|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, just throwing this out there - but if Immortality were say a 20th level Wizard feat, you might be tempted to actually take it as opposed to something relevant to the game.
In almost all relevant ways, its probably better to narrate or epilogue your Wizards obtaining of immortality than to make it a 20th level feat in a game that is tightly balanced against your class feat choices.
I understand that flavor is important, but some things work just fine as narration.
In fairness, they could include mechanically relevant stuff in with the immortality. Immunity or resistance to death effects, upping Fortitude Saves to Master, that kind of thing.
That's certainly what I'd do with such an option in PF2. The Monk version (which is only 14th level), also gives a +2 Status bonus against poison and disease and Poison Resistance equal to half your level, for example.
Did anyone else just get exp all of a sudden? I did /s
@ Deriven, I noticed it as well with crafting, that there appears to be an intentional division between settlement level and party level, where crafting suddenly becomes very strong because it offers you both a direct route to items and better gp per day than earning income to buy the item. How long has you down time been?
Months between modules. Usually not much during adventures.
I must have been doing something wrong when I was playing the wizard or Age of Ashes encounter design is different. My druid is ripping it up with AoE in Extinction Curse. She was top damage by 100 points tonight.
I think I was playing a caster like I did in PF1 where I sat on my spells until big encounters until I needed to nova. That isn't the best way to play in PF2. Better to launch off a big dog spell at least once an encounter. Rack up that AoE damage and use your focus spells more often.
I'm going to play Mr. Wizard differently next time.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I must have been doing something wrong when I was playing the wizard or Age of Ashes encounter design is different.
Probably some of both. AoA has more single, large, enemies than EC, at least early on, and while casters can do things about those it's not where they really shine.
I must have been doing something wrong when I was playing the wizard or Age of Ashes encounter design is different. My druid is ripping it up with AoE in Extinction Curse. She was top damage by 100 points tonight.
I think I was playing a caster like I did in PF1 where I sat on my spells until big encounters until I needed to nova. That isn't the best way to play in PF2. Better to launch off a big dog spell at least once an encounter. Rack up that AoE damage and use your focus spells more often.
I'm going to play Mr. Wizard differently next time.
In my opinion the paradigm shift from rationed casting to top-down casting is a big deal for PF2E casters and as such also for the Wizard. Where in old editions casters often set on their hands, especially low level, in order to preserve slots, just waiting how the melees were doing and only contributing to the fight when things went sideways or when needing to nova, PF2E expects casters to actively participate in combat from turn one, preferrably by droping a max level or near max level spell.
As such I will recommend top-down casting to our own party Wizard from the next session onwards as he has done very poorly so far while using rationed casting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I must have been doing something wrong when I was playing the wizard or Age of Ashes encounter design is different. My druid is ripping it up with AoE in Extinction Curse. She was top damage by 100 points tonight.
I think I was playing a caster like I did in PF1 where I sat on my spells until big encounters until I needed to nova. That isn't the best way to play in PF2. Better to launch off a big dog spell at least once an encounter. Rack up that AoE damage and use your focus spells more often.
I'm going to play Mr. Wizard differently next time.
Haaaa, finaly!
I'm saying on these boards all the time that this is the proper way to play a caster since Starfinder. You need to cast, a lot. And you play on your sustainability (through scrolls and such) to last forever.Well, at least, I understand now better why your numbers were so far away from mine.
what level is your druid?I must have been doing something wrong when I was playing the wizard or Age of Ashes encounter design is different. My druid is ripping it up with AoE in Extinction Curse. She was top damage by 100 points tonight.
I think I was playing a caster like I did in PF1 where I sat on my spells until big encounters until I needed to nova. That isn't the best way to play in PF2. Better to launch off a big dog spell at least once an encounter. Rack up that AoE damage and use your focus spells more often.
I'm going to play Mr. Wizard differently next time.
Lvl 8.
Even my bard in age of ashes is shifting battles so far in favor of the group that fights become almost trivial, while at the same time dropping some vicious AoE using high level slots. The archer is the only martial good at range and he is still single target.
Even now when the party fights enemies, they eat up groups of martials. But you have a group of martials with invisible, mind-blanked casters dropping AoE on them and they start to freak out as the aggregate damage adds up putting huge pressure on the healer.
Big change at higher level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I must have been doing something wrong when I was playing the wizard or Age of Ashes encounter design is different. My druid is ripping it up with AoE in Extinction Curse. She was top damage by 100 points tonight.
I think I was playing a caster like I did in PF1 where I sat on my spells until big encounters until I needed to nova. That isn't the best way to play in PF2. Better to launch off a big dog spell at least once an encounter. Rack up that AoE damage and use your focus spells more often.
I'm going to play Mr. Wizard differently next time.
Haaaa, finaly!
I'm saying on these boards all the time that this is the proper way to play a caster since Starfinder. You need to cast, a lot. And you play on your sustainability (through scrolls and such) to last forever.Well, at least, I understand now better why your numbers were so far away from mine.
I was used to playing a wizard where he kept a lot of spells for big encounters. That was the PF1 paradigm given cantrips sucked and wands were just ok.
Now with wands, scrolls, and staves all providing extra slots using your DC, blow them off. Open the fight with them if you go early, hope for some critical fails. An AoE spell on a group of enemies with a mix of fails and critical fails adds up. I had one tempest surge with a critical fail for 4d12 doubled with a clumsy 2 rider and 4 persistent electricity. Nasty damage.
I was used to playing a wizard where he kept a lot of spells for big encounters. That was the PF1 paradigm given cantrips sucked and wands were just ok.
We were all used to that. But once you make the switch to sustained spellcasting, the level of violence really goes up.
At least, in the future, if I see someone telling me casters are weak, I'll tell him the issue's between the chair and the character sheet!
At least, in the future, if I see someone telling me casters are weak, I'll tell him the issue's between the chair and the character sheet!
I think part of the issue is that casters went from "so powerful that theyre rewarding regardless of how well you play them" all the way to "difficult but rewarding".
A well played caster that is aiming their spells at the right weaknesses, supporting their own abilities to make them reliable, and choosing the right time to drop spells are great, but knowing how to pull off all of that isn't necessarily obvious to begin.
Its very easy to fire off all your spells straight into a foes strong defenses, and watch them amount to essentially nothing- and that IS a very frustrating experience.
A well played caster that is aiming their spells at the right weaknesses, supporting their own abilities to make them reliable, and choosing the right time to drop spells are great, but knowing how to pull off all of that isn't necessarily obvious to begin.
In my opinion, this is the wrong mindset. The right spell for the job is a PF1 logic where you could trivialize a combat with this famous right spell. In PF2, once you have used the right spell for the job, you made a nice round... and then?
Lasting is as much a question of number of slots + items than a question of choosing spells that are usable in a broad number of situations. If you are always looking for the perfect situation, you don't act as much as you should.You will, most of the time, use spells in situations where they are not optimal but still quite efficient. If you don't use them in these situations, what do you do? Cantrip? I'd better jump off a cliff.
Past level 4, you are no more supposed to use offensive cantrips outside last rounds of combats when you finish off the remaining enemies. If you use a cantrip outside this case, you made something wrong (wrong choice of spells, not enough scrolls, etc...).
This is all well and good but doesn't solve the low level problem the caster has. Have 2/3 spells *per day* at level 1 makes for either extremely short adventuring days or a whole lot of cantrips Wich are almost all 2 actions and cannot be used to interact with the phenomenal 3 action system in any meaningful way.
I really wish cantrips were 1 action and had the flourish trait. Then simply scaled differently. Or had the option to lower their damage and cast then down to a 1 action with flourish.
Generally, I have high hopes for the magical book coming out. Because regardless of power at any level. Being locked into a level non interactive playstyle via casting is boring as hell.
Heal/harm. Great examples of well designed spells. That interact with the system. I've wanted to work on taking every spell and adding at least 1 downcast option and upcast option depending on the actions of the spell itself.
It would probably remove the need for meta magic in general though, for me no real loss
A well played caster that is aiming their spells at the right weaknesses, supporting their own abilities to make them reliable, and choosing the right time to drop spells are great, but knowing how to pull off all of that isn't necessarily obvious to begin.In my opinion, this is the wrong mindset. The right spell for the job is a PF1 logic where you could trivialize a combat with this famous right spell. In PF2, once you have used the right spell for the job, you made a nice round... and then?
Lasting is as much a question of number of slots + items than a question of choosing spells that are usable in a broad number of situations. If you are always looking for the perfect situation, you don't act as much as you should.
You will, most of the time, use spells in situations where they are not optimal but still quite efficient. If you don't use them in these situations, what do you do? Cantrip? I'd better jump off a cliff.
Past level 4, you are no more supposed to use offensive cantrips outside last rounds of combats when you finish off the remaining enemies. If you use a cantrip outside this case, you made something wrong (wrong choice of spells, not enough scrolls, etc...).
Eh, I think there's something to be said for being prepared to target a range of defenses at any given time so that you're not throwing fireballs at foes with legendary reflex saves, or an incapacitation spell at something that gets a free degree of success.
At mid levels, a Wizard can easily cover all the major defense types in their top level slots (ref, Fort, will, and ac with a pocket true strike) AND have a nice incap spell for taking advantage of an opportunity to cripple an encounter if it shows - AND recast any of those a second time if needed via their bonded item.
You're not wrong though that its often worth targeting a middle save over throwing a cantrip, too - and players shouldn't be afraid to do so.
Cantrips are in a weird place - I don't view them as terrible filler, but in general there are a lot of skill actions that are lower action cost (recall knowledge, demoralize, trip via whip, aid) that are also potent when you're not wanting to use a big spell, or need to significantly reposition or otherwise not spend a slot.
At least, in the future, if I see someone telling me casters are weak, I'll tell him the issue's between the chair and the character sheet!I think part of the issue is that casters went from "so powerful that theyre rewarding regardless of how well you play them" all the way to "difficult but rewarding".
A well played caster that is aiming their spells at the right weaknesses, supporting their own abilities to make them reliable, and choosing the right time to drop spells are great, but knowing how to pull off all of that isn't necessarily obvious to begin.
Its very easy to fire off all your spells straight into a foes strong defenses, and watch them amount to essentially nothing- and that IS a very frustrating experience.
Hence why, without metagaming (and even then, some monsters are different than the bestiary version) the wizard has an edge over most other casters who aren't int-based.
A lot of people on those boards say that CHA and WIS are mechanically more powerful than INT, which cripples the wizard even more. A bard or sorcerer can easily double as the party face, while using Bon Mot or Intimidate. A cleric or druid has better initiative and better Will save through WIS.
But a wizard can recall knowledge with his first, unused action, then launch a spell at a perceived weakness.
Sure, if you don't invest in knowledge skills, they're weak. But if you raise them, it's not that hard to succeed ("you get a hint") or critically succeed ("you gain additionnal information or context").
Of course, this is subject to GM-Fiat but the Core Rulebook gives extensive examples ("For example, Arcana might tell you about the magical defenses of a golem, whereas Crafting could tell you about its sturdy resistance to physical attacks").
Some lenient GMs will give you the whole mechanisms, like "its weak save is Fortitude" while others could roleplay it more like "you remember that monster from an old book. Its looks are deceiving, for it is more cunning than strong".
But the truth of the matter is, a wizard's shtick is to Recall Knowledge and apply his most powerful spells with the greatest efficiency, while other classes might have to play a guessing game and sometimes get it right, sometimes get it wrong.
A Black Pudding is immune to mental, has +18 fortitude but only +14AC, and splits when hit by slashing or piercing damage. A Recall Knowledge check is the difference between wasting a Phantasmal Killer (mental) instead of, say, a fireball.
An Ogre Boss has surprisingly high Will for its level, but a very low reflexes save.
Those are the things that can make the wizard pretty effective for the whole party.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is all well and good but doesn't solve the low level problem the caster has. Have 2/3 spells *per day* at level 1 makes for either extremely short adventuring days or a whole lot of cantrips Wich are almost all 2 actions and cannot be used to interact with the phenomenal 3 action system in any meaningful way.
That's clearly a big issue. Before level 5, casters are a chore. And you need to get to level 7 to really start shining the way you're supposed to. Cantrips help a lot at low level (well, Electric Arc more than cantrips). I think they kept the old versions (3.5 and PF1) logic of casters being especially weak during their first levels.
I really wish cantrips were 1 action and had the flourish trait. Then simply scaled differently. Or had the option to lower their damage and cast then down to a 1 action with flourish.
When you understand the logic behind the action system, you realize that it would have been roughly impossible. Actions don't have the same strength. And a third action is supposed to be weak. If you give one action cantrips, you need to tune them to the level of a third action, which would make them so weak there would be no point casting them. Bards are for example crazy good because their one action cantrip is in fact way better than a third action, imbalancing the whole class compared to other casters.
Also, I hate Bard because of its Compositions. It's the most boring class in the game as you are stuck with doing always the same thing. I'm really happy the other casters are not stuck to the same gameplay. My Sorcerer nearly never Demoralized anyone as there are tons of ways to use your last action without having to rely on a specific game feature. If you have issues using your last actions, you haven't looked strong enough at the different feature the game gives you.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you have issues using your last actions, you haven't looked strong enough at the different feature the game gives you.
Especially post APG. There are a ton of archetypes that provide both low entry cost options (Archer lets you pick up bows for a single feat for getting a reasonable attack with no reload costs for that third/extra action, Loremaster gets you universal recall knowledge that it looks like many GMs will let hit the Easy DC for many creatures) or high investment ones (Beastmaster for animal companions as good as they get) for fully developed sub-themes.
A well played caster that is aiming their spells at the right weaknesses, supporting their own abilities to make them reliable, and choosing the right time to drop spells are great, but knowing how to pull off all of that isn't necessarily obvious to begin.In my opinion, this is the wrong mindset. The right spell for the job is a PF1 logic where you could trivialize a combat with this famous right spell. In PF2, once you have used the right spell for the job, you made a nice round... and then?
Lasting is as much a question of number of slots + items than a question of choosing spells that are usable in a broad number of situations. If you are always looking for the perfect situation, you don't act as much as you should.
You will, most of the time, use spells in situations where they are not optimal but still quite efficient. If you don't use them in these situations, what do you do? Cantrip? I'd better jump off a cliff.
Past level 4, you are no more supposed to use offensive cantrips outside last rounds of combats when you finish off the remaining enemies. If you use a cantrip outside this case, you made something wrong (wrong choice of spells, not enough scrolls, etc...).
While I mostly agree with you Bidi, I do think that this is one area where there is a noticeable difference between the sorcerer and the wizard. The wizard will more easily have a wide variety of good spell options for more specific kinds of encounters, while the sorcerer really needs to focus on specific spells that work well in a a wide variety of encounters. A second highest spell level that targets a weak save with the right kind of damage type to trigger weakness will probably do more damage than a highest level spell against a medium save. Wizards are much better off having variety in their spells memorized every day and then changing them over the course of the day with substitution, than in memorizing 4 of x damage spell in their highest level slot.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To jump way back to the issue of thematic options, I think I discovered another place where differences in expectations are going to massively impact your view of the wizard.
If you were expecting specialization to be as significant to class build as rackets, or muses, or hunter's edges, I bet that you were pretty disappointed with wizard school specialization.
In many ways, wizard school specialization is much more closely aligned with fighter weapon groups than with a full subclass. Fighters with the swords weapon group could be a two weapon fighter, a 2 handed weapon fighter or a sword and board fighter, and might even have enough feats to have a shield and a bastard sword and start a fight as a sword and board and then shift to a two handed fighting style after their shield is destroyed. They are not locked into anything too specific when they pick their weapon group. A lot of the specialization of the fighter's fighting style comes from continuing to pick specific feats as you level up, and a specialized fighter in their specific style is not massively more powerful than a fighter that doesn't over specialize, after all, very few of a fighter's class feats are likely to be used in every single round of combat by higher levels. You have your 1 or 2 mainstay actions granted by feats and the others are either situational, provide utility, or are used in setting up, or being set up by your other feats.
I think a lot of people get caught up in looking at the most obvious features of a class, which often boil down to flashy class features and proficiencies, but there is so, so, so much of PF2's opening up of possibilities that comes through the ways different feats interact with each other.
While I mostly agree with you Bidi, I do think that this is one area where there is a noticeable difference between the sorcerer and the wizard. The wizard will more easily have a wide variety of good spell options for more specific kinds of encounters, while the sorcerer really needs to focus on specific spells that work well in a a wide variety of encounters. A second highest spell level that targets a weak save with the right kind of damage type to trigger weakness will probably do more damage than a highest level spell against a medium save. Wizards are much better off having variety in their spells memorized every day and then changing them over the course of the day with substitution, than in memorizing 4 of x damage spell in their highest level slot.
If you play a Spell Substituer, I 100% agree. If you don't play a Spell Substituer, I 100% disagree.
The strength of the spell substituer is to have an extremely broad spell list and try to aim at the right spell for the job. And after every encounter you reorganize your spell list to always be efficient. Of course, the smaller your spell list and the more generic your choice of spells as you always need to have a few very generic spells working on most combat situations.
If you are not playing a Spell Substituer, having extremely specialized spells prepared means taking the risk of not casting them at all. And at the end of the day, the cost of not being able to use your whole spells prepared is too high compared to the gain of having sometimes the perfect spell for the situation. Wizards, outside Spell Substituers, need a very efficient list of prepared spells. They can't have conditional spells prepared on their higher spell slots without losing a lot of efficiency.
Sorcerers obviously need a generic list of known spells to cover most common combat situations. But once you have covered your bases, all your remaining spells known can be used for whatever spell you want.
So, Spell Substituers are the kings of "the right spell for the job". Then Sorcerers. And finally Wizards with other theses, which are running away from conditional spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One big issue I see come up over and over again, is that to some people, picking your spells for the day is a 100% crap shoot. Even if most games don't allow for quite the level of pre-planning and recon some posters are suggesting that seems far too exaggerated.
"We're going into the dungeon tomorrow, and want some foreknowledge to help me pick my spells, I'd like to Gather Information from the locals"
should work pretty well, especially if you take Streetwise to be able to use intelligence for it.
Alternatively, you'll already have an idea simply based off context, a lot of the situational water spells will be useful if you know you're headed to the sunken ruins next. If you're headed across mountain peaks, fly is probably pretty reliably useful.
Different scenarios are going to give you different degrees of foreknowledge and while Spell Substitution makes you more reliable for that and is the kind of situational spells-- its not like a prepared caster has to be as far behind as is being suggested.
|
|
Haven't played a wizard yet and nobody in our group played one yet even after most of the other classes. Wizards just lack some coolness in my opinion.
Still I'm going to play an Illusionist next (our campaign is pretty lethal so I always have another char ready), we're level 12 now so I'll have access to the really powerful stuff but what I would like is just flavorful things.
For example my 4lvl Illusionist in 5e can cast the cantrip Minor Illusion at will making both image and sound, something that no one but the illusionist can do. I almost never use it in combet but it's really cool, flavorful and I don't think game breaking. Even a 12lvl pf2 Illusionist can't do that, no even using a 1 lvl slot or a focus point (I can't wait to get Illusory Reality!).
And speaking of focus, wizard focus powers seem meh. I don't think I'll ever use the Illusionist 1st power and the other one is barely better than 2nd level invisibility. It's not worth a feat tbh.
I think that's the kind of things some players are asking for. Not world shaking powers but cool, unique stuff.
The new Illusionist feat for example is great, I wish they did something like that for every specialization.
The thesis seem ok, although substitution is probably way better than the others. I wish the metamagic one would let me take conceal spell. As it is you can only get widen or reach.
I don't think the masters of recall knowledge argument holds water. Wizards can max 3 skills, mine has Arcana, Deception and Crafting. He has other skills but he's only trained and he's no better than other characters except for arcana.
And another thing that I realized while making my character is how expensive spells are to get. It doesn't seem to at first but it adds up. For my 12lvl wizard it got to almost half of my wealth while other casters don't spend anything for their spells and that's without rolling for the learn a spell activity. That's gold that I could've use for wands, scrolls or other items.
Re:Recall Knowledge and finding the weakest saving throw of a monster. I think we finally got our answer from Paizo in the form of a 4th level Bard feat.
Level 4
Single Action
[Bard][Secret]You use a performer's cold reading techniques, aura reading, and other tricks to discover your foe's strengths and weaknesses. The GM rolls a secret Occultism check for you against the Deception or Stealth DC (whichever is higher) of an enemy of your choice who is engaged in combat and isn't concealed from you, hidden from you, or undetected by you. The GM might apply a penalty for the distance between you and the enemy. The enemy is then temporarily immune to your Combat Reading for 1 day.
Critical Success The GM chooses and tells you two of the following pieces of information about the enemy: which of the enemy's weaknesses is highest, which of the enemy's saving throws has the lowest modifier, one immunity the enemy has, or which of the enemy's resistances is highest. In the event of a tie, the GM should pick one at random.
Success The GM chooses one piece of information from the above list to tell you about the enemy.
Critical Failure The GM gives you false information (the GM makes up the information).
Given that Bards now have specific feat for finding out the lowest saving throw of a monster, this makes it quite clear Recall Knowledge should **NOT** be giving that information.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
That doesn't actually follow. The Feat in question always uses Occultism (rather than varying skill by monster) and, on many monsters, at a much lower DC than Recall Knowledge (many monsters lack both Stealth and Deception entirely leaving the DC at less than 20 even for high level foes).
Which is not to say low Saves should always be revealed (IMO, they're appropriate as a crit result or on a second successful Recall Knowledge, but rarely on a single success), it's just to say that the Feat in question is very good even if they are able to be revealed in other ways.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
you guys can color it how you want, the wizard isnt the recall knowledge class, its not its shtick, the ONLY benefit it has its its main stat works for some of the recall knowledge skills. thats it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
you guys can color it how you want, the wizard isnt the recall knowledge class, its not its shtick, the ONLY benefit it has its its main stat works for some of the recall knowledge skills. thats it.I don't think anyone has tried to say differently than that.
given what ive read in here, they have.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
given what ive read in here, they have.you guys can color it how you want, the wizard isnt the recall knowledge class, its not its shtick, the ONLY benefit it has its its main stat works for some of the recall knowledge skills. thats it.I don't think anyone has tried to say differently than that.
Whats been said here is that their main stat works well for Recall Knowledge, and Recall Knowledge fits the desire for a good 'third action' for the class that people complained Wizard lacked.
And now that Loremaster exists, they're a single feat away from having a universal Lore off of their best stat that works for all creatures and likely hits an Easy (-2) DC, GM depending.
You can't deny that if your Wizard is missing a third action for their routine, Recall Knowledge works really well if you want to build for it.
Given that Bards now have specific feat for finding out the lowest saving throw of a monster, this makes it quite clear Recall Knowledge should **NOT** be giving that information.
Uh, yeah no. As others have noted, what that Bard feat lets you do is make an Occultism check against any creature regardless of type to determine its weaknesses. Not only does that unify your check to a single skill, but it allows you to roll against a DC that doesn't change based on things like Monster Rarity. Unique Creature found only on the 17th floor of one dungeon anywhere in the Multiverse? Thats a big modifier to a Recall Knowledge check, no modifier at all for Combat Reading.
It also is not Recall Knowledge, meaning it is not effected by things that limit Recall Knowledge, and doesn't suffer from its scaling DC.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
given what ive read in here, they have.Is it possible you read things differently than other posters meant them?
At that point it doesn't matter because I read it at face value
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can Recall Knowledge multiple times as long as you keep succeeding, getting additional information on each success (well, I think it caps at 4 successes, but that isn't gonna happen). The DC does go up each check, but only by two for the second one. I'd say that a second Recall Knowledge check is often a decent call if you have the action to spare.
You may also want to Recall Knowledge on multiple things if there are multiple creature types in the battle.
All this talk of the wizard's third action... sustaining a previously cast spell sounds like a good idea
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
All this talk of the wizard's third action... sustaining a previously cast spell sounds like a good idea
I mean, so is movement via Stride or Step.
In reality, its not hard to fill that third action slot. There just seems to be an ideological divide where its felt that Wizards, in particular, need to be able to fill that with a "Wizard" specific action.
But not with a Wizard Focus spell, because they aren't good enough- though its not a power thing because people don't want more power... or something... but Wizard focus spells are definitely bad because reasons...
I am riconsidering haste for a spellcaster ( a free stride could be really useful ).
Can confirm, Haste is really good for spellcasters... even a free Strike isn't a horrible idea, as while casters are behind martials for weapon use the added damage is far from insignificant.
|
|
The book needs errata on this.
If you read the Recall Knowledge action there's nothing stopping you from repeated attempts regardless of your rolled result, and nothing saying the DC goes up each time you succeed, so the GM section of the book adding in those rules creates inconsistency.
You're right. Interesting. That might or might not need errata, though. It probably does for out of combat reasons, but in combat spending multiple actions failing may be punishment enough
I don't even care which way the errata goes between adding these clauses to the actual action text or dropping them from the GM section, I just want it to not be a surprise to a player that hasn't thought "I should also read the GM section" that there are limitations to the Recall Knowledge action.
Finding out more information even being a possibility doesn't necessarily follow logically from the Recall Knowledge action. Some more clarity between the sections would be good, though.
@deadmanwalking: do you remember the page for the DC increase?
Page 506.
Widen spell and reach spell are pretty decent uses of a third action as well, that wizards can start using at first level. They get many more good ones as they continue to level up. How many bards ever make use of metamagic feats that are geared around altering a spell slot spell at the cost of an additional action?
I know that there is a clear and angry subset of gamers that feel like meta magic cheats the caster out of that third action, but it is pretty obvious that the developers expect wizards to be the class most set up to exploit metamagic. It is why they get the most spell slots. More spell slots + flexible ways to manipulate those slots is an interesting and unique niche.
So, in a 5 round scenario a wizard could ( as a 3rd action, considering he won't be moving).
1) recall knowledge
2) use a focus spell ( apart from necromancy if I recall correctly, since it costs 2 actions)
3) ? Shield cantrip?
4) ?
5) ?
1) Cast Magic Missile
2) Cast Magic Missile3) Cast Magic Missile
4) Cast Magic Missile (isn't the enemy already dead?)
5) Cast Magic Missile (what is happening exactly, am I fighting alone?)
Wands of Manifold Missiles or Dangerous Sorcery makes it an invaluable action.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At that point it doesn't matter because I read it at face valueLet me use this sentence to illustrate the problem with the thought behind this sentence:
Given what I've read in this quote, you've just claimed that it is a literal impossibility for you to ever misread anything. That's the "face value" of the quoted sentence.
Yes, rather what happened, is they simply didn't explain their point if what they meant, wasn't what they said
|
|
All this talk of the wizard's third action... sustaining a previously cast spell sounds like a good ideaI mean, so is movement via Stride or Step.
In reality, its not hard to fill that third action slot. There just seems to be an ideological divide where its felt that Wizards, in particular, need to be able to fill that with a "Wizard" specific action.
But not with a Wizard Focus spell, because they aren't good enough- though its not a power thing because people don't want more power... or something... but Wizard focus spells are definitely bad because reasons...
Well... they really aren't that good as third action since many costs more than one and others are very situational so you can't count that you'll use them in most fights.
For example my future illusionist could cast the 1 action version of Warped Terrain (5 feet burst) but not Invisibility cloak since it costs 2 actions. And a 1 action Warped Terrain won't probably be of use much if ever.
Call of the grave is 2 actions. Charming Words only works if someone is attacking you (and has a 30 feet range). Diviner's Sight seems extremely restrictive with the 1 round duration and you're just as likely to roll badly.
Force Bold and Hand of the Apprentice are cool.
Physical Boost seems out of combat only. Protection Ward is better than nothing but not that great anyway you the wizard probably won't be that close to help.
Some of the 4 level focus are great but mostly as situational help and not as something you'll cast every fight (like Energy Absorption).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And a 1 action Warped Terrain won't probably be of use much if ever.
I don't see how you can make that judgement.
A hallway, forcing movement through a more favorable terrain, forcing the use of stride over step by proxy of limiting an opponents movements via surroundings.
I mean it's a Focus Point spell, so you'd probably want to spend for the higher action versions, but it depends heavily on what you managed to do alongside that 1 action cast as well (such as another battlefield control spell).
But statements like "my 1 action spell that limits actions of my opponents" and "won't probably be of use much if ever" shouldn't be used in the same sentence.
Regardless of the placement, the duration is 1 minute, so it is not like it doesn't hold value for more than the turn it is cast (so your team can use that terrain to its advantage).