| 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.
Oh you absolutely could play to it, if you know its coming and understand the system. I was simply noting that as this was many peoples introduction to the system and it was not friendly if you lacked an understanding of how all that worked.
I have zero concern that if I ever do get to play a Wizard, that I'll have issues at low levels - but thats in large part because I know what to expect, when to use which spells, and which strategies are and aren't broadly effective.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone going on about the Wizard's extra spell slot. The Cleric gets starting from 1st level 1+Chr mod free top level heal/harm spells so they can prep utility and buffs instead of being relegated to heal/harmbot only. Sure they can't change them out but it gives the cleric a staple top level spell they can always fall back on and it interacts with the 3 action system. Until 5th level the wizard does not have the most spells per day and it never has the most top level spells per day unless the cleric ignores charisma. Why don't wizards get an iconic spell they can actually use regularly at their top level? They get 1 spell tied to their school per day extra. Why doesn't a summoner wizard get a pool of summons or an evocation wizard a pool of magic missiles? Mastery is not one extra spell slot, it's 4 of them that eventually scales to 6 if you invest.
There are two difference. One is that Clerics require investment in another ability score in order to get the most out of Divine Font. Wizards get extra spell slots without needing to invest in another ability score. The second difference is that Divine Font is limited to only one spell. The Wizard's extra spell slots can be used for anything, which is a huge boost in versatility and therefore power.
A specialist Wizard has two extra spell slots at 1st level without any additional ability score investment, which is good if you ask me. Of course this only gets better and better as Wizards level up and get more spell levels.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Edit: Forget my old question. It doesn’t matter.
Apparently an extra spell slot is simply too power for the Wizard to have any power neutral flavour abilities.
That’s all I’ve been asking for, but apparently it’s too much for Wizards to have an actual knowledge or science component.
Long live Spellslot-Man.
Let’s barter then.
The Wizard gives up their extra spell slot.
What can it get in return? Put a price point on it if possible.
And still be a Wizard? Thats the trick. Its really something else then.
The answer to your question looks a whole lot like an Arcane Witch.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And still be a Wizard? Thats the trick. Its really something else thenLet’s barter then.
The Wizard gives up their extra spell slot.
What can it get in return? Put a price point on it if possible.
That my was entire point! You’ve reduced the Wizard to Spellslot-Man. Nothing more!
You can’t even imagine the class beyond that. Your tunnel vision what YOU see the class is is so extreme that you think they aren’t a Wizard anymore without it.
Its really not hard to have high Wisdom and Charisma as a Cleric. Specially given that you get 4 ability score improvements and its not hard to start out with a 14 or 16 in charisma.
For a Cloistered Cleric, sure, but its harder for a MAD War Priest. Even so, the Wizard can easily invest that 14 or 16 in another ability score too. They just aren't restricted to boosting up Charisma to support one of their core class features. That's a big difference especially since the Wizard's extra spell slots aren't restricted to only one spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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).
Don't worry, my main intention was not to purely make the Wizard mechanically stronger (which however he would undoubtedly be) but more to ride the "Master of Magic" theme while pulling ahead in DC like the "Master of Arms", the Fighter (and even then he would only be ahead for 6 levels), especially as the improved ability for some Wizard builds for improved top-down casting (a principle that many have not yet realized probably is the way to go) does not seem to carry the mantle of "Master of Magic" for many.
(And also because I am not yet fully sold on the "but more slots" argument, because universalist metamagic Wizards do exist and as such my Cleric using font and focus points usually outlasts our Wizard on top level spell slots on a regular basis, at least in the number of rounds I can pull a top slot spell, not necessarily in power though as obviously a Fire Ray is no Lightning Bolt).
However how about strengthening the "Scholar of Magic" theme with for example easier access to certain classes of spells? Like, pick a uncommon spell every 4 levels and a rare spell every 6 levels without having to go through any major chores (GM approval of course still required and don't nail me on the numbers)? All that studying finally has to be good for something, right (just kidding)?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And still be a Wizard? Thats the trick. Its really something else thenLet’s barter then.
The Wizard gives up their extra spell slot.
What can it get in return? Put a price point on it if possible.
That my was entire point! You’ve reduced the Wizard to Spellslot-Man. Nothing more!
You can’t even imagine the class beyond that. Your tunnel vision what YOU see the class is is so extreme that you think they aren’t a Wizard anymore without it.
Well, Prepared Arcane-from-a-Spellbook Spellslot man, but yes.
That is the class. That's the part that is common to all Wizards. Its the one mechanic that if you took it away, the class becomes unrecognizable.
If you take away their defining feature and replace it with other stuff, it is in fact a non-wizard class.
You're acting like taking away a Fighters proficiency advantage isnt what separates then from other Martials... everything a fighter has is found elsewhere, save that one thing.
Edit: Forget my old question. It doesn’t matter.
Apparently an extra spell slot is simply too power for the Wizard to have any power neutral flavour abilities.
That’s all I’ve been asking for, but apparently it’s too much for Wizards to have an actual knowledge or science component.
Long live Spellslot-Man.
While I do like Wizard as it is, and the additional slots are my favorite part of the class, I wouldn't mind seeing some more sciency aspects for wizards. I think they could use more interesting metamagics that play with this idea, and I've been toying with the idea of a feat similar to Inventor that allows Wizards to learn new spells without somewhere to learn them from.
Agreed, I think the Arcane Witch is technically the closest you can get as a point of comparison, so likely, you would get a default familiar?
Its hard to say since nothing was built to actually be "this other thing, but with one difference"
Thinking on it a little more, you'd get something like Font, actually, a highly specialized source of extra spells suited only to a particular purpose. Though its not a perfect comparison, because the Wizard doesn't need to be super MAD to get their extra slots, and get it for every level they ever have slots for in the first place.
Really, font is a weird feature, but this is the nature of asymmetrical game design, drawing direct feature for feature comparisons are hard because they were designed to resist that kind of comparison.
However how about strengthening the "Scholar of Magic" theme with for example easier access to certain classes of spells? Like, pick a uncommon spell every 4 levels and a rare spell every 6 levels without having to go through any major chores (GM approval of course still required and don't nail me on the numbers)? All that studying finally has to be good for something, right (just kidding)?
I can't think of a good reason not to make this an Uncommon Archetype for all spellcasters though, like Ritualist.
There's just not really a good reason to make this Wizard exclusive in my mind.
The idea that Wizards need something so much tangibly more powerful to hold over their peers does not sit well with me at all.
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).However how about strengthening the "Scholar of Magic" theme with for example easier access to certain classes of spells? Like, pick a uncommon spell every 4 levels and a rare spell every 6 levels without having to go through any major chores (GM approval of course still required and don't nail me on the numbers)? All that studying finally has to be good for something, right (just kidding)?
I dunno if that would work, a lot of uncommon and rare things are just gated for story reasons, and this would only really function 100% of the time in something like PFS. A home tables this feature would have a 50% chance of being absolutely useless as most of the time players will go "Hey GM, can I take -uncommon spell-?" and as long as it's not like...raise dead in a story about finding a magic dog that can revive someone once every thousand years for some reason the GM is very likely to just go "yeah sure whatever lol".
Basically, most of the time the "major chore" is just asking the GM, so a class feature that is "ask the GM" wouldn't really work well.
The-Magic-Sword they dont even need to copy Clerics. Just make Arcane Schools give more than just a bonus spell slot and a weak focus spell.
Which are the "weak" focus spells again?
Among the level 1 ones, Augment summoning is bad because of how it interacts with action costs, but most of the rest are fine, and fully in line with what you'd expect based comparison to most lesser domain powers. Some are situational, but again - thats pretty typical for non-core class feature abilities.
I think you're expecting a lot here.
With ancestry feats, skill feats and general feats, the wizard as scientist or book worm is totally possible, even without multiclassing. Skills and identity flavor are only attached to classes that don't really get much of anything else.
And the developers absolutely did give wizards ways to interact with the three action economy. Metamagic feats are a way to spend 1 additional action and change a spell in significant ways. At level 1, the metamagic feats are plain, but very functional. At higher levels they are incredible. A party built to exploit Forcible energy (a wizard only metamagic feat) can do disgusting amounts of damage as a team. Spend one action to give an enemy weakness to damage type that everyone can prepare to exploit ahead of time. That easily rivals bard levels of team support.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Edit: Forget my old question. It doesn’t matter.
Apparently an extra spell slot is simply too power for the Wizard to have any power neutral flavour abilities.
That’s all I’ve been asking for, but apparently it’s too much for Wizards to have an actual knowledge or science component.
Long live Spellslot-Man.
Who has power neutral flavor abilities? I can't think of any caster that actually has any true "ribbons" like that where it does nothing at all.
Also, I'd say the whole "you carry around a book of spells you study and learn new ones in" still qualifies, they even suggest you give it an imposing or academic name.
You can even use it to collect more spells in a science/knowledge minigame that other caster's only have partial access to if they invest specifically to get a hold of it (Witch being an exception I guess.)
Wizard is the class that has a direct feature that incentivizes them to seek out new knowledge, and since they have a much larger list than the next contender, and more slots than to Witch to spend those spells *on* and features like scroll savant that can allow them to benefit from super niche spells. It's pretty much set up for them to be big ol nerds and seek out new spells whenever they can.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i didnt even see people trying to argue that low level wizards are as effective as other classes. One of the recent “wizards are fine” posts even argued that ‘low level wizards being bad is part of the design to compensate for being good at high level’. The pro-low level arguments are the anecdotes, which are a couple of “i had fun”, which is great, but is different than claiming that are actually comparable to other classes at those levels.No
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.
s to...
Suggesting they arent "comparable" to other classes at low levels is a stretch. They have access to Electric Arc without having to spend an Ancestry Feat, and access to all sorts of powerful spells like Color Spray and Magic Missile with twice the slots of a Druid or Bard.
I'd honestly say Wizards sound extremely appealing at those levels, by comparison to most other casters, as their focus spells and class abilities havent developed that far beyond cantrips yet.
I hadn't really considered the thought at all, previously though.
i didnt even see people trying to argue that low level wizards are as effective as other classes. One of the recent “wizards are fine” posts even argued that ‘low level wizards being bad is part of the design to compensate for being good at high level’. The pro-low level arguments are the anecdotes, which are a couple of “i had fun”, which is great, but is different than claiming that are actually comparable to other classes at those levels.No
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.
s to...
People make weird assertions when they believe people who are wrong, but we've been going around in circles for a long time, there have been what are basically definitive counterpoints about Wizard power (look at the spell slot conversation) at all levels.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do agree that wizards could use some more knowledge based class features. Something like 3 to 5 additional lore skill feats through the levels seems appropriate to me. Hypercognition being occult only is also pretty strange.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wizard is the class that has a direct feature that incentivizes them to seek out new knowledge, and since they have a much larger list than the next contender, and more slots than to Witch to spend those spells *on* and features like scroll savant that can allow them to benefit from super niche spells.
There, fixed that for you:
Wizard is the class that has a direct feature that incentivizes the GM to deny power to. Have fun with exactly 2 spells per level of your awesome list that however you can spam many times per day.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wizard is the class that has a direct feature that incentivizes them to seek out new knowledge, and since they have a much larger list than the next contender, and more slots than to Witch to spend those spells *on* and features like scroll savant that can allow them to benefit from super niche spells.There, fixed that for you:
Wizard is the class that has a direct feature that incentivizes the GM to deny power to. Have fun with exactly 2 spells per level of your awesome list that however you can spam many times per day.** spoiler omitted **
Sarcasm for sure, but I'm certain that some level of Adversarial GMing has the potential to impact the class for some people.
I do agree that wizards could use some more knowledge based class features. Something like 3 to 5 additional lore skill feats through the levels seems appropriate to me. Hypercognition being occult only is also pretty strange.
I mean, I could have easily seen each Thesis coming with an Additional Lore feat that related to that thesis in some way. But that would be really hard to differentiate from just having Arcana, which most Wizards will do anyway...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Familiar thesis is boring and doesn't support the flavors of Wizard.
Bard is boring. I mean, let's put things in perspective, being perma Slowed 1 because one of your actions is always used for the same composition is the definition of boring. And if you want to improve the things a bit you can take a muse that everyone takes to have a less boring character. Tax feat to avoid boredom. Boring is Bard I should say.
Familiars are fun. Not worth a Thesis but easily worth a few feats.
It's pretty much set up for them to be big ol nerds and seek out new spells whenever they can.
do you have something against people who like to study?
Familiars are fun. Not worth a Thesis but easily worth a few feats.
Pre-APG I'd have agreed with you. Theres enough shenanigans you can do with a huge pile of familiar abilities now though that I think the thesis is a legit choice, if you want to play into it but don't want to be a Witch.
If only for the ability to every morning have a buddy that can tell you about any subject you like...
It's pretty much set up for them to be big ol nerds and seek out new spells whenever they can.do you have something against people who like to study?
Well, given that I have a Master's Degree in Librarianship... no? Is 'big ol nerd' a much more serious pejorative than I'm giving it credit for?
Well, given that I have a Master's Degree in Librarianship... no? Is 'big ol nerd' a much more serious pejorative than I'm giving it credit for?It's pretty much set up for them to be big ol nerds and seek out new spells whenever they can.do you have something against people who like to study?
As a literal big ol nerd, I'm also confused. I dont consider that to have negative connotations in the majority of scenarios.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
After reading through this thread it seems that the biggest complaint is that the wizard "chassis" is boring and/or bad. That made me think.
So I did a curious thing..
I looked at the identity of the classes minus their class feats. Class feats can be traded. Different options can be had with different feats. So class feats don't really define a class "chassis" because the 2e system was built with archetypes in mind.
The "chassis" emerges when you remove the class feats. Or so I thought.
I was wrong about the class feats though for pretty much every class. Almost every class loses its entire identity when you remove the class feats...except the wizard. The choices you choose at first level are not class feat depended (except kinda the metamagic, but even then you don't have to pick up meta feats cuz you get 1 for free). It seems that the Wizard is one of the greatest "chassis" for adding on whatever flavor you want without crippling the base class.
Plus many of the wizard's base mechanics interact with other spellcasting dedications.
| 3 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...
The wizard is not destroyed. Just boring and weak for a lot of levels.
After reading through this thread it seems that the biggest complaint is that the wizard "chassis" is boring and/or bad. That made me think.
So I did a curious thing..
I looked at the identity of the classes minus their class feats. Class feats can be traded. Different options can be had with different feats. So class feats don't really define a class "chassis" because the 2e system was built with archetypes in mind.
The "chassis" emerges when you remove the class feats. Or so I thought.
I was wrong about the class feats though for pretty much every class. Almost every class loses its entire identity when you remove the class feats...except the wizard. The choices you choose at first level are not class feat depended (except kinda the metamagic, but even then you don't have to pick up meta feats cuz you get 1 for free). It seems that the Wizard is one of the greatest "chassis" for adding on whatever flavor you want without crippling the base class.
Plus many of the wizard's base mechanics interact with other spellcasting dedications.
I mean, I'd put Fighter and Cleric in this category as well - but yes exactly.
Wizards are Wizards independent of their class feats. Thats much less true for the non-basic classes.
| 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.
And some of us feel the extra spell slot and versatility do not equal what they don't have in other areas. Except at lvl 20, mega-disintegrate is cool.
| 3 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.
Those 1 action cantrips are proving to be pretty cool and entertaining in the current campaign I'm running. My player is starting to make the witch shine in a way the wizard can't, unless of course he's recalling knowledge instead of hexing or something.
I still can't believe how many people are touting Recall Knowledge. It rarely comes up in my campaigns except for casters needing it to tell weak saves or energy resistances, mainly the wizard.
Most martials are killing the monster without caring if anyone uses recall knowledge. If they could talk, they'd be looking at the wizard saying, "Silver works best? And it's immune to fire? Good to know", as they're wiping the blood of the creature off their weapon. "Seems to die to repeated axe blows while raging as well. Add that to your mental tome."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Wizard is perfectly functional in the core rulebook - but one of the core complaints here earlier was..."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.
This I agree with. APG opened up building better wizards a lot.
Beastmaster
Archer
Dual Weapon Warrior
Mauler
Lots of new ways to build a wizard to add some cool options.
| 3 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.
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...
More casting in my experience seems to have made the overall magic balancing moves that weakened magic impact the wizard more than other classes because their main schtick is magic. More casting of weaker magical spells that no longer are able to impact the game as they did in PF1.
This is a good thing overall for the game. But if your main power is more spell slots, then the reduction in power of magic impacts you harder than other classes who have powers that mitigate the power reduction of magic by having powers that still greatly impact the game with just a feat cost that can be used over and over again. They are almost always effective in some way.
And some of us feel the extra spell slot and versatility do not equal what they don't have in other areas. Except at lvl 20, mega-disintegrate is cool.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.
I can only speak to low levels of play. But having double the spell slots of a Witch at 1st level as an evocation wizard, plus having a focus spell that can easily refresh seems really great. In return, an Arcane Witch gets a hex cantrip and a cool familiar, so it probably evens out. Wizard has more spells, which means more moments of flashy high magical power. The Witch probably has better consistency as they can rely on their Hex Cantrip, and eventually slightly more focus spells (3 vs the wizard's 2) plus their familiar. Different strokes for different folks. I can't wait for level 5 when I can unload several flashy 3rd level evocations up to 5 times a day. An Arcane Witch could only do the same twice a day in comparison.
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.
This is true.
Much like the fighter is easy to multiclass.
Maybe this is intentional.
This I agree with. APG opened up building better wizards a lot.Beastmaster
Archer
Dual Weapon Warrior
MaulerLots of new ways to build a wizard to add some cool options.
Don't forget Medic! A Wizard medic can wear all the hats, covering a bigger range of party roles and capabilities than pretty much anyone, while maintaining all that Wizard spellcasting.
AND they don't have a free hand issue, depending how that whole Battle Medicine thing goes.
| 4 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...
You did not show this and I don't know why you are falsely claiming this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
............
More casting in my experience seems to have made the overall magic balancing moves that weakened magic impact the wizard more than other classes because their main schtick is magic. More casting of weaker magical spells that no longer are able to impact the game as they did in PF1.
This is a good thing overall for the game. But if your main power is more spell slots, then the reduction in power of magic impacts you harder than other classes who have powers that mitigate the power reduction of magic by having powers that still greatly impact the game with just a feat cost that can be used over and over again. They are almost always effective in some way.
I don't come from a PF1, as I only played 3.5 many years ago before playing 4e and 5e for a few years. I'm use to 5e, where although casting and martial balance was better than 3.5/PF1, it still needed some fixing . At first, I thought magic was weak because +/-1/2s seemed super low, but the more I read, the more I get how the math of the system works.
I think PF2e casting is slightly weaker than 5e casting, but its more that martials have finally got their time in the sun for the first time since 4e. Magic will always be useful for out of combat utility and in combat for debuffing, buffing, battlefield control, and AOE destruction.
I also don't see how more slots doesn't equate to more power. Casters have always been balanced by their number of spell slots, as D&D/PF are largely resource driven games. Spell slots are a resource. Having more of them is a strength. The other caster classes that have less resources, get other features like focus cantrips or more focus spells, but these are magical powers too. Every caster is affected by the reduction in magic's power level. This isn't a wizard only issue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think PF2e casting is slightly weaker than 5e casting, but its more that martials have finally got their time in the sun for the first time since 4e.
Having played in a game with high level casters in 5E, I can safely say that (in my opinion) 5E casters are bananas broke tier OP. It just depended on what spells you chose, as some of them didn't appear to have been designed with anything resembling game balance in mind.
| 2 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.
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.
If your party is good at optmization, the wizard would be clearly looking like a 3rd wheel compared to a party with a bard and cleric as their primary casters.
Their damage would not be close to on par with martials. Not even sniffing distance at lvl 1.
For example, I have recorded over 15 fights since we started Extinction Curse AP with a Giant Instinct Barbarian. They do not whiff a lot as you state. They hit like trucks. Their weakness is at low level they get targeted because they hit like trucks and can go down easy due to the Clumsy and -1 AC.
One 3 action magic missile if the wizard used his entire round of actions does 3d4+3 for an average of 11 damage.
While one hit from a Barbarian using a Greataxe with an 18 Strength does an average of 16. That is his 1 action average damage at lvl 1. This just keeps on getting better as he gets a striking weapon and levels.
Over 15 battles the barbarian did 300 percent more damage than the wizard. The only time the wizard matched a barbarian for damage in a battle was when a good AoE opportunity existed. That's it.
A wizard was far better off spending his actions supporting the damage hammer barbarian than spending his own actions on attacking unless there was a high quality AoE opportunity.
In another campaign with a halberd fighter and a wizard sorcerer with dangerous sorcerer, numbers are the same. I think the fighter is doing 323% of the wizard's damage except in a high quality AoE opportunity with some lucky missed saves.
Yet I'm to believe your test game with optimized players is more accurate than my data across 6 levels for one campaign and 11 levels for the fighter campaign.
I'm highly skeptical of that.
But I do agree that magic missile is a useful spell, especially if you just gotta kill something that has a very low number of hit poiints.
Now my party optimizes. Abilities, tactics, magic items, and every aspect of the game possible. And it's much easier to optimize martials than casters in PF2 and that wasn't the case in PF1 because metamagic was much more powerful in PF1. I can't think of many metamgic feats to build towards in PF2. Maybe Overwhelming Energy and Reach Spell can be useful in the right situations.
Having played in a game with high level casters in 5E, I can safely say that (in my opinion) 5E casters are bananas broke tier OP. It just depended on what spells you chose, as some of them didn't appear to have been designed with anything resembling game balance in mind.
I think PF2e casting is slightly weaker than 5e casting, but its more that martials have finally got their time in the sun for the first time since 4e.
Eh, I had a different experience. I just finished DMing for a campaign that went into epic levels (25 by the end). The casters actually started running into some problems by tier 3 (levels 11-16) because so many monsters have magic resistance and/or high saving throws. Damage resistances/immunities get more common too. Bosses have legendary resistances making it hard for spells to stick. Some creatures have a combination of all 4! I actually had to nerf legendary resistances and start removing magic resistance from certain monsters. I get that Zariel, an archdevil, at CR 25 is super strong, but she doesn't need +15-16 saving throws on top of magic resistance and legendary resistances. How is a caster supposed to combat that?
I also gave my players really powerful magical items so everyone was punching above their weight class. Eventually the casters started doing really well again once we hit 20th level and up, but people really underestimate how scary high level martials are. Their single target DPS can be bonkers. My friend's optimizied archer (fighter/rogue/ranger) did crazy DPS most of the time.
With all that said, I think casters in 5e start facing some difficulties at higher levels but they are still really strong. I do think PF2e is slightly more balanced plus it just makes martials more interesting beyond, "I attack".
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It may be that the wizard, fighter, and cleric are set up for multiclassing. Maybe that is intentional.
Though the cleric has a clear great niche in healing, it's feats are pretty damn boring if you're not in a fiend or undead campaign. My buddy has spent most of his feats multiclassing for more spell slots and versatility.
The fighter accuracy is powerful, but the feats are boring as well. My fighter buddy multiclassed into Hell Knight. I just made a fighter MC wizard.
Maybe the wizard chassis was built as a generic caster with a lot of spell slots and the intent is to multiclass into something else. You have a lot of levels where you won't feel bad at all multiclassing while being able to cast a lot of spells.
They made a lot of multiclass options in this game. If three of the classes are good for multiclassing, then that makes those multiclass options more usable.
PF2 is a new game, so it's hard to figure out what some of the design intent is. Given the sheer volume of multiclass options it would make sense that a few classes would be best for multiclassing. The generic cleric, fighter, and wizard seem well built for multiclassing while maintaining a single strong core feature like weapons for the fighter, casting for the wizard, and healing for the cleric.