| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The biggest thing about a wizard I think, and spellcasters in general, is that spells don't become really potent until mid-game. Which means you are playing a low life, low save, largely low mobility, low AC class with limited potency per day and poor action economy interaction.
By mid-game, some of the spells start getting good enough to sort of cover up these shortcomings.
Sure sounds like the age old wizard class is playing as intended to me! XD
As long as I've been alive (nearly 40 years) the wizard class has really sucked at low levels and really rocked at high levels. It's a time honored tradition.
i doubt it was intentional...given everything else they ahve tried in 2e to further balance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You were right to bring it up. Now we can ride this train.
I did some figures..
At level 13 a universalist with bond conservation can effectively cast, per day...
7 1st level spells
6 2nd level spells
6 3rd level spells
5 4th level spells
5 5th level spells
4 6th level spells
3 7th level spellsWith spell blending it turns into...
5 1st level spells
4 2nd level spells
5 3rd level spells
4 4th level spells
4 5th level spells
5 6th level spells
4 7th level spellsOther classes can cast that many spell as well right?
Will those spells have a greater effect on party success than a bard composition cantrips, druid animal companion and focus spells, or a cleric healing? I would love to see that analyzed. So far for my groups the answer has been no. But given I haven't seen a wizard past lvl 10 and most of have quit around lvl 6, I don't know the answer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The biggest thing about a wizard I think, and spellcasters in general, is that spells don't become really potent until mid-game. Which means you are playing a low life, low save, largely low mobility, low AC class with limited potency per day and poor action economy interaction.
By mid-game, some of the spells start getting good enough to sort of cover up these shortcomings.
Sure sounds like the age old wizard class is playing as intended to me! XD
As long as I've been alive (nearly 40 years) the wizard class has really sucked at low levels and really rocked at high levels. It's a time honored tradition.
This is true. Though lower level spells were more effective by advancing due to leveling and plenty of ways to boost DCs versus weak saves via feats an Archmage.
I'm reading the fifth module of Age of Ashes right now. They didn't even bother to include spells for mages below 5th level in the stat block. Not sure if this was a mistake or an acknowledgment that low level spell slots are nearly worthless to higher level characters. I found it kind of telling how worthless lower level spells are to characters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is true. To cascade all the way down would likely be fairly ineffective, but a highest level followed by a free highest-2 could be decent.
Yeah, I like the feat and it's possibilities but it's never given me as many casts as I hoped for. Still one of the better wizard feats IMO.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The biggest thing about a wizard I think, and spellcasters in general, is that spells don't become really potent until mid-game. Which means you are playing a low life, low save, largely low mobility, low AC class with limited potency per day and poor action economy interaction.
By mid-game, some of the spells start getting good enough to sort of cover up these shortcomings.
Sure sounds like the age old wizard class is playing as intended to me! XD
As long as I've been alive (nearly 40 years) the wizard class has really sucked at low levels and really rocked at high levels. It's a time honored tradition.
This is true. Though lower level spells were more effective by advancing due to leveling and plenty of ways to boost DCs versus weak saves via feats an Archmage.
I'm reading the fifth module of Age of Ashes right now. They didn't even bother to include spells for mages below 5th level in the stat block. Not sure if this was a mistake or an acknowledgment that low level spell slots are nearly worthless to higher level characters. I found it kind of telling how worthless lower level spells are to characters.
Well, if all you're concerned with is combat, yes. Higher slots are going to be way more efficient to use if your sole existence is designed around surviving one combat. It also saves GMs from having to check every spell past a certain level, when odds are they won't ever need to use them.
|
EDIT: spoilers for a scenario if you read beyond just the post being referred to!
As for not being potent until mid-game I will refer you to this, a pbp of this character at level 6. That turn I did 140 damage, none of which were crit fails to an aoe nor crits on attacks.
Some of you would interject that fireball "is not wizard only". You are right. However 32 of that damage was from hand of the apprentice and a hasted attack (the haste I cast on myself). Each component might not be unique to the wizard, but the combination is what I feel is the opportunity flavor of a wizard.
I do acknowledge that there is no consistency of an aoe's damage. My point though is, in 1 turn I cast an aoe, ranged attacked an enemy (while in melee) with a bespelled striking melee weapon, and then melee attacked an adjacent enemy with the aforementioned bespelled striking weapon. All while having an AC of 25.
|
|
32 of that damage was from that, but a martial that is hasted does just as good. All a matter of not rolling low, which is true for everyone.
They also have a higher chance to crit given they have a +2 to attack over the Wizard.
Also you are in melee as a Wizard/Champion. Have any other Wizard try that and see how they fare. Hint its not pretty.
Really? A martial that is hasted can aoe a mob of enemies? They can attack with all 4 actions with the lowest MAP being a -5? They can attack a boss that is behind a veritable wall of mooks? I must have missed those feats.
The only thing Champion gave me was the AC. Every part of that attack was either wizard or wizard enhanced. Dismiss it if you like. But in regards to flavorful wizard options, I think that is a pretty solid example.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Really? A martial that is hasted can aoe a mob of enemies? They can attack with all 4 actions with the lowest MAP being a -5? They can attack a boss that is behind a veritable wall of mooks? I must have missed those feats.
They exist. Bursts, lines, multi-attack, ect. Heck, without even needing a feat a ranger can pull off 5 strikes [with haste] with the lowest MAP's of -2...
|
|
Really? A martial that is hasted can aoe a mob of enemies? They can attack with all 4 actions with the lowest MAP being a -5? They can attack a boss that is behind a veritable wall of mooks? I must have missed those feats.They exist. Bursts, lines, multi-attack, ect. Heck, without even needing a feat a ranger can pull off 5 strikes [with haste] with the lowest MAP's of -2...
Those are martial feat options at level 5 (or below)?
EDIT: Plus, to my knowledge, rangers can't cast Haste on themselves, so that can't be counted.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
EDIT: spoilers for a scenario if you read beyond just the post being referred to!
As for not being potent until mid-game I will refer you to this, a pbp of this character at level 6. That turn I did 140 damage, none of which were crit fails to an aoe nor crits on attacks.
Some of you would interject that fireball "is not wizard only". You are right. However 32 of that damage was from hand of the apprentice and a hasted attack (the haste I cast on myself). Each component might not be unique to the wizard, but the combination is what I feel is the opportunity flavor of a wizard.
I do acknowledge that there is no consistency of an aoe's damage. My point though is, in 1 turn I cast an aoe, ranged attacked an enemy (while in melee) with a bespelled striking melee weapon, and then melee attacked an adjacent enemy with the aforementioned bespelled striking weapon. All while having an AC of 25.
How many targets? My druid did more damage than anyone for one group fight hitting three targets with AoE over the course of the fight.
Barbarian Damage: 16 (He failed save to blind and was murdered)
Swashbuckler: 124
Precision Archer 94
Druid Storm: 144 (AoE hit on three enemies with one critical fail, a fail, and one success)
Witch: 47
5 round and 2 turn fight. A good AoE round really spikes the damage and the barbarian going down early opened up possibilities for the rest of the group. A raging barbarian going off on enemies with moderate AC and negative modifiers really destroys things.
I probably wouldn't even have fast the fireball if the barbarian hadn't went down.
After seeing a barbarian in action, I'm really surprised ctricking's tool shows fighters as the number one damage dealer. I sort of see it because the fighter is definitely close to the barbarian especially critting more often. But the spike damage for a Giant Instinct Barbarian is fricking looney at such a low level with just a +1 striking weapon.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
More and more I am finding that this thread is not truly intending to talk about play experience with the wizard but for those who are accustomed to and want the same play as the traditional wizard of games past to express their discontent with the class. Despite many of our experiences being overall positive (though I still feel that wizards get master proficiency far too late and is way more dependent on good stats than most other classes), it seems like those who for whatever reason do not like what the wizard is capable of doing and only focus on what it is not designed to do feel it is a bad class. I am not sure what else there is to say. Math and experience have shown the wizard to be on par with other classes, despite not being the best at every role; wizards have advantages of their own, and while they do not get the benefits of every thesis, neither does the thief benefit from the mastermind's knowledge or the giant barbarian get the benefits of the dragon. There are tradeoffs, and for the wizard, I think they are just as acceptable as those of other classes. Personally, I like the wizard chassis and feats. I think wizard players who dislike them have given up too easily without a full understanding of the class' capabilities; that is not to say that anyone who feels that the wizard is good has full mastery, but I think trying wizard once to level 5 and then calling it a lost cause is too short a time with too limited an experience. Though I have only experienced the universalist and evocation wizards, I found them useful and often powerful in their own right. Even though wizards have no special single action of their own (after force bolt or hand of the apprentice has been used), I found many different uses for my third actions and often took some time to think about my choices. Although not as dependent as rogues, I found myself using a plethora of skill feats, which most classes use as their third actions, bard withstanding. Just with that choice I was hesitant; I can only imagine the analysis paralysis if more spells were single action, generating an exponential growth in tactical choices, unless there would be(and from my terrible experiences with 1e, this is probably the case) a set of obviously superior choices. For the sake of maintaining balance, I am glad that is not the case... yet. I am very tempted to try out an earlier suggestion with an evoker casting 1 action magic missiles judiciously. I think that would really put the Wand of Manifold Missiles to good use.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sure sounds like the age old wizard class is playing as intended to me! XD
As long as I've been alive (nearly 40 years) the wizard class has really sucked at low levels and really rocked at high levels. It's a time honored tradition.
Except now it's sucking at low levels and being merely okay at high levels.
So we're suggesting that Paizo needs to fix low levels.
People bringing up level16+ feats are very annoying to me honestly, because it's too little too late.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Those are martial feat options at level 5 (or below)?
Where was there a level limit? And why would you limit to 5 when your example was 6th: "a pbp of this character at level 6"? Lets go 6th: triple shot [3 shots at -4], ki blast [60 cone], Dragon's Rage Breath [30-foot cone or 60-foot line]
EDIT: Plus, to my knowledge, rangers can't cast Haste on themselves, so that can't be counted.
Following "32 of that damage was from that, but a martial that is hasted does just as good" from Temperans. Nowhere was the debate premised on self-buffing that we where having. Even you yourself said "A martial that is hasted can aoe a mob of enemies?", not 'don't include haste!!!'.
PS: though a human/1/2 elf ranger can haste with Virtue-Forged Tattoos or Pinch Time.
|
After seeing a barbarian in action, I'm really surprised ctricking's tool shows fighters as the number one damage dealer.
The fighter scales better with more flat damage per attack than the barbarian due to higher accuracy (the barbarian scales better with + to hit).
Most sources of damage bonus in this game over your weapon damage are flat - +d6 runes, Weapon Spec. The fighter also has access to metastrike feats (Exacting Strike, Certain Strike) that improve his damage whereas the barbarian has none. The fighter comes out slightly ahead of you compare d12 to d12 Weapon with all runes (by like 3 points of DPR I think) and no metastrikes used.
When you consider the damage bonus from giant as a % of total damage, that makes sense as well. The barbarian does d12+10 (16.5) at level 1, vs the fighter’s d12+4 (10.5) - about 57% more damage.
At level 20, it’s 4d12+3d6+31 (67.5) vs the fighter’s 4d12+3d6+15 (51.5) - only a 31% increase in damage yet the hit bonus disparity has remained the same.
I will say though, that when you consider a team comp the barbarian prob wins out. Add in flat footed, clumsy/frightened, a hit bonus buff... suddenly the barbarian is hitting and critting a lot more, and due to his higher base damage he does more DPR than the fighter with the same buffs.
|
|
EDIT: spoilers for a scenario if you read beyond just the post being referred to!
As for not being potent until mid-game I will refer you to this, a pbp of this character at level 6. That turn I did 140 damage, none of which were crit fails to an aoe nor crits on attacks.
Some of you would interject that fireball "is not wizard only". You are right. However 32 of that damage was from hand of the apprentice and a hasted attack (the haste I cast on myself). Each component might not be unique to the wizard, but the combination is what I feel is the opportunity flavor of a wizard.
I do acknowledge that there is no consistency of an aoe's damage. My point though is, in 1 turn I cast an aoe, ranged attacked an enemy (while in melee) with a bespelled striking melee weapon, and then melee attacked an adjacent enemy with the aforementioned bespelled striking weapon. All while having an AC of 25.
How many targets? My druid did more damage than anyone for one group fight hitting three targets with AoE over the course of the fight.
Barbarian Damage: 16 (He failed save to blind and was murdered)
Swashbuckler: 124
Precision Archer 94
Druid Storm: 144 (AoE hit on three enemies with one critical fail, a fail, and one success)
Witch: 475 round and 2 turn fight. A good AoE round really spikes the damage and the barbarian going down early opened up possibilities for the rest of the group. A raging barbarian going off on enemies with moderate AC and negative modifiers really destroys things.
I probably wouldn't even have fast the fireball if the barbarian hadn't went down.
After seeing a barbarian in action, I'm really surprised ctricking's tool shows fighters as the number one damage dealer. I sort of see it because the fighter is definitely close to the barbarian especially critting more often. But the spike damage for a Giant Instinct Barbarian is fricking looney at...
Seven enemies. But that was in 1 turn. The next turn I threw a second fireball to 6 enemies, plus a swing for 20 (sadly the enemy debuffed my actions back down to 3). The total damage was 150 with 2 crit fails, 4 fails, and 1 success (the hit was not a crit). The fight lasted for 3 rounds.
Those are martial feat options at level 5 (or below)?Where was there a level limit? And why would you limit to 5 when your example was 6th: "a pbp of this character at level 6"? Lets go 6th: triple shot [3 shots at -4], ki blast [60 cone], Dragon's Rage Breath [30-foot cone or 60-foot line]
EDIT: Plus, to my knowledge, rangers can't cast Haste on themselves, so that can't be counted.Following "32 of that damage was from that, but a martial that is hasted does just as good" from Temperans. Nowhere was the debate premised on self-buffing that we where having. Even you yourself said "A martial that is hasted can aoe a mob of enemies?", not 'don't include haste!!!'.
PS: though any human/1/2 elf ranger can haste with Virtue-Forged Tattoos or Pinch Time.
I said 5 because that is when the turn could be done as was. I was 6, but it could be done at 5. I am willing to acknowledge that claiming a big difference between 5 and 6 is silly though.
As for the haste, I realized that over and over examples of what wizards can do were being discounted because "someone else can do that" and "that is a dedication, not a wizard thing". So I realized that if we are comparing, other classes that cannot self buff should not be including such buffs in their comparison.
PS: both of those are not available until level 9. We are currently describing how wizards are terrible and can't contribute at lower levels.
My overall point here being that wizards are not terrible at lower levels. While they may not out damage other classes they can hold their own pretty well. Comparing an optimized martial to an unoptimized wizard is going to skew your results.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Test the last by giving it to everyone, and see how well it's received by people who think casters already have enough problem overcoming saves.What? last a minute, but to use once. +2 in 1 save is not that strong, not at all.I think giving it a +2 and allowing it to apply to saving throws just made it too powerful to stick a duration on. If it lasted a minute, I think it would be essentially giving the Transmuter a proficiency bonus to a saving throw that they got to chose every fight. I wonder if people would like it better or worse if it could only apply to athletics or acrobatics, but lasted a minute?Unicore I agree having a +2 bonus is nice in isolation. However, looking at the whole power its just no fun. If it had at least 1 of these: Longer durarion, easier action use, no focus cost, or better range. Than the power would be fine. But as is it fails to provide any benefit.
Also, that Power was meant to replicate the Enhancement School power: An action to get a bonus to an ability score. But then the Enchantment Power scales to +6 (impossible in PF2), was capable of increases AC, and lasted for up to a minute.
So if it at least had gotten that 1 minute duration it would have made the Power a low more useable.
Your argument against buffing a weak, single target school power is... that if literally every enemy had it, they would be stronger against Wizards?
You realize that argument could be applied to almost every ability in the game? Absurd.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...EDIT: spoilers for a scenario if you read beyond just the post being referred to!
As for not being potent until mid-game I will refer you to this, a pbp of this character at level 6. That turn I did 140 damage, none of which were crit fails to an aoe nor crits on attacks.
Some of you would interject that fireball "is not wizard only". You are right. However 32 of that damage was from hand of the apprentice and a hasted attack (the haste I cast on myself). Each component might not be unique to the wizard, but the combination is what I feel is the opportunity flavor of a wizard.
I do acknowledge that there is no consistency of an aoe's damage. My point though is, in 1 turn I cast an aoe, ranged attacked an enemy (while in melee) with a bespelled striking melee weapon, and then melee attacked an adjacent enemy with the aforementioned bespelled striking weapon. All while having an AC of 25.
How many targets? My druid did more damage than anyone for one group fight hitting three targets with AoE over the course of the fight.
Barbarian Damage: 16 (He failed save to blind and was murdered)
Swashbuckler: 124
Precision Archer 94
Druid Storm: 144 (AoE hit on three enemies with one critical fail, a fail, and one success)
Witch: 475 round and 2 turn fight. A good AoE round really spikes the damage and the barbarian going down early opened up possibilities for the rest of the group. A raging barbarian going off on enemies with moderate AC and negative modifiers really destroys things.
I probably wouldn't even have fast the fireball if the barbarian hadn't went down.
After seeing a barbarian in action, I'm really surprised ctricking's tool shows fighters as the number one damage dealer. I sort of see it because the fighter is definitely close to the barbarian especially critting more often. But the spike damage for a Giant
I think it is the swingy nature of spells. A good few rounds of AoE damage can have a caster feeling like a king and a few rounds of monsters making every save feels terrible.
I don't bout you can have some amazing rounds when things set up right. My bard and druid have both had some great AoE rounds. But the bard and druid supplement their casting with some great focus abilities, while the wizard relies on multiclassing to gain some decent 3rd action options and focus abilities. Though of course a few of the focus abilities are serviceable.
I still like the sorcerer focus powers better. They get some real nice focus powers.
AoE casting can do some nice damage, it's just not exclusive to the wizard.
I think most of us just wish the wizard had more compelling class specific abilities other than more spell slots. Even 5E provided the wizard some really compelling innate class abilities. PF2 wizard school abilities seems lacking. Evoker is ok. I hear an illusionist is good. Transmuter and conjuration specialist are pretty terrible. Diviner not all that great either. Necromancer focus powers are not too bad. Abjuration isn't the greatest either. Would have been nice to see a little more competitive school focus power. But hey, I guess you can't have everything for the generic caster with the most slots.
And it is is super easy to multiclass.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for the haste, I realized that over and over examples of what wizards can do were being discounted because "someone else can do that" and "that is a dedication, not a wizard thing". So I realized that if we are comparing, other classes that cannot self buff should not be including such buffs in their comparison.
With haste on every list but divine, bards, some clerics, druids, sorcerers, witches and wizards can cast it... It's not really a unique feature of wizard.
PS: both of those are not available until level 9. We are currently describing how wizards are terrible and can't contribute at lower levels.
Yep but the question was 'can a martial get haste' not 'can one get it by 6th'. ;)
My overall point here being that wizards are not terrible at lower levels.
Well it's going to depend on the game and DM really: if you have 1 encounter a day in a sandbox game and you can use every spell slot you have on it you might say 'I think it's plenty good!' while if you have 5 or 6 a day you might be saying 'I run out of spells and then my focus and cantrips are meh...'. Giving an example of a really good single round isn't going to sway anyone much as someone else could just as easily say 'they were too spread out so I couldn't fireball them so I fired off my magic missile for 4 points of damage, missed with my focus spell and missed with my melee attack so wizards suck!'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except now it's sucking at low levels and being merely okay at high levels.
Except I don't really buy this. I'm running Agents of Edgewatch book 1 at the moment, and just reading through it I'm seeing all sorts of opportunities for low level Wizards to excel.
As non-spoilery as possible
The general encounter design is much improved since Age of Ashes, meaning there's far fewer cases where foes are going to be highly resistant to your incapacitation spells - and the cases where that applies, its obvious. There's some long adventuring days, but nothing I see where Tempest Surge is really any better than Electric Arc - meaning that having extra proper spell slots vs. a single focus point a big win. Not to mention that in general, the setup of the adventure is extremely friendly to characters with a high intelligence, as this gets them a ton of trained skills and maybe more importantly a ton of spoken languages.
I really honestly expect that many people who have tried low level wizards in Plaguestone and Age of Ashes may have a warped opinion of how things should be at low levels. They had some really "Primitive" encounter design relative to how the 2E system works, with lots of encounters where Incapacitation spells felt real bad stacked one beyond another because they were frequent single foe encounters, misprinted stat blocks with insane numbers, and enemy placement that comes at a really bad time due to where stat increases are placed.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I think everybody on this thread agrees on the fact that the wizard usually has more spells to play with than other casters. But people disagree on whether those added slots are enough to counterbalance a bland chassis.
In our games, the wizard did just fine, but let's break this per level. Let's take a specialist wizard so as not to go into bond conservation shenanigans and compare it with a bard, since people seem to think bards are much better in this thread.
Let's also assume a day with three big fights. Doesn't seem too little or too much.
Level 1: Wizard has 4 level 1 spells in comparison to a bard's 2. Bard can Inspire Courage and that's a huge deal, but the wizard can throw two more color sprays, effectively making a fight trivial if it works. If it doesn't, it's less useful but still gives the dazzled condition. Also, let's not forget Inspire Courage costs one action unless it's used with a successful lingering composition. That means a bard casting and singing won't be able to move, raise a shield, intimidate, aid or use metamagic (because reach spell can actually be awesome).
Level 3: Wizard has 4 level 1, 4 level 2 spells. Bard has 3 level 1, 2 level 2. Again, the discrepancy is kind of big. Every fight, the wizard can have an illusory creature out, or a heightened color spray or a flaming sphere that will eat your third action, or a Sudden Bolt, or a vomit swarm. All of those can ruin a level 2-3 mob's day. Assuming a fight takes four rounds, those three big fights take twelve rounds, and the wizard can throw a spell two out of three rounds without breaking a sweat while the bard has only two big hitters and can't even use a spell every other round.
Level 5: 4/4/4 for wizard, 3/3/2 for bard. That's two more fireballs if you want to blast, two more Slows if you want to debuff. Now our wizard can cast a spell every round and make it meaningful.
Level 7: 4/4/4/4 vs 3332, you get the drift. Two more enervation or phantasmal killers or Confusion or whatever you like - and also one more fireball/slow to throw in the mix.
Level 9: Two more cones of cold or heightened fireballs if you like to blast. That's pretty brutal as far as minion popping goes.
Basically, depending on what your GM likes to throw at you, the wizard has one spell per encounter of the highest level more than his brethren. That's nothing to scoff at.
I think the problem is not one of actual power discrepancy, but of perception. If you're playing a bard, there's always a composition you can rely on if you have crappy luck with the dice. If you throw your biggest spell at the opponent and he saves, you still feel like you're contributing because maybe the barbarian wouldn't have hit without you. If you're playing a wizard and roll badly (or your opponents roll high), you feel like you've wasted your turn.
Rogue: "I hit, wow, he's dead, I proc "you're next" and intimidate the next target, now I use skirmish strike to step and I'm at range so I attack again, damn a miss, well I raise my shield.
Wizard: "I throw this big spell. Oh, he saved. Well, I'm done".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really hope (and am fairly certain we will) we get some more magically oriented archetypes in the secrets of magic book that are similar to, or even build upon, existing archetypes like magic warrior. Magic Warrior is a phenomenal archetype for a transmutation wizard as it does most of the things that people are requesting from wizard feats here:
It is packed with flavor.
It gives you a decent polymorph option that allows you to use your focus points to gain a lasting battle form.
It has no attribute requirements for entry, leaving you free to build your character as you wish.
It also makes perfect sense that these be archetype feats and not wizard only feats. Archetypes are one of the most liberating and interesting features of pathfinder 2E and should be a part of the discussion about how to make sure every player can build the character they want to play, including ones who start off with a base class of wizard.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really hope (and am fairly certain we will) we get some more magically oriented archetypes in the secrets of magic book that are similar to, or even build upon, existing archetypes like magic warrior. Magic Warrior is a phenomenal archetype for a transmutation wizard as it does most of the things that people are requesting from wizard feats here:
It is packed with flavor.
It gives you a decent polymorph option that allows you to use your focus points to gain a lasting battle form.
It has no attribute requirements for entry, leaving you free to build your character as you wish.It also makes perfect sense that these be archetype feats and not wizard only feats. Archetypes are one of the most liberating and interesting features of pathfinder 2E and should be a part of the discussion about how to make sure every player can build the character they want to play, including ones who start off with a base class of wizard.
For me they are only interesting if I run free archetype. Of course wizard unfortunately has enough dead spots you could probably make it work.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really hope (and am fairly certain we will) we get some more magically oriented archetypes in the secrets of magic book that are similar to, or even build upon, existing archetypes like magic warrior. Magic Warrior is a phenomenal archetype for a transmutation wizard as it does most of the things that people are requesting from wizard feats here:
It is packed with flavor.
It gives you a decent polymorph option that allows you to use your focus points to gain a lasting battle form.
It has no attribute requirements for entry, leaving you free to build your character as you wish.
I almost agree with you. Magic Warrior is one of the archetypes I was most interested in. And while it is awesome and flavourful archetype, unfortunately it's transformation power start losing the power as Animal Form only scales up to level 5; it will last you a few more levels but eventually it will be too weak at armour saves to do it.
It also makes perfect sense that these be archetype feats and not wizard only feats. Archetypes are one of the most liberating and interesting features of pathfinder 2E and should be a part of the discussion about how to make sure every player can build the character they want to play, including ones who start off with a base class of wizard.
Kinda. Except, this archetype is very world dependent, and Transmuter should have similar, but still distinct feats/Focus spells.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, if all you're concerned with is combat, yes. Higher slots are going to be way more efficient to use if your sole existence is designed around surviving one combat. It also saves GMs from having to check every spell past a certain level, when odds are they won't ever need to use them.Sure sounds like the age old wizard class is playing as intended to me! XD
As long as I've been alive (nearly 40 years) the wizard class has really sucked at low levels and really rocked at high levels. It's a time honored tradition.
This is true. Though lower level spells were more effective by advancing due to leveling and plenty of ways to boost DCs versus weak saves via feats an Archmage.
I'm reading the fifth module of Age of Ashes right now. They didn't even bother to include spells for mages below 5th level in the stat block. Not sure if this was a mistake or an acknowledgment that low level spell slots are nearly worthless to higher level characters. I found it kind of telling how worthless lower level spells are to characters.
And yet the low-level Wizard is more powerful then ever before. PF 1 went ahead and upped the HD from d4 to d6 and made cantrips at-will. So even a Wizard who has exhausted their spell slots could still be a caster instead of a crappy crossbow shooter.
And PF 2 added to that by making cantrips scale. They remain a viable fallback option straight up until lv. 20.
And no, they do not do damage like the martials do and never shall they be allowed to. Because duh! So get over that already.
And at higher levels, where they before could break games without even trying, they are now 'merely' very powerful. Looks like balance got a lot better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, if all you're concerned with is combat, yes. Higher slots are going to be way more efficient to use if your sole existence is designed around surviving one combat. It also saves GMs from having to check every spell past a certain level, when odds are they won't ever need to use them.Sure sounds like the age old wizard class is playing as intended to me! XD
As long as I've been alive (nearly 40 years) the wizard class has really sucked at low levels and really rocked at high levels. It's a time honored tradition.
This is true. Though lower level spells were more effective by advancing due to leveling and plenty of ways to boost DCs versus weak saves via feats an Archmage.
I'm reading the fifth module of Age of Ashes right now. They didn't even bother to include spells for mages below 5th level in the stat block. Not sure if this was a mistake or an acknowledgment that low level spell slots are nearly worthless to higher level characters. I found it kind of telling how worthless lower level spells are to characters.
And yet the low-level Wizard is more powerful then ever before. PF 1 went ahead and upped the HD from d4 to d6 and made cantrips at-will. So even a Wizard who has exhausted their spell slots could still be a caster instead of a crappy crossbow shooter.
And PF 2 added to that by making cantrips scale. They remain a viable fallback option straight up until lv. 20.
And no, they do not do damage like the martials do and never shall they be allowed to. Because duh! So get over that already.
And at higher levels, where they before could break games without even trying, they are now 'merely' very powerful. Looks like balance got a lot better.
True.
Also, I don't see why people say low level slots are less efficient than in PF1 since the DC scales - it didn't in PF1.Some do become useless (those with scaling damage, or incapacitate) but some don't, and provide interesting options even at much higher levels.
Befuddle uses a level 1 slot and gives clumsy 2/stupefied 2 for a round. Even on a save, it's Clumsy 1/Stupefy 1. Great for setting up a nova round.
Fear on a level 1 slot gives Frightened 2 or Frightened 1 on a successful save.
Grease on a level 1 slot gives a ONE MINUTE - 2 attack to any weapon-user who doesn't save against it - or can trip up to four mobs, mixed with area denial (they pretty much have to move or they'll keep making checks and falling).
Illusory object is still as solid as it was at first level, making walls and mazes to annoy your opponents.
True Strike is still a staple, even at higher level.
I could do the list for level 2 spells as well, but the fact remains that you can use a lot of low level spells to create interesting effects, while in PF1 you could only put buff spells in it.
Well, if all you're concerned with is combat, yes. Higher slots are going to be way more efficient to use if your sole existence is designed around surviving one combat. It also saves GMs from having to check every spell past a certain level, when odds are they won't ever need to use them.Sure sounds like the age old wizard class is playing as intended to me! XD
As long as I've been alive (nearly 40 years) the wizard class has really sucked at low levels and really rocked at high levels. It's a time honored tradition.
This is true. Though lower level spells were more effective by advancing due to leveling and plenty of ways to boost DCs versus weak saves via feats an Archmage.
I'm reading the fifth module of Age of Ashes right now. They didn't even bother to include spells for mages below 5th level in the stat block. Not sure if this was a mistake or an acknowledgment that low level spell slots are nearly worthless to higher level characters. I found it kind of telling how worthless lower level spells are to characters.
And yet the low-level Wizard is more powerful then ever before. PF 1 went ahead and upped the HD from d4 to d6 and made cantrips at-will. So even a Wizard who has exhausted their spell slots could still be a caster instead of a crappy crossbow shooter.
And PF 2 added to that by making cantrips scale. They remain a viable fallback option straight up until lv. 20.
And no, they do not do damage like the martials do and never shall they be allowed to. Because duh! So get over that already.
And at higher levels, where they before could break games without even trying, they are now 'merely' very powerful. Looks like balance got a lot better.
True.
Also, I don't see why people say low level slots are less efficient than in PF1 since the DC scales - it didn't in PF1.Some do become useless (those with scaling damage, or incapacitate) but some...
Command is another low level spell that remains good, and is extra hillarious with an Extra AOO fighter as a target that fails their save provokes for dropping prone, and again for standing...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really hope (and am fairly certain we will) we get some more magically oriented archetypes in the secrets of magic book that are similar to, or even build upon, existing archetypes like magic warrior. Magic Warrior is a phenomenal archetype for a transmutation wizard as it does most of the things that people are requesting from wizard feats here:
It is packed with flavor.
It gives you a decent polymorph option that allows you to use your focus points to gain a lasting battle form.
It has no attribute requirements for entry, leaving you free to build your character as you wish.I almost agree with you. Magic Warrior is one of the archetypes I was most interested in. And while it is awesome and flavourful archetype, unfortunately it's transformation power start losing the power as Animal Form only scales up to level 5; it will last you a few more levels but eventually it will be too weak at armour saves to do it.
It also makes perfect sense that these be archetype feats and not wizard only feats. Archetypes are one of the most liberating and interesting features of pathfinder 2E and should be a part of the discussion about how to make sure every player can build the character they want to play, including ones who start off with a base class of wizard.Kinda. Except, this archetype is very world dependent, and Transmuter should have similar, but still distinct feats/Focus spells.
I was uncertain about the animal form only scaling to be a level 5 spell, but it is has a pretty good level 5 heightening, giving you double damage dice, so it will be fine for several levels past when you first get level 5 spells. Much past the point that your wizard is getting level 5 spells, you really only will be using animal form for movement related stuff, and for picking up free 20 temporary hit points late in battles when you can start thinking about conserving spell slots, since you can't cast spells when you are transformed. Also 18+level AC is only 2 down from monstrocity form (a level 8 spell) and the same as dragon form, it also gives 20 temp temporary hit points which matches the best polymorph spells. That is not bad at all for a focus power. The only thing it lacks is giving you a decent attack bonus, but at least you can use your own, so it will never be worse than being untransformed. I think it is a perfect low level magic archetype and there is always retraining as an option to go back down and pick up conceal spell and then silent spell later, or a different archetype if one comes out, but you wouldn't even want to be thinking about that until you are well into probably 13th or higher level.
EDIT: Basically, getting 5th level animal form for essentially free, instead of wasting any spell slots on it, is a pretty good deal, even when you have outgrown it as a max level spell.
The world dependent aspect of archetypes is a feature, not a bug of the system. It is a stated design goal and why future rule books will look more like the legends world setting book than the APG (they have talked about this in the GenCon panels). If you are going to be GMing and homebrewing your own setting, making up some cool and interesting archetypes is a good use of the time you save with how easy encounters are to design in PF2. Also, people really can't be arguing for more flavorful options and then getting upset that the flavorful options have flavorful requirements.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Animal Form stuff
I somewhat agree, but it's still a weak form at higher levels, and Shifting Form is better than it for movement stuff.
there is always retraining as an option to go back down
I HATE this approach. Retraining is great when your character concept changes, but having feats that are only good for awhile and then are supposed to be retrained sounds extremely horrible to me.
If I made a character whose thing is to transform into animal, but then that ability becomes so weak it's better to retrain it, sounds like a really bad game design.
The world dependent aspect of archetypes is a feature, not a bug of the system.
I didn't say I mind it, I do like it. But it also means that those archetypes really lock you into particular concepts.
Thus, Magic Warrior is when you want to play Magic Warrior, not a shapeshifting Wizard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I made a character whose thing is to transform into animal, but then that ability becomes so weak it's better to retrain it, sounds like a really bad game design.
It may be game design you dont like, but its pretty awesome from a design standpoint. It means you can take options that have value for your character now, while theyre relevant, but aren't stuck with them once you've grown out of them.
If your characters gimmick is available at 8th level, you're now able to take an alternate gimmick early on without "losing" those resources later once your main thing comes on line.
Well, if all you're concerned with is combat, yes. Higher slots are going to be way more efficient to use if your sole existence is designed around surviving one combat. It also saves GMs from having to check every spell past a certain level, when odds are they won't ever need to use them.And yet the low-level Wizard is more powerful then ever before. PF 1 went ahead and upped the HD from d4 to d6 and made cantrips at-will. So even a Wizard who has exhausted their spell slots could still be a caster instead of a crappy crossbow shooter.
And PF 2 added to that by making cantrips scale. They remain a viable fallback option straight up until lv. 20.
And no, they do not do damage like the martials do and never shall they be allowed to. Because duh! So get over that already.
And at higher levels, where they before could break games without even trying, they are now 'merely' very powerful. Looks like balance got a lot better.
Yes...? I'm not sure what the disagreement is here.
Higher level slots, if literally all you care about is one encounter, is much easier to look at as a GM if you haven't memorized every spell in the game, and by and large they'll also be more effective. Both notable mentions, Command and Fear, get much better when heightened, so in the above situation there's no reason to even look at the lower-level versions.
When you're a low level wizard, the highest slots you have are the low-level ones, so it makes sense that those would be the ones you'd look at. But that doesn't really have any bearing on the situation above.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Most campaigns dont give you a week of downtime. Even if you do get one, you still need a teacher, which is hard to find. And you need to pay them, so you have less gold available. Its just not easy to retrain all willy nilly as has been implied.
I mean, if by most campaigns you exclude the signature campaign that launched with PF2E that provides practically unlimited downtime.
Downtime is now a core mode of play. I think we'll see most published adventures at least providing some allowance for downtime activities.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Downtime being recognized as core does not mean it will see more use.
Much less full weeks of use under a tutor.
Ultimately, that's a GM issue not a game design one.
Its the GMs job to make these tools available, not deny them to players.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I was looking for downtime in a campaign, I would simply ask my GM to make time. It's not like other people in the campaign can't also make use of downtime.
Most campaigns are not on such a short time limit at all times that downtime isn't feasible.
If I was looking for downtime in a campaign, I would simply ask my GM to make time. It's not like other people in the campaign can't also make use of downtime.
Most campaigns are not on such a short time limit at all times that downtime isn't feasible.
If I run a published adventure that lacks opportunities for downtime, I'll try to "virtualize" it or compress it somewhere it makes sense (like between books) unless its clear there is intentionally no opportunity for downtime mechanics.
Most writers aren't necessarily trying to write out downtime so much as they are maintain pace and tension, and its not fair to deny players access to mechanics because of it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I was looking for downtime in a campaign, I would simply ask my GM to make time. It's not like other people in the campaign can't also make use of downtime.
Most campaigns are not on such a short time limit at all times that downtime isn't feasible.
If I run a published adventure that lacks opportunities for downtime, I'll try to "virtualize" it or compress it somewhere it makes sense (like between books) unless its clear there is intentionally no opportunity for downtime mechanics.
Most writers aren't necessarily trying to write out downtime so much as they are maintain pace and tension, and its not fair to deny players access to mechanics because of it.
My understanding is that many APs don’t have downtime during a book, but often allow for downtime between books.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, if all you're concerned with is combat, yes. Higher slots are going to be way more efficient to use if your sole existence is designed around surviving one combat. It also saves GMs from having to check every spell past a certain level, when odds are they won't ever need to use them.Sure sounds like the age old wizard class is playing as intended to me! XD
As long as I've been alive (nearly 40 years) the wizard class has really sucked at low levels and really rocked at high levels. It's a time honored tradition.
This is true. Though lower level spells were more effective by advancing due to leveling and plenty of ways to boost DCs versus weak saves via feats an Archmage.
I'm reading the fifth module of Age of Ashes right now. They didn't even bother to include spells for mages below 5th level in the stat block. Not sure if this was a mistake or an acknowledgment that low level spell slots are nearly worthless to higher level characters. I found it kind of telling how worthless lower level spells are to characters.
And yet the low-level Wizard is more powerful then ever before. PF 1 went ahead and upped the HD from d4 to d6 and made cantrips at-will. So even a Wizard who has exhausted their spell slots could still be a caster instead of a crappy crossbow shooter.
And PF 2 added to that by making cantrips scale. They remain a viable fallback option straight up until lv. 20.
And no, they do not do damage like the martials do and never shall they be allowed to. Because duh! So get over that already.
And at higher levels, where they before could break games without even trying, they are now 'merely' very powerful. Looks like balance got a lot better.
High level casters do some pretty insane damage that matches martials. This I found out after breaching 9th to 11th level. That damage can get crazy nuts. I can't even imagine a round of a high level caster dropping a cataclysm or a meteor swarm on a group of monsters with a bunch of critical fails.
The caster would look at the martial and be like, "I'll give you a few fights to catch up on the damage meter, son. I'll be reading my book back here. Keep swinging. Let me know when you want me to teleport us home."
I still remember my bard dropping a phantasmal calamity for the first time on a group of 9 creatures in a room with relatively low will saves. I think my damage spiked to well over 300 in that round at lvl 11. I know I had another round where I did the same spell on 2 lvl 11 spiders and a lvl 12 griktog or what not at lvl 14. I did 340 damage on three enemies.
Though phantasmal calamity is a very solid spell, there are other spells that hit way harder. If a group crit fails, your damage meter spikes. Martials really don't have a way to do that kind of AoE damage.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My understanding is that many APs don’t have downtime during a book, but often allow for downtime between books.If I was looking for downtime in a campaign, I would simply ask my GM to make time. It's not like other people in the campaign can't also make use of downtime.
Most campaigns are not on such a short time limit at all times that downtime isn't feasible.
If I run a published adventure that lacks opportunities for downtime, I'll try to "virtualize" it or compress it somewhere it makes sense (like between books) unless its clear there is intentionally no opportunity for downtime mechanics.
Most writers aren't necessarily trying to write out downtime so much as they are maintain pace and tension, and its not fair to deny players access to mechanics because of it.
It depends. I still wish they had some more feats for making craftingat least slightly advantageous. The whole way they did Earned Income and Crafting really makes them a wash. I guess that fits with the balanced options, but differentiated cosmetics in the world. So a bard would be playing rooms in the royal court to get money to fund his item purchases, while a wizard would tinker in his lab to make the same items. Both equally effective, but visually different in the mind's eye.
|
|
So I admit, this thread has gotten under my skin. I have a wizard who has performed mechanically well and is at least decently flavorful. My conflict is that people on both sides (myself included) are picking out isolated points and making them. They rarely account for for things in the big picture. So here is what I propose...
A class mechanics Olympics.
We establish "events" like SINGLE TARGET DPS!!. We give an enemy with level appropriate ac and saves. All dice rolls are presumed to be average. If your build cannot buff themselves, they can't account for the buff.
PICK A LOCK!!
etc..
1st place gets 3 points, 2nd 2 points, and 3rd 1 point.
There will be 10 competition categories inside each event. 2 sets of levels 2, 6, 12, 16, and 20. The sets will be builds with dedication(s) and without.
While this still has the problem of white room, if we have enough events, I think there will be solid data to go off of.
Thoughts?
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I admit, this thread has gotten under my skin. I have a wizard who has performed mechanically well and is at least decently flavorful. My conflict is that people on both sides (myself included) are picking out isolated points and making them. They rarely account for for things in the big picture. So here is what I propose...
A class mechanics Olympics.
We establish "events" like SINGLE TARGET DPS!!. We give an enemy with level appropriate ac and saves. All dice rolls are presumed to be average. If your build cannot buff themselves, they can't account for the buff.
PICK A LOCK!!
etc..
1st place gets 3 points, 2nd 2 points, and 3rd 1 point.
There will be 10 competition categories inside each event. 2 sets of levels 2, 6, 12, 16, and 20. The sets will be builds with dedication(s) and without.
While this still has the problem of white room, if we have enough events, I think there will be solid data to go off of.
Thoughts?
Whatever is fun for you, go for it, as far as simulations and theorycrafting. But it is also ok to take a deep breath and say, "I don't need other people to believe my position for it to be valid."
When I respond to posts in wizard threads, I try to make it be about helping people find decent and interesting options available, based upon the kind of wizard that they have expressed an interest in building. I probably get caught up too often in debates of opinion as well, but I am usually much happier when I take a step back and only really try to respond when people are sincerely interested in discussing the existing strengths and weaknesses of the wizard and especially what might make for good additional content for future source material, as well as how to make a wizard that is currently frustrating to play into a more fun character.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I admit, this thread has gotten under my skin. I have a wizard who has performed mechanically well and is at least decently flavorful. My conflict is that people on both sides (myself included) are picking out isolated points and making them. They rarely account for for things in the big picture. So here is what I propose...
A class mechanics Olympics.
We establish "events" like SINGLE TARGET DPS!!. We give an enemy with level appropriate ac and saves. All dice rolls are presumed to be average. If your build cannot buff themselves, they can't account for the buff.
PICK A LOCK!!
etc..
1st place gets 3 points, 2nd 2 points, and 3rd 1 point.
There will be 10 competition categories inside each event. 2 sets of levels 2, 6, 12, 16, and 20. The sets will be builds with dedication(s) and without.
While this still has the problem of white room, if we have enough events, I think there will be solid data to go off of.
Thoughts?
The only aspect I'm interested in is combat in a group environment. Non-combat is mostly enabled by DM fiat or role-played. As a DM I would never kill an adventure because we didn't have a guy who could make the skill roll needed to progress or needed a single spell.The game must go on. I'm not going to make adventures where the players have to have a rogue with picks or a caster with knock because they can't go on until they get past the door. I'm going to create a basic narrative that allow the characters to move on regardless of party composition in non-combat aspects of the game. So that part of the game doesn't much matter to me mechanically because I will always create some way for the players to get any downtime or non-combat activities done.
That means the only balance I'm concerned with is how well does your class do in the various aspects of combat in a group environment. So the only competition I'm interested in is how well do you do damage and enable success in combat in a group versus other classes.
We could create some parties with and without a wizard or some class and see how that goes against a particular group of enemies.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Non-combat is mostly enabled by DM fiat or role-played. As a DM I would never kill an adventure because we didn't have a guy who could make the skill roll needed to progress or needed a single spell.The game must go on. I'm not going to make adventures where the players have to have a rogue with picks or a caster with knock because they can't go on until they get past the door. I'm going to create a basic narrative that allow the characters to move on regardless of party composition in non-combat aspects of the game. So that part of the game doesn't much matter to me mechanically because I will always create some way for the players to get any downtime or non-combat activities done.
This is certainly a valid way to play the game, but it isn't the default expected by Paizo or their published adventures.
Those definitely don't just stop if you fail one Skill check (or not usually anyway), but you can certainly wind up seriously disadvantaged by not having the right non-combat capabilities.
All Classes with any specifically non-combat features at all are thus going to be balanced improperly for a game run like you describe, because that concern is taken into account at Paizo. Not to the extent of making them bad at combat, certainly, but making them a bit worse at combat than those that lack those features? Absolutely a thing. And Wizard is certainly such a Class (so are Investigator, as well as Rogue to some degree and certainly all other prepared casters...spontaneous casters can focus entirely on combat relevant spells, but a prepared caster can reallocate resources to non-combat tasks and their ability to do so is a strength of that casting method).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Non-combat is mostly enabled by DM fiat or role-played. As a DM I would never kill an adventure because we didn't have a guy who could make the skill roll needed to progress or needed a single spell.The game must go on. I'm not going to make adventures where the players have to have a rogue with picks or a caster with knock because they can't go on until they get past the door. I'm going to create a basic narrative that allow the characters to move on regardless of party composition in non-combat aspects of the game. So that part of the game doesn't much matter to me mechanically because I will always create some way for the players to get any downtime or non-combat activities done.This is certainly a valid way to play the game, but it isn't the default expected by Paizo or their published adventures.
Those definitely don't just stop if you fail one Skill check (or not usually anyway), but you can certainly wind up seriously disadvantaged by not having the right non-combat capabilities.
All Classes with any specifically non-combat features at all are thus going to be balanced improperly for a game run like you describe, because that concern is taken into account at Paizo. Not to the extent of making them bad at combat, certainly, but making them a bit worse at combat than those that lack those features? Absolutely a thing. And Wizard is certainly such a Class (so are Investigator, as well as Rogue to some degree and certainly all other prepared casters...spontaneous casters can focus entirely on combat relevant spells, but a prepared caster can reallocate resources to non-combat tasks and their ability to do so is a strength of that casting method).
I know not much about the investigator, but I know first hand the rogue is most assuredly not weak in combat in a group. They are very good, both the thief and the ruffian.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only aspect I'm interested in is combat in a group environment. Non-combat is mostly enabled by DM fiat or role-played. As a DM I would never kill an adventure because we didn't have a guy who could make the skill roll needed to progress or needed a single spell.The game must go on. I'm not going to make adventures where the players have to have a rogue with picks or a caster with knock because they can't go on until they get past the door. I'm going to create a basic narrative that allow the characters to move on regardless of party composition in non-combat aspects of the game. So that part of the game doesn't much matter to me mechanically because I will always create some way for the players to get any downtime or non-combat activities done.
That means the only balance I'm concerned with is how well does your class do in the various aspects of combat in a group environment. So the only competition I'm interested in is how well do you do damage and enable success in combat in a group versus...
I think its good that you shared this, because it helps understand where you're coming from with your criticisms and concerns.
I do think its important to keep in mind though that by limiting your concerns to this area, you may be inherently creating some winners and losers because certain classes are definitely balanced - at least a bit - based on powerful out of combat utility.
Example -
In an environment where the long duration counters to clairvoyance and prying eye have diminished, the Wizard is the King of Scouting. A Sorcerer or Bard can cast these spells, but if you give a Wizard a day to scout he can lean all in to divination one day and come back the next with a spell list custom tailored to what he learned.
As opposed to the Sorcerer or Bard, whom while they can do this, it costs them permanent or hard to change resources and they have less ability to adapt to what they find.
This isnt exactly a rare opportunity in many adventures. Some have called out that Wizards dont have infinite access to their spell list, but part of that flavour that everyone says isn't there is the need to obsessively seek out and develop ones spell book.
I chose that example because its one where the Wizard is doing something others can do, but their setup makes them better at it. Its hardly the only case though.