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.
Nope. It's about spell list optimization.
I'll take an example. Let's say your best spell list is Fireball, Lightning Bolt, Dispel Magic and Fear. You cast Fireball. Now, your spell list is Lightning Bolt, Dispel Magic and Fear. It's no more the most optimized spell list but the remnants of the most optimized spell list. The most optimized 3-spell spell list could be Fireball, Lightning Bolt and Dispel Magic. With Spell Substitution you can substitute Fear for Fireball while refocusing and you now have the most optimized spell list again.
Also, with Spell Substitution you optimize your spell list for one encounter. For example, let's say you're heading to the big dungeon. You may choose to take Fireball x 2 and Lightning Bolt x 2, which is not the most optimized 4-spell spell list but twice the 2-spell spell list. With Spell Substitution, you keep the most optimized spell list because you'll never lack Fireballs nor Lightning Bolts.
Spell Substitution is about spell list optimization.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But if the "best thing" is to end up casting fireball 2x, lightning bolt, and dispel magic - you can just prepare that set of spells and not use the thesis feature.
Both of your examples a person could have just prepared the end result instead of utilizing the swap feature, and that's the point I was making - you only use the feature if you both A) actually have the spell that you want in your spellbook, and B) didn't prepare as many of that spell as you ended up wanting.
Well, if you prepare 3 Fireballs because you know you'll roll high on initiative during 3 decisive fights with many enemies then you and I have to talk (I have some questions about the lotery numbers). Even if you have read the adventure beforehand you can't know exactly what spells you'll need as there's an element of luck involved. So you prepare the most accurate spell list you can. With Spell Substitution you can adapt your spell list during the day and have quickly a more optimized spell list than with other theses.
The use of Spell Substitutions is having combat spells prepared. But getting utility spells when needed.
It is not about switching combat spells. Although that can happen.
That's the inefficient use of Spell Substitution. It just saves you a few coins on scrolls.
Substituting spells all the time gives you way more versatility.You edited. Substituting spells can be done while refocusing, so it's one free substitution after every fight. And you often have 10 extra minutes every now and then while your fellow comrades use Medicine. You can substitute a lot without slowing the pace much.
Switching out combat spells is absolutely a thing; and a great reason to scout the enemy beforehand.
Unrelated; A “hidden” feature of spell substitution is the ability to prepare utility spells that you think may come in handy and swap them for combat spells later if you’re running low. Taking a gamble like that can be really hard to justify otherwise.
So now we’re arguing that the ability to make an informed decision is bad because you might make the wrong decision? This is getting pretty silly.
And for at least the 4th time: I'm not saying the ability is bad
This doesn't really matter all that much. People aren't strawmanning you - your arguments against the thesis can be responded and rebutted regardless if you think the ability is bad or if it's simply worse than all other available options. I happen to disagree with both of those statements, and a lot of arguments you've brought up in defense of that position have not reflected my play experience in the least.
Keep in mind none of this is aimed at your play experience, just the more theoretical arguments you've presented for spell substitution being a lesser option.
-----------------------------------
More on topic; the main thing I'm missing from 2E wizards is greater school diversity. For a lot of other classes, they have feats and features to make a lot of builds possible. One example being the sorcerer "evolution feats", that together with other factors can really make two sorcerer builds feel super different imo. For wizards, I feel like the only way to really differentiate yourself past level 1 is being either a school wizard or a universalist, and I would love to see greater diversity between school. School-specific feats would probably "complete" the class for me.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The theoretical Wizard with access to all the spells, all the time to prepare, perfect knowledge of enemies, and always the right number of slots. They are the epitome of versatility.
The actual Wizard will have limited access to spells, limited spells per day, limited time to prepare, limited info on enemies (unless the GM literally tells you ahead of time), limited ability to get new spells, etc. They are the most restricted and GM dependent class in the game (outside Alchemist).
Quoted for truth.
Versatility is only as good as it can be applied. If the adventure, AP and/or your GM is rather secretive about any challenges or encounters you might face you will usually tend to memorize a list of generalist spells which are likely to work in every situation and all the versatility to use (highly) specialized spells and effects (if you have access to them at all) goes down the drain really fast. You simply can't make informed decisions if you are not informed in the first place.
Note that I do not rate wizards as mechanically bad, however they do seem to have a problem thematically. For example our universalist wizard (who unarguably made some bad choices about feats and spell selection early on) is currently (just upped to level 7 at the end of our last session) more remembered for identifying and crafting stuff and passing knowledge checks than for his spell power.
Note that I do not rate wizards as mechanically bad, however they do seem to have a problem thematically. For example our universalist wizard (who unarguably made some bad choices about feats and spell selection early on) is currently (just upped to level 7 at the end of our last session) more remembered for identifying and crafting stuff and passing knowledge checks than for his spell power.
This "thematic" issue is almost certainly the problem. People have some idea in their head about what their Wizard "should" be doing, which may not reflect what they are actually good at.
I look at arcane casters / wizards as good because -
The destroyed the evil magical macguffin from outside the range of anyone able to perceive them with Stealth and Dispel Magic.
They let the entire party "sneak" past all the encounters that aren't necessary, with next to no chance of failure, with Invisibility Sphere (and knew which foes to avoid this on because Geniuses).
They trivialized the Dungeon because they mapped the whole thing ahead of time with Divination, located the boss, and knew all of the threats and the weaknesses beforehand. And sometimes, maybe the AP gives them a scroll of Teleport and they add that to their book - Heloooo Scry and Die.
They had the one copy of the Illusion prepared for when you needed it, and it trivializes the encounter.
Territory of an unusual monster explicitly afraid of a lower level monster for some reason? Does anyone know Illusory Creature? The Wizard - "I will tommorow."
"Were going into the Castle of Undead Goblin Werewolves?" The Wizard - "Let me check my bag of silver bullets."
Plus, oh hey, looks like this room has a dozen mooks in it. The Wizard can creatively adjust those numbers.
Wizard are about having the right tool at the right time, and the right magical tool still defeats a lot of encounters when properly applied.
Edit - Has anyone brought up Heightening? Prepared casters have a significant advantage with Spell Heightening. Its a very significant cost for a Bard or Sorcerer to have an Invis or Illusion that's resilient to a base level True Seeing, but not so for the Wizard. This is a big deal at high levels, as many bad guys don't bother to heighten spells like True Seeing.
Heightening is definitely a big upside for prepared casters. The ability to heighten low-level spells is a substantial mitigating factor for the spellbook limitation on wizards since learning 1st (and other spells at a much lower level than you) level spells and heightening them is dirt cheap later on.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
This "thematic" issue is almost certainly the problem. People have some idea in their head about what their Wizard "should" be doing, which may not reflect what they are actually good at.
Yes. What you seem not to get is that Wizards aren't actually good at anything other classes aren't already better at.
...
Honestly, you're still stuck in PF1 days. All tools available to Wizards are available to at least 2 other classes (BEFORE APG, after which it gets worse). At worst the other classes have to use scrolls instead of using their own spell slot.
The number of cases where Wizard is truly superior to simply having one of the other classes use a few more scrolls is much less than simple advantages that other classes bring with all their additional advantages.Edit - Has anyone brought up Heightening? Prepared casters have a significant advantage with...
Exactly. Prepared casters. Wizard is not at all unique with this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Krispy why does it seem like your wizard has the perfect spell every time?
* How is it that you are getting scrying when its an uncommon spell? Not to mention its a 6th level spell? Clairvoyance cant move and is 4th level, and Prying Eye is a 5th level spell.
* How are you destroying the MacGuffin using Dispel Magic when it just turns mundane for 10 minutes, or outright fails if its an artifact?
* How does invisibility Sphere let you bypass all "unnecessary" encounters when it doesn't block sound or smell and only lasts 10 minutes?
* Are you using Telekinetic projectile to deal silver damage? I dont think that works
No specific traits or magic properties of the hurled item affect the attack or the damage.* The situations where there are a Dozen mooks are 1 in a million and usually related to 6 persons parties, so I dont see how you are fighting that many.
* None of the Illusion spells seem to trivialize encounters given that most of them have minor effects on a successful save. Although I wont deny that they can be very useful.
In order...
Scrying isn't even very good - I also didn't mention that spell. Clairvoyance and Prying eye are amazing, and are both worth casting from your max level slots. Nothing is more powerful than intelligence and tactical knowledge.
The Macguffin in this case is a Hazard/objective in printed adventures which is overcome by Dispel Magic. I didn't pull that example out of nowhere, its a thing and the Dispel Magic option is safer and easier than all the alternatives.
On Invisibility Sphere, did you miss the miss the part in my example about knowing which enemies this doesn't work on? Knowledge skills are part of the Wizard kit. Also, unless the enemy has Smell as an imprecise sense, its not relevant and Sneaking is pretty easy against someone who can't currently see you. Especially since the spell just straight sets your status to Undetected, and only allows enemies to find you by attempting to do so.
Regardless of whether TK projectile works that way (it should, Silver isn't a weapon Trait or magical property), I wasn't talking about literal Silver Bullets. I was talking about the Wizards Metaphorical ability to prepare spells which are particularly effective for threats he knows about ahead of time.
The situations with large number of mooks come up multiple times in printed adventures, maybe not the full dozen, but 7-10 aren't unheard of.
You should read up on Illusions, and when they actually allow saves. Generally, you actually have to interact with them, and there's no reason to interact with that Totally Real Looking Thing in most cases. Aaron the Arachnaphobe (again, published adventure scenario - actual creatures
and creature types obscured to avoid spoilers) isn't going anywhere near that spider to get the opportunity to make a save.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another thing that I really enjoy about seeing the wizard in actual play is that it really feels like the magical academic in PF2 rather than the powerful magic caster of previous editions.
Wizards are very much spell nerds. If wading out deep into spell lists and finding specific situational combos is fun for you, you probably like the PF2 wizard. For example, if you see a caster guide and feel drawn to find ways to exploit the lowest rated spells, PF2 wizard is the right class for you. If you look at spell guides Primarily to find the most powerful spells and which spells to avoid, you are probably better off with a sorcerer or a Druid.
In that regard, the spell schools are deceptive because a lot of people think, “ I want to be the master of illusions” or enchantment, or necromancy, and thus I should be a wizard that specializes in that school. But even in PF1, if spamming the same spells every encounter and doing so with authority was you playstyle goal, you were probably better off playing a sorcerer.
I don’t really get the hatred of PF2 school powers. With A few exceptions, they are more powerful and can be used more often than their PF1 counter parts, and instead of having your selection locked in, as far as what you get, the whole wizard class has its features divided up so you can get more modularity rather than less. In play actual play, between thesis, school AND spell selection, I feel like there is more diversity in the wizard class than any other class. An evoker could go familiar route and select feats to give focus points and restore focus points quickly, so they are regularly blasting with 2 spells per turn. An illusionist with spell substitution and focusing on deception is going to have all of the fun with their creativity. If you want to be a know it all scary and teleport diviner, talk to your GM to see if they are ready for that and willing to help you build towards it. Abjurers make incredible support wizards that most parties will love.
...Clairvoyance is a 4th level spell that is immobile. You are literally spending days if you are mapping a dungeon using that spell...
If you're not on a clock, it may be worth to spend days.
If you are on a clock, it may still be worth it to spend all your slot you can on intelligence gathering, its that good. This isn't controversial, intelligence gathering is a real thing that is super important for dealing with obstacles in game and in real life.
If that is what you meant by MacGuffin you are using it wrong. A MacGuffin is specifically an object that is pushing the plot, its not just any Hazard/Objective.
*checks the published adventure* Nope, nope I got it. And I used the reference correctly.
Knowledge skills are part of the Wizard's kit it still takes actions to recall knowledge.
Uh... yep. And the Wizard is really good at those actions.
The spell makes you undetected yes to anyone not seeking you, but that is what guards are doing seeking for intruders, so they should get a perception check to see if you are all detected.
Thats... extremely debatable. In reality, guards are scrutinizing the people they see and the events they witness, and are bored almost all the rest of the time.
In media, guards are always distracted and bored. Thats more or less their role in narrative fiction - to be distracted while the good guys sneak by or ambush them.
Sometimes you'll have guards that are attentive, but even then its a Sneak check where you're likely following the expert with a +4 bonus for circumstance, because thats what you'd get for awesome cover and Invisibility is absolutely at least that good.
The werewolf example was bad then since there is few things that a Wizards gets that makes fighting them specifically any easier.
Everything is easier to fight if you know what you're fighting ahead of time.
What you described with the illusion spell is not invalidating an encounter. You and your party took grasp of its weakness and used it to your advantage. The spell was really helpful, but the encounter was not invalidated because you all just turned it into a social encounter.
Er, you're agreeing here that Illusions are great? Wizards may not be the only ones with illusions, but they're the class that has access to both Illusions and Fireball, which is pretty great.
Even 7-10 mooks sounds like an excess by PF2 standards which are 1-5, so definitely of the higher ends of creature count.
Sure. Doesn't mean its not handy to have a metaphorical silver bullet in the chamber when it comes up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion, the issue with the Wizard is that there are a few weak options: namely familiar, metamagic and universalist. If you choose these options (especially Universalist), you should really consider playing an Arcane Sorcerer as they have a twice bigger spell list for the same spell power.
The other issue is that these options are the worse when it comes to sustainability. In PF1, sustainability wasn't an issue as you were having an extremely big spell list at high level. But since SF, you have to think about it. Many players think that SF casters need to use a weapon (which is false) so it shows how hard it is to achieve it. And then you have players like Zapp's one who achieve sustainability through cantrips, and I agree with Zapp on this point: cantrips are weak after level 4. A properly built and equipped Wizard achieves sustainability without using cantrips much.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion, the issue with the Wizard is that there are a few weak options: namely familiar, metamagic and universalist. If you choose these options (especially Universalist), you should really consider playing an Arcane Sorcerer as they have a twice bigger spell list for the same spell power.
I chose to play a Universalist because:
1) I don't think the School Focus spells are any good.
2) No school had a spell I like for every single level, so the Universalist Arcane Bond made more sense to me.
3) I think Bond Conservation will be interesting, and that's only for Universalist Wizards.
In my opinion, the issue with the Wizard is that there are a few weak options: namely familiar, metamagic and universalist. If you choose these options (especially Universalist), you should really consider playing an Arcane Sorcerer as they have a twice bigger spell list for the same spell power.I chose to play a Universalist because:
1) I don't think the School Focus spells are any good.
2) No school had a spell I like for every single level, so the Universalist Arcane Bond made more sense to me.
3) I think Bond Conservation will be interesting, and that's only for Universalist Wizards.
#1 is interesting. Most of these are extremely good, if low-key good. Especially any of those that only cost 1 action.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think universalist bond offers a pretty interesting prepared/spontaneous hybrid playstyle. I don’t think it’s a subpar option at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion, the issue with the Wizard is that there are a few weak options: namely familiar, metamagic and universalist. If you choose these options (especially Universalist), you should really consider playing an Arcane Sorcerer as they have a twice bigger spell list for the same spell power.
The other issue is that these options are the worse when it comes to sustainability. In PF1, sustainability wasn't an issue as you were having an extremely big spell list at high level. But since SF, you have to think about it. Many players think that SF casters need to use a weapon (which is false) so it shows how hard it is to achieve it. And then you have players like Zapp's one who achieve sustainability through cantrips, and I agree with Zapp on this point: cantrips are weak after level 4. A properly built and equipped Wizard achieves sustainability without using cantrips much.
Familiars are only weak if you don't make use of them. They are good for yes danger/no danger scouting all the time, and amazing for detailed scouting, saving you spell slots, if you take the speech option. They can deliver potions and alchemical as needed with manual dexterity. Focus point and Spell Battery let you toss more spells out, which is always good to have.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
People have some idea in their head about what their Wizard "should" be doing, which may not reflect what they are actually good at.
Why are you acting like that's not a legitimate problem, though?
One recurring theme in this thread over and over is the Wizard as the generalist problem solver, preparing a wide variety of spells (that apparently always happen to be exactly what you need for every situation and never left with a blind spot) to solve a wide variety of issues.
That's great and all, but it's not (or shouldn't be) the only kind of Wizard.
The game presents all these different specializations, but apparently they're kind of meaningless, because someone who actually thinks their specialist wizard is going to specialize and focus on the thing they want to specialize in is a fool who's playing their class incorrectly.
That sounds like a design flaw to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Familiars are only weak if you don't make use of them. They are good for yes danger/no danger scouting all the time, and amazing for detailed scouting, saving you spell slots, if you take the speech option. They can deliver potions and alchemical as needed with manual dexterity. Focus point and Spell Battery let you toss more spells out, which is always good to have.In my opinion, the issue with the Wizard is that there are a few weak options: namely familiar, metamagic and universalist. If you choose these options (especially Universalist), you should really consider playing an Arcane Sorcerer as they have a twice bigger spell list for the same spell power.
The other issue is that these options are the worse when it comes to sustainability. In PF1, sustainability wasn't an issue as you were having an extremely big spell list at high level. But since SF, you have to think about it. Many players think that SF casters need to use a weapon (which is false) so it shows how hard it is to achieve it. And then you have players like Zapp's one who achieve sustainability through cantrips, and I agree with Zapp on this point: cantrips are weak after level 4. A properly built and equipped Wizard achieves sustainability without using cantrips much.
I don't say that Familiars are bad, I just say that an Arcane Sorcerer has a twice bigger list of spells known for the price of the Familiar.
As a side note, Sorcerers can have familiars, too.I think universalist bond offers a pretty interesting prepared/spontaneous hybrid playstyle. I don’t think it’s a subpar option at all.
A Universalist casts spells from a choice of 3 spells per level. An Arcane Sorcerer casts spell from a choice of 4 spells plus signature spells. And he is fully spontaneous and not hybrid. I hardly think there's any mechanical reason to play a Universalist over a Sorcerer.
People have some idea in their head about what their Wizard "should" be doing, which may not reflect what they are actually good at.Why are you acting like that's not a legitimate problem, though?
One recurring theme in this thread over and over is the Wizard as the generalist problem solver, preparing a wide variety of spells (that apparently always happen to be exactly what you need for every situation and never left with a blind spot) to solve a wide variety of issues.
That's great and all, but it's not (or shouldn't be) the only kind of Wizard.
The game presents all these different specializations, but apparently they're kind of meaningless, because someone who actually thinks their specialist wizard is going to specialize and focus on the thing they want to specialize in is a fool who's playing their class incorrectly.
That sounds like a failure of design to me.
I mean, a wizard who specializes at a thing is pretty good at that thing if you ask me - they can outcast anyone in their field of specialization. 1 more top level spell than a sorcerer, even, right? Drain Bonded item also helps them be more flexible than they'd otherwise be.
Then, their class really isn't focused around making them the 'academic' spellcaster. Thats not really a flaw, thats Wizard design.
I've heard a lot of "Wizards aren't very good." but the reasons why sound a bit flat to me. It sounds like they're not as 'powerful' relative to others as people would like, but they really shouldn't be a Sorcerer or a Bard or a Cleric.
They're the Arcane Caster with the most flexibility, because they've got a list that has everything and enough spellcasting juice to really take advantage.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Uhhhh, yeah there is. That universalist wizard can prepare situational utility spells that the arcane sorcerer doesn't have. Underwater temple? Let me just swap my normal loadout for that. Arcane sorcerer can't do that. Spell substitution gives even more flexibility since they effectively have access to their whole spellbook with only ten minutes of prep time. If you find yourself suddenly needing to be on the Elemental Plane of Fire when you thought you were fighting undead, it's minimal effort on the wizard's part.
While true, it's worth noting that how much of a boon that is or isn't is very much GM dependent. By default, a Wizard is learning the same number of spells as the Sorcerer, they even know fewer top level spells at odd levels (though wizards have more heightening options, obviously). How much more you get than that and what those extra spells are is much more up in the air.
Uhhhh, yeah there is. That universalist wizard can prepare situational utility spells that the arcane sorcerer doesn't have. Underwater temple? Let me just swap my normal loadout for that. Arcane sorcerer can't do that. Spell substitution gives even more flexibility since they effectively have access to their whole spellbook with only ten minutes of prep time. If you find yourself suddenly needing to be on the Elemental Plane of Fire when you thought you were fighting undead, it's minimal effort on the wizard's part.While true, it's worth noting that how much of a boon that is or isn't is very much GM dependent. By default, a Wizard is learning the same number of spells as the Sorcerer, they even know fewer top level spells at odd levels (though wizards have more heightening options, obviously). How much more you get than that and what those extra spells are is much more up in the air.
As note, official AP's (or at least, Age of Ashes) and content DO make available a good selection of Uncommon spells, including some of the more desirable and favorite ones.
That helps quite a bit.
I agree. The APs have been pretty good at that from my experience.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Scrying isn't even very good - I also didn't mention that spell.
Heloooo Scry and Die.
While the name of the spell is technically "scrying" and not "scry," the phrase "scry and die" or "scry and fry" references a tactic from 3.5 and PF1e that combined the utility of the scrying spell with that of the teleport spell, so this seems a little disingenuous.
And unfortunately for wizards everywhere:
Scrying works like clairvoyance, except that the image you receive is less precise, insufficient for teleport and similar spells.
Goodbye Scry and Die
Now you could cast clairvoyance and then teleport to skip 500 ft. of a dungeon. I suppose this is useful for skipping hazards and traps. However, there are two flaws with this approach.
1st - Wizards can't learn teleport unless the DM gives it to them. Nevertheless Krispy, you have probably read more AP's than I have, so I'd be very curious to know how many of them offer players the teleport spell. If the answer is several, I'd be happy to walk back this contention.
2nd- Teleport (and I presume clairvoyance) require you to "identify the location precisely by its position relative to your starting position" which means if you want to skip some hazards to get to the boss, you'll have to know the boss' location within the dungeon. How will you know this? Additionally, how will you know you're skipping hazards and not monsters that will join in the boss fight when they hear a pitched battle, thereby making the entire encounter more difficult than it otherwise would have been?
Now, I'm not saying you couldn't give me a long list of valuable uses for clairvoyance + teleport, but this tactic requires DM intervention (which validates many of the claims up thread that wizard is DM dependant) and isn't even close to as effective a strategy as it was in 1e.
You may think that the 1e comparison means nothing, or that the changes to scry and teleport actually create a better, more balanced game. In both cases, I would lean towards agreement and I thus implore you not to cite "scry and die" as a reason to look at [2e] arcane casters / wizards as good. "Scry and Die," as I understand it, is a relic of 1e and not something that exists in this edition.
_________
Also, to my understanding, spells like prying eyes won't allow you to map a whole dungeon, because the eyes lack any capacity to bypass an unlocked door.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now you could cast clairvoyance and then teleport to skip 500 ft. of a dungeon. I suppose this is useful for skipping hazards and traps. However, there are two flaws with this approach.
I'll answer this in a spoiler box, which no one should read if they're playing published AP's and care about spoilers.
ESPECIALLY if you can't find anything that says that the first line of Prying Eye isn't rules text, meaning you can cast Prying Eye somewhere you can see with Clairvoyance... which appears to legit, unless you're trying to cast somewhere completely sealed to deny line of effect. So far as I can determine, Clairvoyance past the front gate followed by Prying Eye is legit - and my policy is to rule in favor of the players in the case of ambiguity.
From within Clairvoyance range, the deviation on Teleport is manageable (maximum 5 ft.).
This tactic is alive and well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Uhhhh, yeah there is. That universalist wizard can prepare situational utility spells that the arcane sorcerer doesn't have. Underwater temple? Let me just swap my normal loadout for that. Arcane sorcerer can't do that. Spell substitution gives even more flexibility since they effectively have access to their whole spellbook with only ten minutes of prep time. If you find yourself suddenly needing to be on the Elemental Plane of Fire when you thought you were fighting undead, it's minimal effort on the wizard's part.As a side note, Sorcerers can have familiars, too.
I think universalist bond offers a pretty interesting prepared/spontaneous hybrid playstyle. I don’t think it’s a subpar option at all.A Universalist casts spells from a choice of 3 spells per level. An Arcane Sorcerer casts spell from a choice of 4 spells plus signature spells. And he is fully spontaneous and not hybrid. I hardly think there's any mechanical reason to play a Universalist over a Sorcerer.
The Sorcerer has a twice bigger spell list, so the situational spells are already there. Also, scroll of Water Breathing is a thing, for hyper situational spells it's better to have a scroll.
I agree that Spell Substitution is good. I personally think that Spell Substitution + Universalist is overkill, but I agree that it's a valid combination. Universalist reduces the effect of Spell Substitution, as you have to cast twice one of your spells at each level instead of having the choice among your whole spell list.
I'll answer this in a spoiler box, which no one should read if they're playing published AP's and care about spoilers.
Thanks for letting me know!
You'll hear no dissent from me about clairvoyance being a fantastic spell, although I am curious if the first line of prying eyes does allow you to bypass the line of effect rules. Clairvoyance explicitly states that it does, but prying eyes does not. However, I do understand how a DM could interpret the spell to work as you describe.
Clairvoyance does not move. If you are mapping a dungeon using it you are spending multiple spells for it.
The most spells you can get is 3+ arcane school. So you are spending all your level 4th level spells on mapping.
I dont know if you played Rise of the Runelords. But my players so far are calling the dungeon, "doorgeon". Not to mention creatures are not static, you wait and they will change their location.
I've had players engage in 'mapping day' before exploring a dungeon or palace or what have you. It works pretty much any time you're not on a time crunch, and have time to do legwork.
Its extremely worth it.
Even if you are on a time crunch, a couple of Clairvoyance's where appropriate are very powerful.
I didnt say clairvoyance isn't useful. I am saying that tactic is not something that should be relied of.
Its also something that the Bard and Sorcerer could do just as well if not better.
I mean, generally you 'rely' on it when you determine it will be available as a strategy. Its pretty surprising how often its viable, especially since its pretty rare that your enemy realizes they're being scouted since you're doing it from safety.
As far as Bards and Sorcerers go, signature Spells are precious, meaning that Bard's and Sorcerer's are actually slightly less flexible when it comes to using these en masse. Wizards actually have an easier time bringing Clairvoyance at multiple spell levels to bear than they do.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Sorcerer has a twice bigger spell list, so the situational spells are already there. Also, scroll of Water Breathing is a thing, for hyper situational spells it's better to have a scroll.
I'm not familiar with sorcerors, how is their spell list twice bigger than the wizard's?
I agree that Spell Substitution is good. I personally think that Spell Substitution + Universalist is overkill, but I agree that it's a valid combination. Universalist reduces the effect of Spell Substitution, as you have to cast twice one of your spells at each level instead of having the choice among your whole spell list.
I'm pretty sure one can cast a spell, use Drain Bonded Item, then use Spell Substitution to prepare a different spell. So Spell Substitution enhances Universalist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure one can cast a spell, use Drain Bonded Item, then use Spell Substitution to prepare a different spell. So Spell Substitution enhances Universalist.
Don't think so.
Drain Bonded Item doesn't actually give you the spell slot back, it just gives you a 'free' recast on your turn.
I still think Universalist is pretty good, but mostly for the synergy it has with Bond Conservation at higher levels. Probably a decent argument for starting out as a specialist and retraining later, being down a spell slot over a specialist sucks a lot at lower levels when you don't have very many spells to begin with. I mean it's a drag all game long but especially then.
TBH I feel like in general spell schools are really underdesigned, though.
|
|
I'm pretty sure one can cast a spell, use Drain Bonded Item, then use Spell Substitution to prepare a different spell. So Spell Substitution enhances Universalist.Don't think so.
Drain Bonded Item doesn't actually give you the spell slot back, it just gives you a 'free' recast on your turn.
I still think Universalist is pretty good, but mostly for the synergy it has with Bond Conservation at higher levels. Probably a decent argument for starting out as a specialist and retraining later, being down a spell slot over a specialist sucks a lot at lower levels when you don't have very many spells to begin with. I mean it's a drag all game long but especially then.
TBH I feel like in general spell schools are really underdesigned, though.
Oh yeah, you're right about Drain Bonded Item (and spell schools)
IME cantrips help at lower levels, and by 6th level my wizard doesn't usually run out of spells.
Plus I think retraining an arcane school takes a month.
| 2 people 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 comes down to viewing what incapacitation spells can do as a "weak effect"
which maybe the effect I used as my example (an enemy having a 20% chance they can't target anyone with each of their actions for 1 round) is a "weak effect" but other incapacitation spells (especially ones that aren't naturally 1st-level spells) definitely don't have a "weak effect"
Quite a few of them translate to the target loses actions or having severe (but short term) debuffs.
20% chance to miss for 1 round is a weak effect that can easily be provided by an alchemist or alchemical item for 1 minute or longer as a pre-buff item.
That is the gist of the wizard. There are many ways to provide what they provide better than they do it.
| 4 people 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.
When every other class feels worth it, yes, then nothing anyone else says will change it.
When I am having fun playing a druid, sorcerer, and bard with lots of interesting and useful tactical options and better feats and the wizard feels boring and uninteresting, then no one is going to much change my opinion that the wizard feels underwhelming by comparison.
I played a lot of wizards in PF1. Even played a wizard in 5E. I at least made it to level 16 and finished a campaign in 5E even though I didn't like the wizard as much as other classes. I made it to level 5 in PF2. Wizard felt terrible compared to what everyone else was doing and I had nothing I could see to look forward to as I do with every other class. Even their top tier abilities look uninteresting or other classes have the main ones you would take like Effortless Concentration.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The use of Spell Substitutions is having combat spells prepared. But getting utility spells when needed.
It is not about switching combat spells. Although that can happen.
That's the inefficient use of Spell Substitution. It just saves you a few coins on scrolls.
Substituting spells all the time gives you way more versatility.You edited. Substituting spells can be done while refocusing, so it's one free substitution after every fight. And you often have 10 extra minutes every now and then while your fellow comrades use Medicine. You can substitute a lot without slowing the pace much.
Why would you do this? What would motivate you to do this? Why should your most interesting thesis be for something like this?
Is the expectation be that you will always have a reason to switch a spell during downtime? What if there is no reason to switch 70 or 80% plus of the time? Then your thesis is useless?