| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I have noticed is that Wizards get their wizard feel from the feats you choose (and of course the spells you select), much more than from the classes, except for really the fighter. If you MC out of wizard early, you pretty much are only a wizard for the spells. Wizard feats are deceptively simple, so until you have a GM tell you over and over again that everyone hears you casting ghost sound or charm, and NPCs don't like having spells cast in their presence unless they have been told what is happening in advance, then two of the most unique feats on the wizard list are easy to miss. If you keep picking wizard feats that grant you extra spells, you end up with a whole lot more casting than other casters, and the advanced focus spells are pretty good as well, but you only get them with wizard feats. Spell penetration is another one that is easy to write off, but when your deal is casting spells, enemies with status bonuses to saves are brutal, and other casters don't get it.
Combat Metamagic feats do pretty much exist to give you something else to do with your third action if movement doesn't feel necessary. I think we will continue to see more metamagic feats in the APG, and I am sure that people being so vocal about the wizard has helped that happen. It may or may not happen in the APG, but I wouldn't be surprised to eventually start seeing feats that require specific arcane schools. But that was always going to be content left out of the core APG because there were too many schools to make it work with the core material.
Jump is a great spell and i look forward to seeing more interesting utility spells like this appear as the game grows. Ventriloquism as a second level spell is also pretty remarkable if you have a GM that plays spell manifestations and verbal components seriously. Blur is another good second level spell for once 2nd level spells are no longer useful combat level spells for you. One of the things I love most about PF2 is how much what constitutes "good" spells changes as you level up. In play, it has has been fun to grow into your spell list and watch your PCs grow in to theirs as well. It is a lot to take in and takes a willingness to try things out and then decide if you like the way it is working or not. For example, I totally wrote off hydraulic push as a spell because it requires a spell attack roll, but our sorcerer has it as a signature spell and as our party has started focusing on battle field control, the ability to push enemies around on top of doing respectable damage, even a level or two off of top level has been a lot of fun. With true strike, it hits pretty regularly.
Wizards eventually get the ability to cast so many lower level spells that you can really take advantage of some of the lower level spell utility without having to have a bunch of key spells memorized in each of your level slots.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I have noticed is that Wizards get their wizard feel from the feats you choose (and of course the spells you select), much more than from the classes, except for really the fighter.
As you point out, a lot of the benefits from Wizards feats are very DM and adventure dependant. However, I will point out that they are still comparatively weak, compared to what other classes get. Just as an example, on same level (6), Storm Druids can use their already awesome spell as a reaction with additional effect. Sorcerers get their advanced Focus spell (including +1 Focus point), something Wizards get only on level 8. Clerics can upgrade their Heal/Harm spells significantly in two different ways.
Even if Spell Penetration is mechanically useful (for DC based spells only, mind you), it's also extremely boring. I thought PF2 was supposed to move away from the simple number stacking?
I think we will continue to see more metamagic feats in the APG, and I am sure that people being so vocal about the wizard has helped that happen. It may or may not happen in the APG, but I wouldn't be surprised to eventually start seeing feats that require specific arcane schools. But that was always going to be content left out of the core APG because there were too many schools to make it work with the core material.
Maybe in APG. Maybe not. Probably next year. Or year after.
I've been saying this for awhile. If this is the best they could've done, Wizards should not have been in the Core . Or at least, they should've put two or three Specializations and did a good job for them. I mean, even thesis was added after playtest when people complained, and they really phoned it in.Wizards eventually get the ability to cast so many lower level spells that you can really take advantage of some of the lower level spell utility without having to have a bunch of key spells memorized in each of your level slots.
Really, this is extremely deceptive; they don't get *that* much more than other classes. Not to mention that importantly, pretty much all other classes have much more useful Focus spells, unlike Wizards which get stuck in really random, borderline stuff.
|
I'd like to hear some real play experience with the PF2 wizard. So far this class seems extremely underwhelming compared to every other class. No one in my group can find a reason to play one other than as a multiclass. I like to hear about real experience versus theoretical or low level.
What is your experience with the following:
Perspective: currently at level 7, second book of Age of Ashes. I'm playing a cleric, there's also a wizard in the party.
Also perspective: playing a Fighter/Wizard in PFS, playing the recent 3-6 and 5-8 adventures in a party with several wizards.
1. Incapacitation Trait: This affects every fight against any challenge that is even 1 level above the group. It affects how you must align your spell slots since even minion level mobs at high level are usually equal or a few levels lower in major encounters.
For example, if you're level 12 you will fight some minions that are level 8 to 10 requiring 4th and 5th level slots to affect with incapacitation spells. And these lower level minions often are easily killed, less of a threat, and often not worth using incapacitation spells against.
I think you're underselling mooks. In PF2, everyone gets big bags of hit points. It takes more than a couple of hits to cut down level -1 mooks once you get past level 5 or so.
In addition, due to how monsters are built, mooks still have a decent chance of hitting you, and they can set up flanks for the boss, which makes the boss' big attacks hit even harder (bigger chance of nasty crits).
So altogether, using an incapacitation spell to try to take the mooks entirely out of the fight, can be very much worth it.
That said, "incapacitator" isn't really a full wizard job. A wizard might prepare one or two incapacitation spells to use if the situation is good for them, and use different spells if the situation isn't good.
2. Domination/Charm: What is your experience with domination and charm in PF2? Both have the incapacitation trait. Have you been able to effectively use these to acquire a servant creature that is effective against the enemies you fight at your level?
Haven't seen this tried. My understanding of Charm is that it's really not supposed to be a combat-related spell, it's for intrigue and getting past things without a fight.
3. Summons: Have the summons you have access to at your highest level been effective fighting enemies you fight at max level? Are they worth using?
Setting up flanks, keeping the monster busy for a round while other party members regroup, or calling in a monster much better at a particular environment than you or the enemy (like calling a water elemental to a fight in a river crossing). Summoning is a solution to some specific problems, it's not the strategy you'll use every fight.
4. Shapechanging: Have your shapechange spells been effective? Can a wizard use a shapechange spell and be effective? Have you found wizard builds that allow you to make Shapechange effective like multicassing with monk for flurry?
I haven't seen it tried. My cleric has Animal Form from his deity but I never really want to cast it, because I know I might want to cast spells next round and the animal form prevents it. I think wizards might run into the same problem.
5. What spells are most effective as you level?
A brutal combination I've seen in action in PFS is True Strike (often from a Staff of Divination) followed by Hydraulic Push, heightened to a nice high level. This works well with a wizard who took a rogue dedication, which can give you the Surprise Attack if you used Avoid Notice. This gives a decent chance to crit something at the start of combat and set the tone.
Fireball is quite a workhorse in PFS, especially when you have 5 and 6 player tables that get a lot of extra mooks due to challenge points.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, one more thing. Recently a Youtube video analysis of PF2 vs DnD 5e characters pointed out that DnD5e characters from same class tend to feel very much the same mechanically (even if they are different in roleplay aspects), whereas you can make wildly different PF2 characters of the same class. I wholeheartedly agree with this, but with two exceptions: Alchemists and Wizards. If you build mechanically sound characters, both feel extremely samey.
Nope. School Specialisation is garbage outside giving you extra spell slots (there's maybe one good Focus spell and one half-decent), and Arcane Thesis is, like, what. Mechanically you go for Familiar, if DM is easy on timings maybe you take Spell Substitution.Many of the wizard focus spells are actually very good.
And every arcane thesis, except spell substitution, is fantastic, and the only reason spell substitution isn't fantastic is because it's a safety net feature and those will always be less useful than other options because you can remove the benefit of them with system mastery/good guesswork.
In my opinion, you haven't understood the point of spell substitution. Spell substitution is about having always the most optimized spell list.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@thenobledrake
My own experience with metamagic backs up your anecdote; I don't think I ever saw them used outside of very niche builds or metamagic rods. Whereas all three of the magic user players in the game I'm running have taken reach spell.
I do wonder how much of the animosity towards wizards, enemy AC etc. stems from a failure of the complainant to get with the new PF2e paradigm.
Someone was complaining that the 2e wizard is worse than the 1e wizard because arcane discoveries are no longer in the game. This overlooks two key issues. One is that the discoveries were introduced two years after the publication of the crb (I think) so of course the 1e had more options. Secondly, there's no need for a separate 'arcane discovery' feature since the arcane thesis and class feats conceptually cover the similar ground (as well as having a lot in common with arcanist exploits).
Honestly, spell substitution acts as a safety net for not having the right scroll rather than not having the right spell. It's not possible to prepare for every situation, so inevitably casters need to carry scrolls with "useful-for-just-the-right-moment" spells. Preparing Resist Energy because you know you're going to be fighting fire spiders in a mineshaft is well and good, but sometimes you're going to be faced with acid spewing giant snakes without expecting it - that's when you need a scroll of Resist Energy.
A spell substitution wizard essentially has access to all of these "useful-for-just-the-right-moment" scrolls without needing the actual scroll, something that can both be very useful and also saves quite a bit of money in the long run.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion, you haven't understood the point of spell substitution. Spell substitution is about having always the most optimized spell list.That's exactly what I said - it's a safety-net feature that covers you when you didn't pick the right list during your daily preparations.
So it's good, but it's not fantastic like the others.
That feels like such a theorycraft answer. That the thesis is bad because schrodinger's wizard.
In practice, the only way to actually know everything you'll need and precisely in what amount in advance is to be playing an AP you've already read, and therefore the ability to adjust your choices on the fly really is fantastic.
But the forums always seem to really downplay the issues with prepared spellcasting, so I guess it's not surprising how common this position seems to be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But the forums always seem to really downplay the issues with prepared spellcasting, so I guess it's not surprising how common this position seems to be.
For many players, making solid predictions and preparing their spell list is The Game and winning is doing well.
If you dont like that, I highly reccomend playing a sorcerer.
Prepared spellcasting isn't for everyone, and Spell Substitution is a mechanic to kindof bridge the gap and make it more forgiving. That can feel like a crutch if you are in the class for Prepared Casting.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even now in AoA campaign I'm in even the guards are level 12 which requires a 6th level slot for incapacitation to work.I'm confused by your wording as it seems to be indicating you think the incapacitation trait gives a creature full immunity to an effect if they are above a particular level, when the reality is that they have improved results.
I see an encounter listed as Severe 12 in volume 4 of Age of Ashes which I'll use as an example. The caster has a spell DC of 31, and like casting color spray. The encounter has a level 13 monster with a +23 save, and 3 monsters that are level 10 with a +19 save.
Whether the caster uses a 1st-level color spray, or a 6th-level color spray, the level 13 monster has the same possible resulting outcomes: rolling a natural 1 means being stunned 1, blinded for 1 round, and dazzled for 1 minute, rolling a 2-7 means being dazzled for 1 round, and rolling an 8+ means not being affected. I don't think the 35% chance of a favorable result is worth a 6th-level spell slot, but I'd definitely be willing to toss a 1st-level slot and hope for good luck.
But with the level 10 monsters, the outcome differs depending on which level the spell is cast at. But even a 1st-level color spray still means: rolling a natural 1-2 means being stunned 1, blinded for 1 round, and dazzled for 1 minute, rolling a 3-11 means being dazzled for 1 round, and rolling a 12+ means not being affected: That's a 55% chance of a favorable result, so that's definitely worth a 1st-level spell slot in my opinion.
And kicking it up to a 6th-level slot to make it so that those 10th-level monsters have a 10% chance of being stunned for 1 round and blinded for 1 minute, 45% chance of being stunned 1, blinded for 1 round, and dazzled for 1 minute, 40% chance of being dazzle 1 round, and only a 5% chance of being unaffected feels very worthwhile to me too.
Which is why it can be dangerous to think of incapacitation in terms of "the guards are...
I have not seen many encounters with 10 monsters in one area grouped up for a 15 foot cone. In a 15 foot cone you could fit at most 6 medium creatures. You have little to no chance of fitting 10 monsters.
You're using white room math to paint a situation that is at best extremely rare. Mostly the situation where you to get unload on 10 creatures perfectly placed for maximum doesn't happen. I have seen maybe one area with even five creatures in it. 10 relatively equal level creatures would be quite a deadly encounter to a PF2 party, even the martials much less a caster who would get destroyed.
White room math isn't how it works in the game. I know with absolutely certainty the above situation you painted has not occurred once in the AoA AP. Not even close to once.
Lightning Raven.
PF1 allowed a Wizard to prepare individual spells in 5 rounds using 2 feats, while still keeping your familiar. Alternatively, you could grab one feat to prepare partially prepare 2 spells in one slot, than finalize it as a full round action (3 PF2 actions): One more feat and you could finalize them as a standard action (1-2 PF2 actions).
The metamagic thesis is nice and different (it was a pair of Arcanist Exploits). But the previous wizard could have 5 free metamagic, more than enough.
Familiar thesis is nice because the new abilities for Familiars. But familiars themselves are very debated and depend heavily on the GM. Not to mention whether improved familiars are even possible.
Spell Blending's ability to get higher level spell is really is unique and a great. However, PF1 had abilities that let you split a spell slot in half, not down to cantrip.
Well, I'm point was just saying that Wizards are still pretty strong, although I would like them to have more meaningful feats (Spell Penetration just hurts my soul to chose, for example). But Wizards were indeed nerfed because they were really insane previously and now that they're more in line with other classes, the difference is felt the most because of the stark difference between God Tier that could summon hordes of monsters easily while creating demiplanes with a Standard actions. Hell, just look at the "Painter Wizard" build that is perfectly legal, that's just beyond absurd.
I'm glad the Wizards were taken down a notch (A big one, I'll not deny), but I will be the first to say that they're in dire need of more interesting Class feats, I also can't wait for the new thesis (hopefully I can finally play with a Magus).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
3 - I've not used summons, but I've read some discussions on them and looked at their actual statblocks. What I found was that because of how attack bonuses for NPCs scale vs players, they're not as far behind as you'd think and are still useful.
I'd like to see math on this. What I've seen on the math, very few are effective in the encounters where you would use a summon in your highest level slot. Maybe this will be fixed with other books as it was in PF1.
4 - Druid shapechangung works fine in combat. The spells are tightly tuned to provide you with viable attack, damage and defensive numbers that are functional relative to Martial Progression of your level, with a good variety of traits and utility.
Druids are fine. This thread is specifically to discuss wizards. Are wizards effective with shapechange spells?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
For many players, making solid predictions and preparing their spell list is The Game and winning is doing well.
If you dont like that, I highly reccomend playing a sorcerer.
Prepared spellcasting isn't for everyone, and Spell Substitution is a mechanic to kindof bridge the gap and make it more forgiving. That can feel like a crutch if you are in the class for Prepared Casting.
I'm not disagreeing with that. Just with the assertion that it's an objectively bad ability because you can always just prepare the right spell instead, because a game where you never need to adapt to situations because you always know exactly what's coming up ahead is both unrealistic and sounds kind of boring too.
Frankly, it's just a recurring theme in all of these threads to sort of brush aside the actual mechanics of Wizard spellcasting and act as though a Wizard will know every spell they need to and always have the right one prepared, which is just completely removed from how the class actually works and needs to be called out.
You could probably also question whether or not it's good design in the first place because if that's such a central underpinning of the class it sort of homogenizes it in a way that PF2 has ostensibly been trying to otherwise move away from, but that's sort of a side topic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is not my experience. It applies on almost every solo creature from bosses in groups to solo creatures that you randomly fight. Even now in AoA campaign I'm in even the guards are level 12 which requires a 6th level slot for incapacitation to work. It often feels like your lower level spells barely work for any great effect other than damage.Lower level spells should not generally be Incapacitate spells...but there are lots pf options besides that and damage. There are obviously lots of utility spells, but also several good debuff control spells (for example, Slow) do not have the Incapacitate trait. 3rd level Slow is a great spell to keep around vs. high level solo boss monsters for precisely that reason, and that's just one example.
It may be the only example. The slow spell and fear are the main two that seem to maintain their effectiveness even in a low level slot. Both are accessible to the bard who has superior one action options to the wizard.
Remember, this is not a general caster discussion. This is a specific discussion on wizards.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just use Chain Lightning on them and deal 383 damage in a single spell (3 crit fails and one fail) like my Wizard friend did. Lower level enemies have a really high chance of failing and a good chance of a critical failure, if there's someone intimidating them as well (AOE stuff like Terrifying Howl or Dragon's Roar) then this gets even worse for them. You throw an AOE in them and you're going to "incapacitate" them much better than using single target incapacitation spells, they exists mainly so that you have to use your best slots against higher level enemies (which you're prone to do anyway).
For example, if you're level 12 you will fight some minions that are level 8 to 10 requiring 4th and 5th level slots to affect with incapacitation spells. And these lower level minions often are easily killed, less of a threat, and often not worth using incapacitation spells against.
Chain Lightning, Fireball, Phantasmal Calamity... they're all amazing.
The way saves progress and the addition of critical failures on spells saves interacts in a way that really has to be experienced to be understood - it has given AOE blasts a niche for dealing with groups of enemies that feels a lot better than it has before.
My bard loves Phantasmal Calamity and Phantasmal Killer. He does those while using Dirge of Doom. Works great. Wish the wizard had options like that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My bard loves Phantasmal Calamity and Phantasmal Killer. He does those while using Dirge of Doom. Works great. Wish the wizard had options like that.
Options other than using Demoralize and then those exact spells, you mean?
Its literally the same trick, except that you're not using one of the Bards iconic features they traded 2 top level spells compared to the wizard for.
And its capable of being better if you go all in on Intimidate...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can we please drop discussions of PF1 Wizards? What is relevant is that PF2 Wizards feel bland and uninteresting compared to pretty much any other PF2 class (except maybe Alchemist, also known as Potion dispenser).
Thesys and Schools are the real deal, and dedications enhance your gameplay well
As someone who played a Wizard for significant amount of time, saw a bunch of other Wizards being played, and in general played around with Wizard designs - no, they really don't. They're almost forgettable and you can rarely tell which Thesis a Wizard has without them explicitly telling you.
Compare this to say a Druid, where it will be quickly obvious which Order they are.( we are currently playing with an alchemist with wizard dedication, and the difference between a pure alchemist or an Alchemist fighter/barbarian is huge ).
So, the way to differentiate from Alchemists is to multiclass? Got it.
Druids are fine. This thread is specifically to discuss wizards. Are wizards effective with shapechange spells?
Spell-for-spell, just as effective as Druids, except Wizards don't get combat shapeshifting until character level 7 (and miss some of the later ones).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So far we've played up til level 8 and yep, the Wizard is a failed class - considerably less effective than any martial.
This is legitimately hilarious to me to read. Actually funny.
Wizards are almost certainly the best casting class after bard due to versatility, raw spell slots, and access to the Best Spell List.
And my experience with an Arcane Sorcerer tells me all of your specific spell based complaints are laughable. All of these are way more impactful than you imply, and complaining that dealing 80 damage 'feels bad' because it doesn't feel impactful is straight up ignoring a legitimate contribution so that you don't have acknowledge the inherent power of dealing that much damage.
Arcane casters are amazing, make amazing contributions to their party, devastate encounters, and generally carry the party on their back if they're allowed to do so.
Spellcasters in general end encounters with one spell less than they did before... though, lets not pretend its impossible. I've seen fireballs and chain lightnings take an encounter instantly to trivial when they wipe out half the mooks in the opposition, and I've personally won an encounter on the first action with a Calm Emotions.
I can't actually count the number of obstacles and encounters overcome simply by casting Invisibility Sphere, Dispel Magic, or Clairvoyance.
Spellcasters in general remain amazingly powerful when used correctly, and Wizards are by the numbers almost certainly the best - Bards only win out in my estimation by completely breaking the math of the game for the low low cost of one action a turn (sometimes, lingering composition exists).
Addendum - Stubbornly refusing to acknowledge the value of the class and its contributions does not erase them. Wizards (and spellcasters) are objectively awesome. If you can't have fun playing one, the problem is not the class.
So you're saying that at higher level the wizard gets much better? This is what I'm wondering.
Zapp has watched a wizard to level 8. What level does the wizard start to shine like this because it certainly isn't up to lvl 8 as those are not spells you slot with a lvl 8 wizard.
I've only played a wizard to lvl 5 before I gave up on him. He wasn't fun up to lvl 5. I had no idea how to build him. I looked a the wizard feats and went "meh." Then I changed to the bard who had much better feats.
I did watch a lich wizard decimate a party with his spell list. It was quite impressive. His direct damage on a failed save was untouchable by a martial. His round of damage with chained lightning was nearly 300 points, maybe more due to two critical fails on saves.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Options other than using Demoralize and then those exact spells, you mean?
Its literally the same trick, except that you're not using one of the Bards iconic features they traded 2 top level spells compared to the wizard for.
And its capable of being better if you go all in on Intimidate...
It really doesn't. Automatic success is much better than a small chance for critical success.
Also, Bard can easily go all in on Intimidate too, and they'll be better at it since they are Charisma caster.
Options other than using Demoralize and then those exact spells, you mean?
Its literally the same trick, except that you're not using one of the Bards iconic features they traded 2 top level spells compared to the wizard for.
And its capable of being better if you go all in on Intimidate...
It really doesn't. Automatic success is much better than a small chance for critical success.
Also, Bard can easily go all in on Intimidate too, and they'll be better at it since they are Charisma caster.
Check the actual success chance for a Wizard focused on Demoralize. Frightened 1 is not unlikely, Frighted 2 is not especially hard. At 15, Frightened 2 becomes the norm with Scare to Death.
And yes, of course a Bard is superior in its area of expertise. They have half the top level spells.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
But I’ve never seen comments claiming druids, for example, are a “failed class” because their “cantrips are a joke”, or that bards are like accountants because they focus on buffing and debuffing. Those who dislike the nerf to spellcasters always single out wizards. If I had to guess why, I’d say most detractors are familiar with 1E and wizard class’ widely-acknowledged status as God-tier OP. They notice the 2E change but don’t understand the why and how of the wizard nerf.To be honest, I think Wizards are the ones that feel the spellcasting nerfs the strongest, even without directly comparing the class to the PF1 version. That is, because the other casters all have more unique things to define them. Bards have their Compositions, Druids can have Wildshape or Animal Companion, and even the ones who don't still have medium armor and can use shields, Clerics have their domains, Divine Font, Warpriest can have a bit of martial ability, etc. Wizards just... cast things.
They sacrifice having any other significant features to just "cast good", while also being a 6 HP class with the worst proficiencies in the game. Even their feats, at least most of the good ones, generally give you... more spellcasting. When 90% of your power budget is spellcasting, spellcasting being nerfed feels bad. This is also why I think Wizards in this edition are, while not necessarily bad, utterly boring. The class has been defined as just having a better spell list for so long that now that they don't have that anymore they're just... kinda there.
(Just to be clear, I do agree with spellcasting being nerfed, and I also agree that Wizards shouldn't just have a better spell list by essentially nerfing everyone else's. The issue, for me, is that they didn't manage to give the class an interesting identity after taking those things away).
This is more my experience playing the wizard.
1. Cleric very useful. Super healing powers. Can do martial damage and build for a decent AC while casting. Can get a decent weapon and has the option to use it as a one action option.
2. Druid. Can use weapon. Decent armor. Access to a shield and shield block. Can obtain an animal companion that doesn't require a summon. Nice focus spells. Druid feels very solid.
3. Bard. Compositions varied and useful only requiring one action. Good spell list. Nice feats allowing good skill use and the ability to alternate spells.
4. Sorcerer: Variable builds with different spell lists. Some decent one action options like drain life or elemental toss. Nice damage boosting feat to direct damage spells. Interesting focus spells. Lots of room to make strange character concepts.
5. Wizard. Low level is very painful. Not sure which Arcane Thesis is best. Familiars aren't particularly useful. Changing out spell slots not particularly useful early on. Metamagic is extremely limited. Limited one action options with only one focus point. Metamagic not the most useful. Using one action to reach a cantrip not the most fun option. Lower level spell list doesn't particularly stand out as better compared to Divine, Occult, and Primal spell list. Not sure it even stands out much at higher level.
Wizard feels very underwhelming. There doesn't seem like much to build towards another class can't do better. The Undead bloodline abilities seem much cooler than the Necromancer wizard. The elemental bloodline sorcerer seems much cool than the evocation wizard.
The wizard seems like it gets better at higher level, but is it enough better to counter what other high level casters are doing?
A storm druid gets a high level feat that allows them to summon a storm that for allows them to summon a 10d6 lightning bolt every round for one action after sustain with Effortless Concentration.
The sorcerer gets to add Dangerous Casting to the damage of all his AoE spells without a duration. And some of his focus options like Drain Life and Elemental Toss further add to the ability to nova damage in a round.
Bard has a bunch of composition options that buff the party or debuff the enemy with no save. Wizard has to cast a spell with a save to do the same or spend a limited focus point. Bard does it all day. The Occult Spell list is pretty nice. And they can leverage perform for other skills or Bardic Lore to recall knowledge.
It seems like there isn't much of a reason to play a wizard. Sure, they will do useful things now and again. But it seems other casters can do more useful things more often. When my undead bloodline sorcerer was healing the healer to keep the party from wiping, that seemed a lot more useful than if a wizard would have been tossing some minor damage or hoping a fear landed.
No one is saying the wizard isn't a viable class. I think even Zapp will admit the wizard is playable. At the same time the wizard seems like a bottom tier class that doesn't allow for much interesting customization and doesn't bring much to a group other classes can't do equally well with better customization options.
I hope this changes with additional books. I get people hated the wizard in PF1 because of the god-mode wizard. I sure would like a wizard that was more fun with options that don't make me look at some other class and go, "This is nice, but this sorcerer does direct damage a whole lot better than the wizard" or "I'd much rather have an animal companion than a familiar. And look at that, the primal spell list has great direct damage like the arcane spell list."
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The class has been defined as just having a better spell list for so long that now that they don't have that anymore they're just... kinda there.I'll reiterate this because it may have been lost in other statements - Arcane is still the 'best' spell list. It has elements of everything, along with sharing some of the best effects in the game on other spell lists.
All Arcane doesn't have, really, is healing.
Healing is quite powerful in PF2, especially given how hard everything hits. Every spell list has healing but the arcane list.
Even diseases, poisons, and curses are not to be laughed at any longer. Being able to remove them is a big deal.
The class has been defined as just having a better spell list for so long that now that they don't have that anymore they're just... kinda there.I'll reiterate this because it may have been lost in other statements - Arcane is still the 'best' spell list. It has elements of everything, along with sharing some of the best effects in the game on other spell lists.
All Arcane doesn't have, really, is healing.
Healing is quite powerful in PF2, especially given how hard everything hits. Every spell list has healing but the arcane list.
Even diseases, poisons, and curses are not to be laughed at any longer. Being able to remove them is a big deal.
Yes, and?
The Arcane List has to compromise somewhere, and that compromise is only meaningful if its giving up something that matters.
It does pretty much everything else, and has the best access to damage types of any spell list by far.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Check the actual success chance for a Wizard focused on Demoralize. Frightened 1 is not unlikely, Frighted 2 is not especially hard. At 15, Frightened 2 becomes the norm with Scare to Death.
Hardly "norm", just depends on the target. Enemy is just as likely to have a high Will save, especially you know, enemies your level or higher that you actually want to hit with a single-target spell.
I have experience with Intimidate-build characters. It can be nice but nothing you can rely on. And again, anything Wizard can do in this respect, Bard can do better. But also just flat out guarantee Frightened 1.
And yes, of course a Bard is superior in its area of expertise. They have half the top level spells.
... Oh, yes, half the top spells. I'm done, you win, Wizard is OP as ever.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... Oh, yes, half the top spells. Play a game a bit and see how much that gets you.
33 levels (13, 20) GMed in 2E, and 4 levels fully played as a spellcaster.
Spellcasters carry parties.
Theres nothing at all from Martials that competes with the utility and power granted by magic, or which can approach their ability to disable targets and deal damage to multiple targets or foes with weaknesses.
There is nothing that replaces the sort of zero risk encounter negation you can pull off with invisibility sphere, dispel magic, clairvoyance/prying eye, illusory object/creature, most of the walls, fly, teleportation, etc.
A well placed nuke can reduce certain encounter profiles to effectively dust, and Arcane gets the most comprehensive list.
Martials can melt healthbars and gained a lot more utility than they've had before, but casters are still the grease that makes the Party run.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My bard loves Phantasmal Calamity and Phantasmal Killer. He does those while using Dirge of Doom. Works great. Wish the wizard had options like that.Options other than using Demoralize and then those exact spells, you mean?
Its literally the same trick, except that you're not using one of the Bards iconic features they traded 2 top level spells compared to the wizard for.
And its capable of being better if you go all in on Intimidate...
Demoralize isn't AoE with no save or skill roll. You give up those spells because Dirge of Doom is extremely worth it.
-1 on saves, AC, all DCs, and checks in a 30 foot emanation for one action. Give the wizard some of that please. He'll give up a feat slot for that.
My bard loves Phantasmal Calamity and Phantasmal Killer. He does those while using Dirge of Doom. Works great. Wish the wizard had options like that.Options other than using Demoralize and then those exact spells, you mean?
Its literally the same trick, except that you're not using one of the Bards iconic features they traded 2 top level spells compared to the wizard for.
And its capable of being better if you go all in on Intimidate...
Demoralize isn't AoE with no save or skill roll. You give up those spells because Dirge of Doom is extremely worth it.
-1 on saves, AC, all DCs, and checks in a 30 foot emanation for one action. Give the wizard some of that please. He'll give up a feat slot for that.
The cost for that is 1 feat and 1 spell of every level and 2 spells at top level.
Wizards can't be as good at bards with free at will abilities, their class feature is Magic.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
... Oh, yes, half the top spells. Play a game a bit and see how much that gets you.33 levels (13, 20) GMed in 2E, and 4 levels fully played as a spellcaster.
Spellcasters carry parties.
Theres nothing at all from Martials that competes with the utility and power granted by magic, or which can approach their ability to disable targets and deal damage to multiple targets or foes with weaknesses.
There is nothing that replaces the sort of zero risk encounter negation you can pull off with invisibility sphere, dispel magic, clairvoyance/prying eye, illusory object/creature, most of the walls, fly, teleportation, etc.
A well placed nuke can reduce certain encounter profiles to effectively dust, and Arcane gets the most comprehensive list.
Martials can melt healthbars and gained a lot more utility than they've had before, but casters are still the grease that makes the Party run.
This is not about spellcasters. This is specifically about the wizard.
Druid: Great class. Having fun playing one. Really contributes in a variety of ways that are important to the game.
Bard: Hands down best buffer in the game. Good spell list. Great to have for social skills.
Sorcerer: So many ways to build. Interesting bloodlines. I feel useful and am carrying my weight in the party.
Cleric: Amazing healer. Can build for combat and feel like a useful combatant. Feats kind of suck, but Cleric is amazing for multiclassing.
Wizard: Very hard to feel useful at low level. Feats don't look great compared to other classes. Schools of Magic pale in comparison to bloodlines. Main utility spells like fly, invisibility, and haste on other spell lists of classes with better customization options. Very hard to find a good reason to play a wizard.
Don't get it confused. Every other caster class and I've played the druid, sorcerer, and bard and watched a few clerics is fun except the wizard.
I won't go as far as Zapp to say the wizard is a failed class if by that he means uplayable. If Zapp means failed class as in bottom tier usefulness, not fun to play, and what it brings to the table can generally be done by other classes better, then I agree with him.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
My bard loves Phantasmal Calamity and Phantasmal Killer. He does those while using Dirge of Doom. Works great. Wish the wizard had options like that.Options other than using Demoralize and then those exact spells, you mean?
Its literally the same trick, except that you're not using one of the Bards iconic features they traded 2 top level spells compared to the wizard for.
And its capable of being better if you go all in on Intimidate...
Demoralize isn't AoE with no save or skill roll. You give up those spells because Dirge of Doom is extremely worth it.
-1 on saves, AC, all DCs, and checks in a 30 foot emanation for one action. Give the wizard some of that please. He'll give up a feat slot for that.
The cost for that is 1 feat and 1 spell of every level and 2 spells at top level.
Wizards can't be as good at bards with free at will abilities, their class feature is Magic.
And when that magic is not as good as a 1 action cantrip that a bard can cast at will over and over again, then that tradeoff is quite worthwhile.
I can set up to Dirge of Doom with Phantasmal Calamity and the results are quite spectacular. A very impressive combination. And that is on top of my party martials also being quite happy to swing at lower AC creatures that are possibly stunned.
I would say Dirge of Doom was the equivalent of a 6th or 7th level spell. I'm happy to cast it over and over again as it is almost always useful for myself and the entire group with a near zero chance of failure.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is not about spellcasters. This is specifically about the wizard.
Druid: Great class. Having fun playing one. Really contributes in a variety of ways that are important to the game.
Bard: Hands down best buffer in the game. Good spell list. Great to have for social skills.
Sorcerer: So many ways to build. Interesting bloodlines. I feel useful and am carrying my weight in the party.
Cleric: Amazing healer. Can build for combat and feel like a useful combatant. Feats kind of suck, but Cleric is amazing for multiclassing.
Wizard: Very hard to feel useful at low level. Feats don't look great compared to other classes. Schools of Magic pale in comparison to bloodlines. Main utility spells like fly, invisibility, and haste on other spell lists of classes with better customization options. Very hard to find a good reason to play a wizard.
Don't get it confused. Every other caster class and I've played the druid, sorcerer, and bard and watched a few clerics is fun except the wizard.
I won't go as far as Zapp to say the wizard is a...
This.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Noticing these threads keep boiling down to the same couple of people who think wizards are useless garbage and needs tons of buffs arguing with the same couple of people who despise wizards and the people who play them.
Wizards are awesome, have amazing utility, and are extremely rewarding to play well.
They trade class features for more magic, though many of their class features are still extremely strong.
But they aren't for everyone. If they aren't for you, try a Sorcerer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
After reading this thread, my feeling is Paizo will likely fix wizards with more books.
I'd still like to see some higher level wizards list their experience.
Wizard was always a slow building class. I think I might concoct some ways to make the wizard's slow build less painful without as big of a payoff.
I also have not seen a discussion of Crafting. Wizards seem like they would be the best Crafters. I'm playing a multi-class wizard right now investigating crafting scrolls. I figure I can craft scrolls of True Strike relatively cheap in batches of 4. If I can craft scrolls cheaply as I level, then that should be helpful. Scrolls using your spell DC and heightening working off level of spell rather than caster should make scrolls a viable way to extend casting power.
I may modify up some cantrips too. I don't like electric arc being the greatest cantrip. I think increasing the damage on cantrips might make life for all casters a little better without breaking anything.
I think the main thing that will fix the wizard as far as fun goes is providing them some some comparable 1 action options either through feats or schools. Perhaps some of their focus spells can be changed into cantrips rather than focus spells, so they can use them at will.
I'm going to look into some modifications as the wizard should be fun to play even at low level. And in my opinion it is not compared to the other caster classes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The slow spell and fear are the main two that seem to maintain their effectiveness even in a low level slot. Both are accessible to the bard who has superior one action options to the wizard.
Remember, this is not a general caster discussion. This is a specific discussion on wizards.
Part of the reason why I think we see so much discussion around fear and slow as great spells is that they are good when you have no idea what you will be fighting and they are on so many lists, so a lot of different casters take them.
Against big brute monsters grease is an exceptional 1st level spell for your entire career and you can use it with forced movement spells and actions to really cause a lot of grief to your enemies. It is useful because it works against single monsters with low Reflex saves and mooks equally effectively.
Unless the GM is metagaming the heck out of the enemy, you can have one medium level shattering gem memorized and one 1st level shattering gem. Use the powerful one when you face a single big enemy and if they destroy it and realize they basically just wasted an action to hurt themselves, you cast your first level one, and they probably leave you alone until there are no other targets worth fighting.
Also air bubble becomes really interesting at the point you can start casting stinking cloud around yourself.
all of these are options a bard can't do and that is just level 1. Level 2 spells for wizards are a little more hit or miss, but you can always heighten level 1 spells to those slots so every spell level up from one starts to fill up with too many good options for that slot rather than too few.
But even more importantly, with the right feats, it is not just your higher level spells that you will have more of than a bard, The bards I have seen in play rarely contribute more than one spell slot spell per combat, or else they are spell broke after two encounters tops. Focus cantrips are absolutely amazing, and counter song is useful in a lot of situations, but there are few every encounter focus point spells in the bard list and you can design an entire combat style around some of the wizard focus spells, like the illusionist and the abjurer.
The cleric will be casting heals all day long, but will also not really be using spells all that often in combat without running out of them. Druids often end up in the position of having to be the party in-combat healer as well, so rarely get to power load their spell selection with enough spells to cast more than one an encounter. Sorcerers and wizards really are the only "every turn" casters and both have their own strengths and weaknesses.
Wizards are probably not for every player and they have changed so much from PF1 that I think there are quite a few wizard concepts from PF1 that probably do play better mechanically as sorcerers, bards or druids right now, and that is probably pretty jar for a lot of folks. But my player loves his abjurer and if the player who started with us a wizard and then flaked had never joined our table, I would have much preferred to be a wizard than the cleric I am now playing. I like the cleric, but the idea that they are "good" with weapons and closing into melee is pretty disingenuous. When I get knocked unconscious, the party is in really big trouble and I think most of the rest of the team is quite happy that the GM decided that the secret god I was worshiping turned out to have a bow for weapon than a melee weapon, so that I am spending a lot less time being a big juicy target for enemy monsters.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The slow spell and fear are the main two that seem to maintain their effectiveness even in a low level slot. Both are accessible to the bard who has superior one action options to the wizard.
Remember, this is not a general caster discussion. This is a specific discussion on wizards.
Part of the reason why I think we see so much discussion around fear and slow as great spells is that they are good when you have no idea what you will be fighting and they are on so many lists, so a lot of different casters take them.
Against big brute monsters grease is an exceptional 1st level spell for your entire career and you can use it with forced movement spells and actions to really cause a lot of grief to your enemies. It is useful because it works against single monsters with low Reflex saves and mooks equally effectively.
Unless the GM is metagaming the heck out of the enemy, you can have one medium level shattering gem memorized and one 1st level shattering gem. Use the powerful one when you face a single big enemy and if they destroy it and realize they basically just wasted an action to hurt themselves, you cast your first level one, and they probably leave you alone until there are no other targets worth fighting.
Also air bubble becomes really interesting at the point you can start casting stinking cloud around yourself.
all of these are options a bard can't do and that is just level 1. Level 2 spells for wizards are a little more hit or miss, but you can always heighten level 1 spells to those slots so every spell level up from one starts to fill up with too many good options for that slot rather than too few.
But even more importantly, with the right feats, it is not just your higher level spells that you will have more of than a bard, The bards I have seen in play rarely contribute more than one spell slot spell per combat, or else they are spell broke after two encounters tops. Focus cantrips are absolutely amazing, and counter song is...
This is the kind of feedback I enjoy. It gives some ideas rather than dismissing concerns or making complaints.
I never thought about air bubble being used like this. It is a reaction spell. So you could cast a stinking cloud with air bubble right around you. Can you do the same with cloudkill? Could be an interesting combination.
You are right about the cleric. We have a battle cleric right now who likes to get into combat and he gets knocked down quite a bit. My undead bloodline sorcerer took heal as one of his signature spells. He often backup heals and gets the cleric back up to use Divine Font. That's why I don't complain about sorcerers too much. You can make some really odd concepts. I'm not used to playing a sorcerer that unleashes good damage, uses spiritual weapon, and can heal. It almost seems like a sorcerer makes a better divine battle caster than a cleric.
The druid is just so versatile. It's the only class where I have to spend a little longer thinking about what I'm going to do in a round. She is a Storm Druid with Order Explorer for an animal companion. She is also a half-elf with Elven Weapon Familiarity who uses a bow. A druid and witch share healing. Then they mix up casting and other abilities. The druid can blow off a focus spell using storm bolt, send in the companion to flank and attack, fire a bow shot, cast a cantrip, heal, cast an attack spell, or pull out a shield and switch to a more defensive stance. I am player who likes tactical options. The druid has a lot of low cost tactical options that you can gain via feats or innate abilities. And the Primal Spell list is probably second best behind Arcane. Druid is just a very good, well-rounded class.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You've completely misread my post. I said three monsters that are level ten, not 10 monsters grouped in a 15 foot cone.
And my point wasn't "you can blast a whole pack of creatures" at all - it was that incapacitation spells still work even if you don't cast them with a high-enough slot level to have that trait not turn on.
It doesn't feel worth it. Combats take 3 or 5 rounds. Using one round of actions to use a weak effect likely to do not much doesn't feel like a worthwhile use of actions.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
As someone who played a Wizard for significant amount of time, saw a bunch of other Wizards being played, and in general played around with Wizard designs - no, they really don't. They're almost forgettable and you can rarely tell which Thesis a Wizard has without them explicitly telling you.
Compare this to say a Druid, where it will be quickly obvious which Order they are.
I agree, both spell school and thesis feel kind of bad right now.
Metamagic thesis is basically just going to give you Reach+Widen every time because those are the most generally useful ones. You can't even take Overwhelming Energy with it until level 20. Why they felt the need to limit it to half your level is beyond me.
Familiar thesis is kind of bad because getting extra familiar abilities is of questionable use. You take the 2, maybe 3, good ones and then what? Familiars aren't really useful for that much unless your DM makes every enemy ignore them because "it's just a cat/dog/whatever" including when scouting.
That leaves.. spell sub and spell blender. I actually like Spell Sub, I got a lot of use out of it in the 6 levels I played AoA. Went in blind, found enemies immune to fire, swapped one of my cantrips to Ray of Frost and my Fireball out. Went into a dungeon, no space for Enlarge, swapped it out. Many other examples like that. It isn't particularly interesting though.
Neither is spell blender, you basically just juice up your low level spells to get higher level ones. Makes you have slightly more nova and slightly less longevity.
Spell school - all the initial wizard focus powers are somewhere between awful and pretty bad except Hand of the Apprentice IMO. Force Bolt you can get some use out of but it doesn't feel great to cast.
The advanced focus powers are slightly better, but you're waiting until level 8 and burning a feat to get a decent focus spell. Sorcerers run into the same issue with most of their bloodlines but at least some have good initial focus powers.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
It sounds like, ultimately, the problem a lot of people are having is more about the depth and quality of the options, rather than raw mechanical power.
I see a lot of people talking about bland feats, characters that feel homogeneous regardless of build, thesis' that don't feel like they add a lot, focus spells that feel low impact or situational, spellcasting mechanics that can be a pain to work around.
It's not that you can't build a decent wizard, but that the script for 'good wizard' is a lot narrower and more specific than most other classes and in that way the Wizard kind of fails to live up to Pathfinder 2's own design standards.
The good news I guess is that those are things that can, hopefully, get fixed over time naturally as more options are developed and Paizo gets a better handle on what they want to do with the game.
Really interested in seeing what the APG has to offer for Wizards.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't feel worth it. Combats take 3 or 5 rounds. Using one round of actions to use a weak effect likely to do not much doesn't feel like a worthwhile use of actions.
That is what it boils down to, you don't like the feel of it. Nothing anyone says will change your feelings on this because it isn't about functionality it is all about feel.
And that is fine, but there is not likely anything that can be done about that in the short term. Wizards are great because they are flexible, their feats may seem boring to you but extremely exciting and fitting the thematic role to others. Sure other classes specialise a bit more but it isn't like that makes the wizard weak in comparison as PF2e rewards diverse functionality quite a lot.
As for summons, they are functional in the top two spell slots but lower than that suffers pretty hard sadly. Swallowing a -1 to -4 isn't too hard and dice entropy has such a big effect that it won't cripple the option. But it needs to be treated as a single action that you can use to gain two other actions imo, triggering weaknesses with summon elemental for instance.
The real issue I see with it is when classes choose it and are left with dead spell selection unless they replace them. And that can feel really bad.
Personally I would have rathered Paizo leave combat summoning out of the game until they introduced summoner and maybe a summoning archetype that granted it via class feats and used class feats to advance their summons. But we are at where we are at.
Regarding transformation spells, they can work well but personally I have houseruled a scaling attack bonus equal to level. You do that with the following formula ATK bonus = Forms attack bonus - ((spell level x 2) - 1).
AC scales, I have no idea why ATK doesn't.