cast more spells. Other casters exchange a 4th slot for something else like focus cantrips or more focus spells, but Wizards get more spell slots and better ways to manipulate those slots with drain bond, thesis, and certain class feats. Clerics have divine font, which gives them some extra spell slots, but its limited to only one spell. Wizards are more versatile. Compared to Sorcerers, the other 4 slot caster, Wizards again bring more versatility than Sorcerers due to their spellbook.
Wizards as an intelligence focused class, naturally excel at knowledge skills outside of only two (religion and nature), as most knowledge skills are Int based, including all Lore skills. With how strong Wisdom is, its not impossible for a Wizard to be decent at religion and nature too. Investigators are better, but Investigators also lack spells, so they need some defining strengths. We should be comparing casters to casters, not martials to casters, unless the discussion is martials vs casters. Certain Bards can get decent knowledge skills with Bardic Lore, but at the end of the day, as a Charisma based class, they are still slightly behind the curve.
I think the issue here is that some people don't value the extra casting potential Wizards get as "good enough". I understand if that's not your thing, but after playing a Wizard for a few sessions, I'm really liking having so many spell slots, which will only increase as I level up more. I can't wait to hit 5th level and use Spell Blending and Drain Bond to have 5 (!) 3rd level spell slots, while most casters only have two 3rd level spell slots. I can cast my most powerful magic three more times than most other casters, which is damn impressive IMO
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Among other things, a Wizard is good at picking up Dedications since the majority of their class and identity is tied up in Spellcasting, and not in their class feats.
Thats a Feature if you choose to see it as one, as opposed to looking at it like some sort of flaw.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Among other things, a Wizard is good at picking up Dedications since the majority of their class and identity is tied up in Spellcasting, and not in their class feats.
What makes them good at it? Wizards have no interaction with Dedications that differs from any other class.
Thats a Feature if you choose to see it as one, as opposed to looking at it like some sort of flaw.
It's not a feature because they don't interact any differently with archetypes than any other class.
You're just making stuff up.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Among other things, a Wizard is good at picking up Dedications since the majority of their class and identity is tied up in Spellcasting, and not in their class feats.
What makes them good at it? Wizards have no interaction with Dedications that differs from any other class.
Thats a Feature if you choose to see it as one, as opposed to looking at it like some sort of flaw.It's not a feature because they don't interact any differently with archetypes than any other class.
You're just making stuff up.
Its entirely fine if you don't find it extremely liberating that a class doesn't have Must Take feats at every single level, making it feel like taking an Archetype or Dedication is a real sacrifice - but I doubt that's a universal feeling.
Myself, its just about the best thing ever that I can make a Wizard or Cleric and take nothing but Archetype feats and still end up with a character that feels like a Wizard or Cleric plus whatever I added. Thats because those clases are defined by their spellcasting (or spellcasting + divine font), and not by their class feats.
You can't do that with Druid or Bard, for example. Both classes are heavily defined by abilities found in and developed through their class feats - if you go heavily into an archetype, the result will be "less" of a Druid or a Bard.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is similar to Fighters, who are easy to multiclass out of as you will always be the most accurate class regardless of class feats. The class feats are nice, but not necessary, letting you easily go into another dedication.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its entirely fine if you don't find it extremely liberating that a class doesn't have Must Take feats at every single level, making it feel like taking an Archetype or Dedication is a real sacrifice - but I doubt that's a universal feeling.
Myself, its just about the best thing ever that I can make a Wizard or Cleric and take nothing but Archetype feats and still end up with a character that feels like a Wizard or Cleric plus whatever I added. Thats because those clases are defined by their spellcasting (or spellcasting + divine font), and not by their class feats.
You can't do that with Druid or Bard, for example. Both classes are heavily defined by abilities found in and developed through their class feats - if you go heavily into an archetype, the result will be "less" of a Druid or a Bard.
Wow. This is perhaps the most backwards approach you could possibly take to this discussion.
But I suddenly understand your point of view.
You don’t actually care the classes themselves. You just want spell casting shells that you can otherwise ignore.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its entirely fine if you don't find it extremely liberating that a class doesn't have Must Take feats at every single level, making it feel like taking an Archetype or Dedication is a real sacrifice - but I doubt that's a universal feeling.
Myself, its just about the best thing ever that I can make a Wizard or Cleric and take nothing but Archetype feats and still end up with a character that feels like a Wizard or Cleric plus whatever I added. Thats because those clases are defined by their spellcasting (or spellcasting + divine font), and not by their class feats.
You can't do that with Druid or Bard, for example. Both classes are heavily defined by abilities found in and developed through their class feats - if you go heavily into an archetype, the result will be "less" of a Druid or a Bard.
Wow. This is perhaps the most backwards approach you could possibly take to this discussion.
But I suddenly understand your point of view.
You don’t actually care the classes themselves. You just want spell casting shells that you can otherwise ignore.
They are classes defined by their spellcasting, and it is their best and defining feature.
Exactly like how a Fighter is defined by their proficiencies and class chassis, and their feats dont really add a lot of "Fighter" to them in any special way, like how Barbarian feats add to Barbarian.
I suspect no one complains about lack of Fighter identity though because Fighters are powerful, which is what a lot of players really want from their class chassis.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its entirely fine if you don't find it extremely liberating that a class doesn't have Must Take feats at every single level, making it feel like taking an Archetype or Dedication is a real sacrifice - but I doubt that's a universal feeling.
Myself, its just about the best thing ever that I can make a Wizard or Cleric and take nothing but Archetype feats and still end up with a character that feels like a Wizard or Cleric plus whatever I added. Thats because those clases are defined by their spellcasting (or spellcasting + divine font), and not by their class feats.
You can't do that with Druid or Bard, for example. Both classes are heavily defined by abilities found in and developed through their class feats - if you go heavily into an archetype, the result will be "less" of a Druid or a Bard.
Wow. This is perhaps the most backwards approach you could possibly take to this discussion.
But I suddenly understand your point of view.
You don’t actually care the classes themselves. You just want spell casting shells that you can otherwise ignore.
You can also read it the other way: He doesn't like being streamlined to specific builds and prefer to have complete freedom on how to build his character without losing on his class features.
I mean, who plays a non-maestro Bard?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wizards, just like fighters, can define themselves through their in class feat selection, but they do not have to. There are multiple types of very interesting wizard builds that are not possible if you multi-class, at least not without sacrificing a lot of higher level class feats for lower ones later on. But they really did focus the class feats for wizards onto casting spells, especially out of spell slots. Anything related to skill usage or combat, not directly tied to casting spells and usually out of spell slots, is not a part of the core wizard chassis, because it really doesn't need to be. The game provides so many ways to get those things and do them functionally, regardless of what your base class is.
I think a lot of these wizard threads could be condensed into one general discussion thread titled, "Why do the developers place such a high class chassis value on number of spell slots cast a day?"
If you think the answer is because:
Spells do incredible things, have incredible flexibility, and an incredible ability to define encounters and play experience, then it isn't shocking to think that getting the most of this resource is a really cool and interesting niche for a class.
If you think the answer is because:
They are over reacting to past versions of the game where spells were campaign defining and now they are not, and any number less than infinity means that you can't expect to have them available when you need them. Then you will never be satisfied with the core principle of the PF2 wizard.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
They are classes defined by their spellcasting, and it is their best and defining feature.
What does that mean? What's the value of that? Why do you think this is true? Why are Wizards more defined by their spellcasting than Druids or Bards? If the answer is that it's the Wizards theme or flavour then welcome to the whole problem I've been trying to express!
Because there is more to the Wizards concept than "I cast spells". Just like there is more to the Druid, Bard, Cleric, and Sorcerer than "I cast spells".
But all you have done is reduce the Wizard to "I cast spells".
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its entirely fine if you don't find it extremely liberating that a class doesn't have Must Take feats at every single level, making it feel like taking an Archetype or Dedication is a real sacrifice - but I doubt that's a universal feeling.
Myself, its just about the best thing ever that I can make a Wizard or Cleric and take nothing but Archetype feats and still end up with a character that feels like a Wizard or Cleric plus whatever I added. Thats because those clases are defined by their spellcasting (or spellcasting + divine font), and not by their class feats.
You can't do that with Druid or Bard, for example. Both classes are heavily defined by abilities found in and developed through their class feats - if you go heavily into an archetype, the result will be "less" of a Druid or a Bard.
Wow. This is perhaps the most backwards approach you could possibly take to this discussion.
But I suddenly understand your point of view.
You don’t actually care the classes themselves. You just want spell casting shells that you can otherwise ignore.
You can also read it the other way: He doesn't like being streamlined to specific builds and prefer to have complete freedom on how to build his character without losing on his class features.
I mean, who plays a non-maestro Bard?
A feat bottleneck for a different class doesn't create a "feature" for the Wizard, it just means that Wizard doesn't have that particular problem.
It's not like bottlenecking issues are something the Wizard is uniquely and exclusively free from. Hell, it's not even true, it just happens at early levels. After 10/12 it's a tight fit for Wizards feats.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But all you have done is reduce the Wizard to "I cast spells".
Well, yeah. And they do it better (more spells, with the best degree of flexibility when you consider list + prepped) than their peers.
Not all Wizards are the same - but what unites all of them is their Spellcasting. Thats what makes a Wizard a Wizard.
Unlike Witches which are defined by Familiar + Hexes, Bards by compositions, Druids by Wildshape or Storms, etc.
Wizards are their spellcasting.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
They are classes defined by their spellcasting, and it is their best and defining feature.
What does that mean? What's the value of that? Why do you think this is true? Why are Wizards more defined by their spellcasting than Druids or Bards? If the answer is that it's the Wizards theme or flavour then welcome to the whole problem I've been trying to express!
Because there is more to the Wizards concept than "I cast spells". Just like there is more to the Druid, Bard, Cleric, and Sorcerer than "I cast spells".
But all you have done is reduce the Wizard to "I cast spells".
And a fighter can be reduced to "I just attack".
Fighters and Wizards have always been kind of bland because they are broad concepts. They're some of the original classes in D&D after all, besides the cleric. All other casters are more thematically focused versions of the Wizard, just like most martial classes are thematically focused versions of the Fighter. Wizards are best defined by their casting and spells, which they excel at given their diverse spell list, slot manipulation, and more casting potential than most casters. Its not that different from Fighters who excel at fighting, while other martial classes get cool stuff in return (Barbarian: rage) for not being the best fighter.
Wizards emphasize the best parts of casting: versatility and raw casting power. Bards sacrifice versatility and casting power for strong supportive abilities. The Witch sacrifices the same things for a powerful familiar and hexes. The design intent is really clear for the difference between 3 slot casters vs 4 slot casters. Its one of the reasons I'm excited to see if the Magus will be a 2 slot caster to help justify more martial powers, but that's a whole other discussion.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, yeah. And they do it better (more spells, with the best degree of flexibility when you consider list + prepped) than their peers.
Not even close to the best degree of flexibility, when you consider that Druids and Clerics get almost their whole lists available by default, whereas Wizards must invest significant character resources to get to it.
And Witches can have the same list, with same investment, plus other stuff.
Also, "more" is not the same as "better". Just because you can't see the difference, doesn't mean the rest of us can't.
Not all Wizards are the same - but what unites all of them is their Spellcasting. Thats what makes a Wizard a Wizard.
Unlike Witches which are defined by Familiar + Hexes, Bards by compositions, Druids by Wildshape or Storms, etc.
This definition right here. Your definition. Shows the problem.
"Wizards are spellcasters, same as everyone else, except everyone else gets extra stuff on top."
Well, yeah. And they do it better (more spells, with the best degree of flexibility when you consider list + prepped) than their peers.Not even close to the best degree of flexibility, when you consider that Druids and Clerics get almost their whole lists available by default, whereas Wizards must invest significant character resources to get to it.
And Witches can have the same list, with same investment, plus other stuff.
Also, "more" is not the same as "better". Just because you can't see the difference, doesn't mean the rest of us can't.
Not all Wizards are the same - but what unites all of them is their Spellcasting. Thats what makes a Wizard a Wizard.
Unlike Witches which are defined by Familiar + Hexes, Bards by compositions, Druids by Wildshape or Storms, etc.
This definition right here. Your definition. Shows the problem.
"Wizards are spellcasters, same as everyone else, except everyone else gets extra stuff on top."
But that's simply not true about Witches. They gain other stuff but at a heavy cost. They have less casting potential than Wizards. In exchange they get a buffed familiar and hexes (really just one hex cantrip with the rest barred behind feats). Wizard already get their school focus spell, more spells, and a thesis that helps manipulate their magic in potentially powerful ways (spell blending), a powerful familiar, or give them more versatility (substitution). If they got more things like hex cantrips, then they would have to lose something in return.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Wizards are spellcasters, same as everyone else, except everyone else gets extra stuff on top."
In exchange for part of their spellcasting.
Wizards cannot get 25-50% more spellcasting and the same amount and quality of stuff as other classes as well.
That would be massively and fundamentally and obviously unfair to everyone else.
I'm sorry you dont see the value of more spellcasting, but that is not the universally held position you are treating it as. More spell slots is and always has been a perk for the classes that boasted it.
Heck, it was a selling point for Sorcerers last edition and it wasn't even really true.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Wizards are spellcasters, same as everyone else, except everyone else gets extra stuff on top."In exchange for part of their spellcasting.
Wizards cannot get 25-50% more spellcasting and the same amount and quality of stuff as other classes as well.
NO ONE IS ASKING FOR THAT.
Stop making things up.
Theoretical question for both sides:
What would you chose for your Wizard if given a choice? 4th slot or things like better DC progression, e.g. expert on 5, master on 13, legendary on 17.
Obviously the later would eventually end up being worse on 19 and 20 (at least as it is now), but better on certain levels, so don't read to much into it. Just being curious.
So what would make you feel more "Wizardy" at level 5? 4 Fireballs a day or just 3 but with better DC?
"Wizards are spellcasters, same as everyone else, except everyone else gets extra stuff on top."In exchange for part of their spellcasting.
Wizards cannot get 25-50% more spellcasting and the same amount and quality of stuff as other classes as well.
That would be massively and fundamentally and obviously unfair to everyone else.
I'm sorry you dont see the value of more spellcasting, but that is not the universally held position you are treating it as. More spell slots is and always has been a perk for the classes that boasted it.
Heck, it was a selling point for Sorcerers last edition and it wasn't even really true.
easy then if that is you problem then here is a solution that makes everyone happy
makes a new class like the wizard but without extra spell slots and give it flavorful features
you can keep your precious wizard the way you want and other people can get a flavorful version of the class
you don't even need to make anything new just make it the arcanist class or the psychic if you insist on it being a prepared spellcaster
problem solved and everyone lived happy ever after
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Wizards are spellcasters, same as everyone else, except everyone else gets extra stuff on top."In exchange for part of their spellcasting.
Wizards cannot get 25-50% more spellcasting and the same amount and quality of stuff as other classes as well.
That would be massively and fundamentally and obviously unfair to everyone else.
I'm sorry you dont see the value of more spellcasting, but that is not the universally held position you are treating it as. More spell slots is and always has been a perk for the classes that boasted it.
Heck, it was a selling point for Sorcerers last edition and it wasn't even really true.
easy then if that is you problem then here is a solution that makes everyone happy
makes a new class like the wizard but without extra spell slots and give it flavorful features
you can keep your precious wizard the way you want and other people can get a flavorful version of the class
you don't even need to make anything new just make it the arcanist class or the psychic if you insist on it being a prepared spellcaster
problem solved and everyone lived happy ever after
You mean like the witch? Isn't that pretty much exactly what they set out to do with the witch?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Theoretical question for both sides:
What would you chose for your Wizard if given a choice? 4th slot or things like better DC progression, e.g. expert on 5, master on 13, legendary on 17.
Obviously the later would eventually end up being worse on 19 and 20 (at least as it is now), but better on certain levels, so don't read to much into it. Just being curious.
So what would make you feel more "Wizardy" at level 5? 4 Fireballs a day or just 3 but with better DC?
The problem with shaping the question this way is that there are so many more ways to replicate an extra spell per level with equipment and feats than there are ways to boost DCs.
It is the reason some people don't feel like the extra spell slots are even a real class feature, but nobody really gets the DC bonus, so it would be more a question of whether you want one less class feature and focus spells that are more of an encounter defining expereince.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Theoretical question for both sides:
What would you chose for your Wizard if given a choice? 4th slot or things like better DC progression, e.g. expert on 5, master on 13, legendary on 17.
Obviously the later would eventually end up being worse on 19 and 20 (at least as it is now), but better on certain levels, so don't read to much into it. Just being curious.
I'm personally strongly against any changes to proficiency that elevate Wizards above other casters on the Math front on a non-limited basis (IE, Spell Penetration is OK as it exists).
Therefore I'm left with the extra slot(s) (1-3, with Bonded item and Blending in the mix) as the best way to make Wizards "better" at casting, without unbalancing the game.
That said, the simple answer to your question is that better proficiency in 2E is always the "correct" choice if you want a more powerful character.
BUT, the extra slots as is strongly draw me toward wizard for any future spellcasters I make that arent Clerics (or maybe Summoner).
Theoretical question for both sides:
What would you chose for your Wizard if given a choice? 4th slot or things like better DC progression, e.g. expert on 5, master on 13, legendary on 17.
Obviously the later would eventually end up being worse on 19 and 20 (at least as it is now), but better on certain levels, so don't read to much into it. Just being curious.
So what would make you feel more "Wizardy" at level 5? 4 Fireballs a day or just 3 but with better DC?
I'd honestly still take more spells. I don't particularly like having to worry a lot about conserving slots, which is why I lean towards wizards and sorcerers over other casting classes.
You mean like the witch? Isn't that pretty much exactly what they set out to do with the witch?
"Wizards are spellcasters, same as everyone else, except everyone else gets extra stuff on top."In exchange for part of their spellcasting.
Wizards cannot get 25-50% more spellcasting and the same amount and quality of stuff as other classes as well.
That would be massively and fundamentally and obviously unfair to everyone else.
I'm sorry you dont see the value of more spellcasting, but that is not the universally held position you are treating it as. More spell slots is and always has been a perk for the classes that boasted it.
Heck, it was a selling point for Sorcerers last edition and it wasn't even really true.
easy then if that is you problem then here is a solution that makes everyone happy
makes a new class like the wizard but without extra spell slots and give it flavorful features
you can keep your precious wizard the way you want and other people can get a flavorful version of the class
you don't even need to make anything new just make it the arcanist class or the psychic if you insist on it being a prepared spellcaster
problem solved and everyone lived happy ever after
sure if you could somehow erase the part where they get power from a patron that can take it away i would be all for it
sure if you could somehow erase the part where they get power from a patron that can take it away i would be all for itYou mean like the witch? Isn't that pretty much exactly what they set out to do with the witch?
"Wizards are spellcasters, same as everyone else, except everyone else gets extra stuff on top."In exchange for part of their spellcasting.
Wizards cannot get 25-50% more spellcasting and the same amount and quality of stuff as other classes as well.
That would be massively and fundamentally and obviously unfair to everyone else.
I'm sorry you dont see the value of more spellcasting, but that is not the universally held position you are treating it as. More spell slots is and always has been a perk for the classes that boasted it.
Heck, it was a selling point for Sorcerers last edition and it wasn't even really true.
easy then if that is you problem then here is a solution that makes everyone happy
makes a new class like the wizard but without extra spell slots and give it flavorful features
you can keep your precious wizard the way you want and other people can get a flavorful version of the class
you don't even need to make anything new just make it the arcanist class or the psychic if you insist on it being a prepared spellcaster
problem solved and everyone lived happy ever after
You can reflavor the class. The Witch serves a decent alternative to the Wizard if you want more "flavorful" features at the cost of spell slots.
What does that mean? What's the value of that? Why do you think this is true? Why are Wizards more defined by their spellcasting than Druids or Bards?
They are classes defined by their spellcasting, and it is their best and defining feature.
Because Wizards are the BEST at it.
On even levels a specialist Wizard gets to cast from their top level slots five times (3 + School + Bond), rising to six with Spell Blending. Druids add Bards get only three and Sorcerers eek out four. When it comes to using Summons or applying spells with an Incapacitate tag these extra slots matter and are a class defining advantage.
In addition to this Spell Penetration becomes a virtual +1 to casting proficiency for the purpose of overcoming saving throws. This is an ability that no other class can duplicate.
i think people aren't pleased because they didn't chose to be a wizard for extra spell slots
Theoretical question for both sides:
What would you chose for your Wizard if given a choice? 4th slot or things like better DC progression, e.g. expert on 5, master on 13, legendary on 17.
Obviously the later would eventually end up being worse on 19 and 20 (at least as it is now), but better on certain levels, so don't read to much into it. Just being curious.
So what would make you feel more "Wizardy" at level 5? 4 Fireballs a day or just 3 but with better DC?
I like the current Wizard as it means I can cast my most powerful magic more often than most. Depending on the additional features to make the spell slots drop to 3, I might be interested.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The argument is now that Wizards are great because spells are their niche and so they can just go take dedication feats to ...copy other classes?
I don't know how to explain to you that extra uses of a limited resource isn't, in my play experience, enough of an advantage to Wizard to make them a more valuable party member than other spell caster options.
Nor do I know how to explain to you that being able to steal, copy, or add, other class's abilities to Wizard isn't a great opportunity to have.
I understand that using these options will make the Wizard more useful than it was previously. I also understand that other classes already have these options available so what, precisely, is this supposed to accomplish? Showing me that the system allows you to branch out? Everyone has that option. It's not a unique and class identifying power of wizards. Extra per day slots, according to some, is the identifying power...but what happens when you run out of that power like I have consistently seen happen? Your wizard is a reskinned lightcrossbow bolt. That's not a great party contribution nor is it a great filler action -unlike the options available to almost every other class.
I don't want to add power to a wizard in order to overshadow all the other classes. I want to make it so that a wizard isn't a liability to the party the moment they run out of spells unless the party decides to rest. The party wizard should not be the primary determining factor on when it's time to rest - especially in this edition where the emphasis is on long term adventuring for almost every other class with short 10 minute breaks.
Honestly, most of you sound like HR trying to explain to me why Unions are bad.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The argument is now that Wizards are great because spells are their niche and so they can just go take dedication feats to ...copy other classes?
I don't know how to explain to you that extra uses of a limited resource isn't, in my play experience, enough of an advantage to Wizard to make them a more valuable party member than other spell caster options.
Nor do I know how to explain to you that being able to steal, copy, or add, other class's abilities to Wizard isn't a great opportunity to have.
I understand that using these options will make the Wizard more useful than it was previously. I also understand that other classes already have these options available so what, precisely, is this supposed to accomplish? Showing me that the system allows you to branch out? Everyone has that option. It's not a unique and class identifying power of wizards. Extra per day slots, according to some, is the identifying power...but what happens when you run out of that power like I have consistently seen happen? Your wizard is a reskinned lightcrossbow bolt. That's not a great party contribution nor is it a great filler action -unlike the options available to almost every other class.
I don't want to add power to a wizard in order to overshadow all the other classes. I want to make it so that a wizard isn't a liability to the party the moment they run out of spells unless the party decides to rest. The party wizard should not be the primary determining factor on when it's time to rest - especially in this edition where the emphasis is on long term adventuring for almost every other class with short 10 minute breaks.
Honestly, most of you sound like HR trying to explain to me why Unions are bad.
No, the argument is that Wizards can cast more than most other casters. The Witch is the easiest example as its also a prepared Int based caster. Witch can pick any spell tradition, gets a beefed up familiar, and a hex cantrip. However, they only get 3 spell slots per spell level. Wizards trade some of those extra goodies for 4 spell slots per level. Wizards still get nice things like Thesis, which depending on your choice, emphasize your Wizard's strength (spell blending) or versatility (familiar or substitution). But they don't get as many unique things as a Witch because part of the Wizard's niche is more casting power.
People keep saying low level Wizards feel bad. I'm playing a low level evoker, and I definitely feel like I'm contributing. During a particularly long adventuring day at 1st level, I had 4 spell slots (most casters have 2) thanks to my school and drain bond. I still had cantrips (I one shot an enemy that crit failed my electric arc), and could always fall back on Recall Knowledge if I didn't need my third action. Force Bolt was a nice extra spurt of damage that secured me a kill against a swarm after burning hands it. Then when my party rested to do medicine checks, I got my focus point back.
If I had played a Witch, I would have had half less spell slots and no focus spell. Instead, I would have a useful familiar and a hex cantrip, which I can spam. So there are costs and benefits to each. I like casting my more powerful spells more often, so Wizard is fun for me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't want to add power to a wizard in order to overshadow all the other classes. I want to make it so that a wizard isn't a liability to the party the moment they run out of spells unless the party decides to rest. The party wizard should not be the primary determining factor on when it's time to rest - especially in this edition where the emphasis is on long term adventuring for almost every other class with short 10 minute breaks.
1 - Luckily, Wizards extra spell slots should help ensure they aren't the first one to run out of spells.
2 - If your character is a liability because he ran out of spells, that's your fault. You can make a character capable of valid contributions entirely based on skill selections - by mid to high levels, even a Wizard can be a competitive Athletics monster only one point behind a strength based fighter. Its unorthodox and a bit dangerous (though Mirror Image still exists) - but you'd be plenty capable of providing meaningful support to your party with nary a spell cast.
Focus spells have proven to be significantly less impactful than expected as a GM. Some are very good, but Cantrips are fully functional and skills (especially Athletics and Intimidate) are impactful enough to be preferred actions in combat in many cases.
Wizards hardly "need" focus spells to maintain endurance - Id much rather have my theoretical invoker using Force Bolt to augment my damage with a third action than attempt to use it as a spell replacement, like a Druid does Tempest Surge.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know we won't be getting an arcanist back in the secrets of magic book, but it really does sound like there will be ways to build towards esoteric mastery and a lot of other cool "secrets of magic" stuff that a wizard would want to study towards.
No one is here to say that the things that some people want out of a character shouldn't be possible in your game at your table. I just think it is important to understand what the developers were thinking so, if you do chose to make your own rules or add various subsystems you understand what the original idea was.
It is ok to not like that the wizard's niche is getting the most spell slots and having feats that mostly change the way you interact with spell slots, but don't pretend like it is incomprehensible that that was the design decision and the existing class does what it was designed to do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
a fight against the boss has 4 turns (let's assume) as almost all spells spend two actions, it doesn't matter much if I have 4 or 300 slots. I will launch 4 spells.
would be, 3 spell max and a 1 max-1. or in the case of the wizard, sorcerer and cleric. 4 slot max.
that one more slot becomes a discrepancy in a turn a 1lvl higher spell. not everything is a boss fight, but it is certainly the most important moment and in other moments who said that there is a lack of slot for more slot to make any difference.
this is what I see people saying that pays off and I don't see how. worse chassis, worse feats, worse focus power.
Just so were clear, you're aware that no one is supposed to be dropping a max level or mas level -1 spell every single turn, right?
For the hypothetical boss you described, a Wizard has a significant advantage in that they can be using spell slots much more freely up until this final encounter than any other class, and still have 1-2 big ones for the final boss.
Lesser spellcasters are going to be holding back and relying on Focus spells to that point, likely with the goal of hopefully having a big spell left to cast.
No one should really be going into most boss fights and going full nova with all their top spell slots in most dungeons or encounter chains, if they're designed well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is ok to not like that the wizard's niche is getting the most spell slots and having feats that mostly change the way you interact with spell slots, but don't pretend like it is incomprehensible that that was the design decision and the existing class does what it was designed to do.I just want to echo this. It's insane to me how much this thread seems to devalue the impact that the arcane thesis has on top of the baseline more slots than any other caster.
In this thread we're debating whether taking 3 feats from an archetype is too much and then ignoring the fact that a metamagic wizard can get 2 free metamagic feats, one of which is flexible per day. This selection will only get more powerful and versatile as additional options are released.
We're also arguing that Druids and Clerics "know" their whole list unlike Wizards, but then ignoring that when faced with a poor spell selection or a surprise encounter, they cannot simply reprepare their spells mid-day as a spell substitution wizard can. *Anyone* who has played a prepared wizard ought to recognize the huge value in this and how much it contributes to extending viability during the day.
We're also ignoring the flavor of something like Staff Nexus which lets you be the only class currently that can build, customize and overclock a magic item which is specifically designed to give you unique flexibility and staying power over other casters.
And lets not forget about the familiar thesis, which minimally makes the arcane witch look like a bit of a wet blanket given current patron options (no disrespect to witches).
Completely agree. As someone new to the forums, I've been following this thread for a while before I made my new wizard character. I was worried he would feel underpowered, but that hasn't been the case so far at all. I've greatly enjoyed having so many spell slots (even in low levels!), a recharging focus spell, and feeling like the bookworm my character is.
I think people are getting lost in the weeds with all these pages of arguments. Wizards have strengths over other casters as you pointed out with there increased spell slots and Arcane Thesis giving them either more power or versatility. If someone doesn't like that design choice, that's a fair argument. But its not a fair argument to say Wizards are weak or lack what other casters have.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Spell penetration is worth taking a wizard archetype to get. Unified Theory+maximum arcana with an int primary and the counter spelling feats also gives the Wizard an extreme advantage in caster vs caster engagements. Casting spells best is the wizard flavor, and I think the features represent that well.
One of the other defining traits of the wizard is a relatively slow buildup of power as you level. With a similar power level to other classes in the end game, that makes them weaker than many other classes for no gain, which is frustrating for lots of people. Still, I like the no shortcuts to the secrets of the universe theme they have going, and I'm happy the consequences of that play out in mechanics; wizards really need level 7 before their class comes online. That was a bold design decision that obviously not everyone is going to like, but making a new wizard themed class that doesn't have that power curve would just undercut the theme of the wizard, so I wouldn't want that class to exist.
I think many of us are just going to have to disagree as the design space is somewhat zero sum.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not gonna lie, I think that this argument was settled multiple threads ago and has been settled multiple times since in this thread alone. We're going over it repeatedly because the posters in this thread who insist the Wizards are too weak seem to think that if they just dismiss all the times they've been refuted and jump back to the same previously-debunked talking points, it means that they're winning the debate.
We've discussed how the Wizard's extra spell slots are a big advantage for their power and versatility. We get a vague response about it not really meaning anything despite direct and obvious evidence to the contrary.
We've discussed how casters keep up with martials in this game, and shown math that demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that casters can absolutely blast with high effectiveness, even in single target situations, provided they focus on saving throws or buff their spell attacks with true stike (since people were frustrated with their impression that only buffing/debuffing and healing were viable) and got more or less ignored.
We've discussed the inherent versatility of the arcane list, and thats been dismissed in favor of "but Druids and Clerics get all of their tiny lists to pick from every day!"
We've shown that the effectiveness of Wizards vs. other classes isn't significantly lower before level 10 and that there isn't any particular "low level wizard problem" and just had people insist without a trace of irony that what amounts to a series of anecdotes about someone's under-performing wizard is ironclad data that disproves all other demonstrations.
We've shown how the Wizard has a great deal of effectiveness with skills, but because they aren't the top of the line there (which is debatable, good use of lore skills, additional lore, and the like can dramatically even the playing field by lowering the DC and leveraging a great deal of effectiveness should you choose appropriately for the campaign) they must simply be worthless.
We've shown how access to lots of metamagic and unique tricks like spell blending, especially now that the APG has come out, allow Wizards to be masters of magic in the sense of altering their spells. Again, that doesn't count because reasons, or because other classes have some of it as well.
What is there left to prove? at this point we're at the "so long as I don't acknowledge you have a point, you don't have one" stage of denial on this topic and have been for a long time.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
We've shown that the effectiveness of Wizards vs. other classes isn't significantly lower before level 10 and that there isn't any particular "low level wizard problem" and just had people insist without a trace of irony that what amounts to a series of anecdotes about someone's under-performing wizard is ironclad data that disproves all other demonstrations.
In the interest of fairness, this point has its basis in reality for many players. Both initial Adventure releases, Plaguestone and Age of Ashes 1, are rife with encounters against higher level foes that benefit heavily from Incapacitation protection on a regular basis, and whose superior stats and saves make magic feel less effective.
My experience playing in Extinction Curse and preparing to run Edgewatch says this has largely been addressed by increasing encounter variety and focusing less on big single foes, and make sure that encounters are designed to allow a full range of spells and magic to shine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If there are 6 battle with breaks in between (a reasonable adventuring day).
The Spell Blending Specialist Wizard can cast his 6 9th level spells, one 1 combat.
Meanwhile, every combat the Druid is casting 3 9th level focus spells. And they still have not touched their spell slots.
The Bard is always casting his composition which will never run out.
The Cleric has 8 9th level spells on top of their domain spells.
The Sorcerer is getting using 3 9th level focus spells before even looking at the spell slots.
Witch have their strong hexes so they to are casting spells with high funtionality or 9th level multiple times.
More spell slots is not an identity. Its a crutch to not be completely useless.
Focus spells are not that good.
They are somewhat better than a Cantrip, but Very Few approach the power of a "real" spell.
Spellcasters not using spell slots are not operating at their full contribution - in your example here, the Wizard provides more during the six hypothetical encounters than any of the rest of your examples, where the character is holding back.
You fall back on your Focus resources because you can't afford better - not because they're what you want to use first*.
*except for those that don't replace spells, because they are 1 / zero actions like force bolt or inspire heroics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We've shown that the effectiveness of Wizards vs. other classes isn't significantly lower before level 10 and that there isn't any particular "low level wizard problem" and just had people insist without a trace of irony that what amounts to a series of anecdotes about someone's under-performing wizard is ironclad data that disproves all other demonstrations.
In the interest of fairness, this point has its basis in reality for many players. Both initial Adventure releases, Plaguestone and Age of Ashes 1, are rife with encounters against higher level foes that benefit heavily from Incapacitation protection on a regular basis, and whose superior stats and saves make magic feel less effective.
My experience playing in Extinction Curse and preparing to run Edgewatch says this has largely been addressed by increasing encounter variety and focusing less on big single foes, and make sure that encounters are designed to allow a full range of spells and magic to shine.
Speaking from experience, they can perform very well in the first situation as well, its just a different meta- they want to avoid incap (unless you really like the other effect that might actually happen) and spell attacks like the plague, but can save martial ass with their magic missiles (Wizards especially, more spell slots, mean more magic missile, mean fewer 'lucky shots' the martials actually have to get in) and saving throw spells remain effective because they have a high chance of chunking as well in an environment where the martials are whiffing a lot and taking big crushing hits so every bit of damage that brings the end a turn closer counts for a lot.
Our 'test game' was very much in the same vein as those encounters you're thinking of, and my party is pretty high optimization so I got to see first hand how they adapted, enough to see clearly what a wizard could do and how their extra slots could have been beneficial, even at level 1.