| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That was not the argument. It was a statement of fact that the ability has an opportunity cost.
Switching a spell has the potential of removing something that might later be useful. So while yes the most optimal use of it is maximizing the combat spells to always have the best spells. The easiest way to use it is what I described of switching out combat spells for utility spells that are needed now, but you might not have a scroll off. (Remember not all Wizards have scroll)
As Nobledrake stated
Theoretical: way more versatility
Practical: fixes the occasional mistake.*********************************
To me it seems like that is the overall theme of how people think of Wizards.
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).
It really doesn't help the feats and thesis are kind of dull.
When the wizard has to wait for other members of the party to scout, bring him back enough information to make Recall Knowledge checks to figure out the perfect spell to swap, then take 10 more minutes swapping out a spell that may only moderately improve your chances of success, does that feel like a very good expenditure of time when the rest of the party can just say "Stop wasting our time , gimp wizard" and go in and mow down the enemy without swapping anything?
Why would a party with plenty of other useful abilities and firepower bother to wait for a wizard to swap a spell when their powers are good enough to not need it?
I have rarely a met a party that would do this other than to maybe let the wizard player feel better about himself like he's some third wheel everyone is bending over backwards to make feel better about himself. Who wants to play that kind of class.
Sure poor little wizard. We'll let you swap out your spells, so you can do a little more damage and feel better about yourself. While the fighter and barbarian are just crushing things without swapping anything out.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
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...
Heightening has not been a problem for my sorcerer or bard. The druid and cleric can heighten as easily as the wizard.
True seeing isn't that great a spell. Sorry. The most dangerous problem you have at high level is invisibility. See invisibility does just fine countering. If some class uses a real high level illusion, you're unlikely to use your highest level slots on a true seeing to counter it giving up high level attack spells and the like to fit in a true seeing unless you somehow know in advance what is going on without engaging the enemy.
This theorycrafting rarely works this way in a actual play.
| 4 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.
Why do Abjurers make that?
Do you rate abilities comparative? A bard gets Inspire Defense, which is in every way better than Protective Ward. It even provides physical damage resistance. It's a cantrip the bard can cast over and over and over again.
If you want a support class, you are far better off going bard or cleric.
The Abjurer wizard must spend a limited focus point, used a sustain action every round, and then spend 5 rounds for a 30 foot emanation that provides +1 status bonus to AC.
The bard has to spend 1 action for a 60 foot emanation that provides a +1 status bonus to AC, saves, and half spell level physical damage resistance.
The math speaks for itself.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
TBH I feel like in general spell schools are really underdesigned, though.
Let's have a look through them
Augment Summoning - This one is pretty trash, not because summons are bad but because it doesn't do anything. Let's assume combat lasts 5 rounds (which is already a generous assumption) and the summon takes 2 offensive actions (i.e. ones that need a check or DC) every time you command it (which it won't for various reasons). That means you have a combat that looks like this
R1 - Summon
R2 - Augment, Sustain
R3-5 - Sustain
In this case, due to summon numbers being <=55%, you only had an 8/20 chance that Augment Summoning actually did anything and because it costs 1 action and sustain costs 1 action, it prevented you casting another spell in the same turn until level 16. I'd think a cantrip often does more than this focus.
Call of the Grave - It's actually not bad, Sickened 1 is kind of ok, but this is like a 2nd level spell equivalent? At some point you just have better spells to cast all the time.
Charming Words - I don't see what this actually does, don't they just use hostile actions against someone else instead?
Diviner's Sight - I think this is another one of those spells that has a huge whiff %. The fact that you need to roll high for it to be useful means at least 1/2 the time it doesn't do anything and in combat it probably whiffs even more.
Force Bolt - It's not bad it's just kinda boring. You get 1 action magic missile (and only 1 action) as your focus power.
Hand of the Apprentice - I think with GP and some feat investment (to get a decent weapon - whether that means an ancestry, general or class feats) this one is actually fairly decent. At least it means you never really have to prepare spell attack slotted spells because this should cover it.
Physical Boost - The bonus from this is actually fairly good but... who is it for? Touch range and the (current) difficulty of being a str wizard makes this extremely difficult to use, and even if you were capable of being a str wizard, being a wizard in melee to leverage acro/athletics is similarly no good. Precasting it to get a ref/fort bonus seems like it's just guaranteed to waste an action. With a reach, trip weapon and the armourer archetype from the APG maybe this could be ok...
Protective Ward - The fact that this starts at 5ft makes it laughably bad IMO.
Warped Terrain - I've seen this cast a few times and it just... hasn't seemed to do anything? For 1 action it literally does nothing 99% of the time. For 2 actions it barely does anything, so you need to cast it for 3 actions to get some use out of it (unless you're in a narrow corridor) as otherwise they can just move diagonally to ignore your focus power entirely.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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!
** spoiler omitted **
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.
I am playing Age of Ashes. I don't see what Krispy is talking about. I have been through four modules. The dungeons and encounter areas are small. Three of them were set outdoors. It has been completely unnecessary to scry and teleport in. It would have been mostly a waste of time to do so.
Encounter areas tend to be small, discrete areas sectioned off into 3 or 6 rooms of encounters requiring no mapping or any real problem getting to them. Maybe this will change in 5 and 6.
My party has no wizard. Has experienced no need to scry or use clairvoyance. The ranger and rogue often scout ahead. Then go in and crush the area.
Scrying/clairvoyance and port in using a 10 minute casting time teleport is unnecessary. You can't use teleport to quickly get out if the combat goes bad. The casting time is too long. Why would you want to spend that slot on teleporting in to a battle where you did not have a clear exit point given you can't teleport out unless you are sure you will win. Teleport is not usable in combat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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...
Heightening has not been a problem for my sorcerer or bard. The druid and cleric can heighten as easily as the wizard.
True seeing isn't that great a spell. The most dangerous problem you have at high level is invisibility. See invisibility does just fine countering. If some class uses a real high level illusion, you're unlikely to use your highest level slots on a true seeing to counter it giving up high level attack spells and the like to fit in a true seeing unless you somehow know in advance what is going on without engaging the enemy.
This theorycrafting rarely works this way in a actual play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
TBH I feel like in general spell schools are really underdesigned, though.Let's have a look through them
Augment Summoning - This one is pretty trash, not because summons are bad but because it doesn't do anything. Let's assume combat lasts 5 rounds (which is already a generous assumption) and the summon takes 2 offensive actions (i.e. ones that need a check or DC) every time you command it (which it won't for various reasons). That means you have a combat that looks like this
R1 - Summon
R2 - Augment, Sustain
R3-5 - Sustain
In this case, due to summon numbers being <=55%, you only had an 8/20 chance that Augment Summoning actually did anything and because it costs 1 action and sustain costs 1 action, it prevented you casting another spell in the same turn until level 16. I'd think a cantrip often does more than this focus.
Call of the Grave - It's actually not bad, Sickened 1 is kind of ok, but this is like a 2nd level spell equivalent? At some point you just have better spells to cast all the time.
Charming Words - I don't see what this actually does, don't they just use hostile actions against someone else instead?
Diviner's Sight - I think this is another one of those spells that has a huge whiff %. The fact that you need to roll high for it to be useful means at least 1/2 the time it doesn't do anything and in combat it probably whiffs even more.
Force Bolt - It's not bad it's just kinda boring. You get 1 action magic missile (and only 1 action) as your focus power.
Hand of the Apprentice - I think with GP and some feat investment (to get a decent weapon - whether that means an ancestry, general or class feats) this one is actually fairly decent. At least it means you never really have to prepare spell attack slotted spells because this should cover it.
Physical Boost - The bonus from this is actually fairly good but... who is it for? Touch range and the (current)...
Augment Summoning should have been a free action. Focus points already limited it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hope Paizo takes in the feedback and reviews the wizard at some point. I think the design team missed on the wizard class. It would improve the game if they accepted feedback after release like video game companies do and adjust after release to improve the experience for wizard players or those that won't play them without some official changes. A class shouldn't be left in a bad position like this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hope Paizo takes in the feedback and reviews the wizard at some point. I think the design team missed on the wizard class. It would improve the game if they accepted feedback after release like video game companies do and adjust after release to improve the experience for wizard players or those that won't play them without some official changes. A class shouldn't be left in a bad position like this.
The fact that you think its in such a bad position is a bit concerning - I'm not clear on what a Wizard class that would satisfy you would look like but it sounds like it would the Best Class, and nothing else would have any features that were better than it - regardless of how appropriate those features were for those classes, rather than a Wizard.
I'm seriously not clear on what you're actually asking for. Their abilities, focus spells, etc. are all fine - they aren't necessarily as good as other classes in those classes areas of thematic specialization, but those classes don't have four/five top level spells per day and access to the Arcane Spell list.
Wizards should be defined by their academic mastery of magic. That's what the class is. You can't give them Bard level cantrips without stripping away things like the spell slots they get instead - the relative lack of spellcasting ability is literally the only thing that even comes close to balancing Bards already.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can't help but notice how easy perfect spell selection is in some of your games, in my games that I run, no degree of player skill is sufficient to fully predict every spell that might come up, and even if they try really hard to recon, there's still going to be some unexpected elements, or obstacles, especially as the situation develops.
Spell Substitution also lets them reconfigure their spell list to readjust their combat to non-combat ratio fairly easily.
I can't help but notice how easy perfect spell selection is in some of your games, in my games that I run, no degree of player skill is sufficient to fully predict every spell that might come up, and even if they try really hard to recon, there's still going to be some unexpected elements, or obstacles, especially as the situation develops.
Spell Substitution also lets them reconfigure their spell list to readjust their combat to non-combat ratio fairly easily.
Spell Substitution is an amazing feature not because its powerful, but because it takes one of the harshest learning curves in DnD for new players (prepared spellcasting) and makes it more forgiving.
It will never be as optimal as getting it right with one of the other Thesis' would be, but it more or less removes the main drawback of being a prepared spellcaster.
I'd recommend it to someone new to DnD who really wanted to play a Wizard in a heartbeat.
For a veteran player who knows prepared spellcasting, its more of 'crutch' - you're more likely to be able to get more out of one of its other options, as well applied they will be strictly more powerful.
The Wizard as a class is better for it existing, though, imo.
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?
I've explained why in a post a bit over the one you quote. And you need to swap nearly every time you cast a spell. At the end of a long adventuring day, you should have substituted nearly your whole spell list.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've got an illusionist wizard in my party (just about to hit level 6), and he's been excellent.
Color Spray has turned the outcome of multiple encounters, and Magic Missile has stopped several badly wounded enemies from fleeing (& calling reinforcements). Preparing nothing but invisibility in his 2nd level spell slots one day was the key to getting the party inside the bandit fort easily.
Illusion spells are really good in this edition; sometimes he uses them for a bit of crowd control (e.g. trapping two little boars in a 'cage' for a round or two, so the party can focus on the boss boar), and sometimes for more plot-based effects (e.g. impressing kobolds by having an illusory black dragon fly down next to him).
He doesn't do the damage of the martial PCs (though lightning bolt sometimes come close!), but they also can't heavily debuff multiple enemies with a single pair of actions either.
The player is slightly annoyed by being the only prepared caster in the game who has to pay gold to access his full spell list, and also has some reservations about spell attack rolls. Illusory terrain hasn't been great, but that's in part because the fights are mostly outdoors, and so any terrain-modifying spell is weaker as you can step around them. But apart from that, it's all going really well.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also find it strange that casters have no hit/dc boosting runes, and also get their proficiency increases later than martials. Why the delay? It can't be that low level casters are too powerful, even the people who think wizards are fine tend to agree that they are weak at low levels.
I actually have an answer for this.
Saves scale slower than AC in the guidelines for monsters (+5 every 4 levels whereas AC is +3 every 2 levels).
Martials get their bonus to-hit 1 level earlier than they need for AC scaling (getting a 5% bonus over their standard at level 5 and 13). Casters, IIRC, get it exactly when the saves would scale to make failure chances 10% below their standard values (this is probably a symptom of the proficiency bumps only being in sets of 2), with the exception of the level 19 bump to legendary which is actually a bonus above expectation.
However, seeing as they tied spell attack bonus and save DC bonus to the same level, spell attacks fall behind expectations for level 6 and level 14.
No spell attack runes seems like an odd choice, but there's very few slotted spell attacks. Most are focus powers or cantrips, and the better focus powers really don't need a +spell attack buff (Elemental Toss, Fire Ray, etc.). For cantrips, the spell attack ones would be the best for damage... if electric arc didn't exist. They're actually roughly on par with single target electric arc (and therefore chill touch).
Spell DC runes would just mean they would adjust the save formula to scale faster, you wouldn't get any bonus out of it. All it would do is screw over gishes who would now need to buy two mandatory items (+spells and +weapons) instead of one. The only concept, currently, that needs to spend money scaling up two essential items are sword&boarders who need to increase both their weapon and shield.
Spell DC runes actually aren't necessary either, the issue becomes crit fail chance. There's only so high you can reasonably push that before it goes back to being a rocket tag game again, and failure chances are already roughly 60% (10% crit fail) targetting the low save on an on-level monster. Increasing that to 25% with a +3 spell DC rune, then adding any save debuff means (IMO) too high % chance to take monsters out of the fight entirely with just one spell. Doesn't really even need to be max levelled, even a crit failed Fear is near fight winning.
Increasing failure chances would require an across-the-board change to spells, such that failure effects are more muted and crit fail effects are definitely more muted. If you already feel that Magic feels weaksauce right now, you wouldn't like how it feels like with a 75+% chance of a monster failing on the low save.
@Bast L
I'm confused by your post. On the one hand, you claim that Wizards are weak. On the other, you say that the Wizard in your party has been performing well - isn't this strong evidence for the reverse? If Wizards look weak on paper but can make it work in practise, that would just make them a good class, no?
Chain lightning, cone of cold, lightning bolt, blast blast blast (boring, crpg wizard). Oddly, disintegrate has been useful, though not so much for damage, rather than taking down enemy caster's wall spells.
Blasting can be good, yes (at least AoE blasting). The ones you mentioned are some great standouts (especially Chain Lightning, which I wonder if it isn't the best blasting spell in the game).
However, my main takeaway with casters running 2E has been that casters can't rely on blasting for powerful single targets. Instead, debuffs and control spells become very strong in these situations. Spells like Slow become very useful against bosses and other powerful foes - and the trick to making these debuffs stick is targeting their weak saves which can often cripple their combat abilities.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I am noticing from this thread is that those complaining about the wizard are not suggesting anything at all to try and “fix” it. They are just raising complaints and countering arguments against those complaints
It was the same in the massive wizards nerf thread from back at launch - or at least up to the point where I gave up on it.
But I think I asked the same question there - what fixes would people propose?
I understand that people on the “wizards suck” might say “what is the point of suggesting fixes when so many don’t think they are broken” - I appreciate that but it is coming at the point from a different angle that might make people think about it differently. Which is why I don’t think it should be solely a homebrew forum point
Also these would need to be wizard only fixes - so nothing to do with half of the OPs original complaints that apply to all spells. Unless the suggestion really is that wizards get to act as one level higher for incapacitation for example (or has a feat for it)
In the interest of at least trying to start:
- All Wizards get Spell Substitution for free. And then pick an Arcane thesis
This allows all wizards to play up the utility role of being able to swap spells in and out as required. This is often cited as the key useful part but is being mentioned as not being as useful when applied day to day compared to hour to hour ?
Also (but less sure here):
- The Wizard retains the first level feat that was errata’d our. They are considered low power and a bit boring but add more flexibility.
Other casters have some front loading of special extra abilities in things like better proficiencies (effectively general feat level), composition cantrips , healing font etc. Wizards extras should be solely magic based in the first instance hence the class feat
Finally:
- Trained in all simple weapons? This doesn’t really line up with the tradition of wizards here. I normally go to “how would someone doing nothing but book learning train with all these weapons”. But to me the same question can be levied as cloistered cleric. That makes just as little sense
Thoughts?
***
Mostly off topic : someone, I think it was Nemo, made a point that a Wizard should be called an Accountant. As an accountant I am not sure if I should be flattered or offended :-P.
I do know I was delighted when it sounded like Accounting was a prominent and actually important skill in Delta Green (modern call of Cthulhu). It was being played by a primarily pathfinder podcast I listen to...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Lanathar
While I'm not in the "Wizards-are-bad" camp, I do have a wizard "fix" I've been advocating for some time now - school-specific feats. School spells are alright (well, at least some of them are pretty cool), but to me they don't differentiate schools enough.
I'd really appreciate seeing stuff like "Aw yeah, because I'm an illusionist, I get to pick up the Tangible Illusion feat, letting me create illusions I can physically interact with!" (Okay, don't know if that feat in particular is a good idea, but it's the "feeling" I think those kinds of feats should invoke).
The lack of differentiation between schools is my greatest issue with Wizards in core.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Lanathar
While I'm not in the "Wizards-are-bad" camp, I do have a wizard "fix" I've been advocating for some time now - school-specific feats. School spells are alright (well, at least some of them are pretty cool), but to me they don't differentiate schools enough.
I'd really appreciate seeing stuff like "Aw yeah, because I'm an illusionist, I get to pick up the Tangible Illusion feat, letting me create illusions I can physically interact with!" (Okay, don't know if that feat in particular is a good idea, but it's the "feeling" I think those kinds of feats should invoke).
The lack of differentiation between schools is my greatest issue with Wizards in core.
I can't agree more.
Wizards and Sorcerers have the smallest selection of feats for an unknown reason. As a result, it's very hard to build a Wizard that is really different from another one.As Wizards and Sorcerers are not on the overpowered side of classes, I hope Paizo will release some very thematic and impactful feats for those classes in the APG. Having access to a feat similar to Dangerous Sorcery should be obvious for an Evoker.
|
|
@Exorcist
Hmm, I've looked before, and I think saves are usually better than AC (it's easier to hit them than to have them fail a save).
First, the roller gets a bonus of needing to hit the mark, so, for example, +10 to hit vs 20 DC, against a 20 AC monster, with a + 10 to saves, you need a 10 to hit, but a 9 to have them fail the save.
Now, I'm not sure of the monster guidelines. The ones I looked at were pretty close to matching AC. Here are the last 10 monsters my party fought:
(had more detailed layout with individual saves, but the forum deletes extra whitespace)AC / avg of saves + 10
34 / 33
30 / 30.33
32 / 35.3
20 / 25
34 / 33
35 / 33.33
33 / 33.33
33 / 32.33
34 / 31.66
29 / 27.33avg total saves + 10: 31.461
avg total AC: 31.4Or basically, right on it. Now, with some good recalls (cheating recalls, since recall isn't about learning saves :), or some good descriptions, you can choose better saves to target (assuming your prepared caster has a wide array of enemy targeting spells that require different saves), but also remember that:
1: the table didn't account for it being easier to hit the enemy than it is for the enemy to fail a save.
2: melee tend to get flanking.
3: three of those monsters had spell resistance (one had +2 to saves against magic, even).
I scraped the AoN monster list a couple of days ago (you can see my post on reddit about it), so when I have a little bit of time I’ll crunch for checking printed saves vs printed AC instead of guidelines. From what I remember of the last time I did this, most monster AC tends to be around “High” whereas Reflex and Will tend to be low-moderate (Fort tends to be High).
Why do...
Except that not everyone will be the best at particular things. Inspire Defense is indeed great, but you need to be a Bard (or multiclass into one) to use it. But you can also be a Wizard and provide defense as well, while having your Wizard flexibility, utility, blasting and battlefield control, things that a Bard would be way less able to do.
You're approaching the game as if every choice must be the very best possible compared against everything else, which must not be. I get that there are some feats and other Wizard aspects that aren't that great, but you also need to remember that having more options is a good thing, so just because an entry Focus Spell isn't better than a higher level Class Feat (Defense is level 2) at that particular benefit, doesn't mean that it must be dismissed and you "might as well play a Bard".
This way, why even bother with other classes in the game? Just play a Fighter for combat and be done with it, their niche is pretty much the most toxic (for the game) they could have, which is "Being the best at combat". Yet, we have other classes that aren't supposed to be as good as a fighter in combat.
|
|
Updated my table with AC and even more info haven't had a thorough look so can't say anything right now.
EDIT: Second table that's a little easier to read added.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My suggestions for minimal invasive procedure would be this:
- Specialists do not give extra spell slot. Instead, when casting spell of your school, you are treated as your proficiency is one tick higher (Trained to Expert, Expert to Master, Master to Legendary); when Legendary, you get +1 additional bonus on proficiency. If spell did not require attack roll or Save from target, double the spell duration. Same for any Arcana skill checks related to your school. This models Wizards specialising in their school. Universalist obviously doesn't get it.
- Pick one opposition school. You may never prepare a spell of that school in your highest level available spell slot, and Arcane Bond does not work at all with that school.
- Simple weapon proficiency. This is just streamlining the game, right now it's silly, restrictive for archetypes, and provides nothing meaningful to the game. Cantrips are way better anyway.
- At least 2 Reaction cantrips, to give Wizards something to do with their reactions.
- More spells that interact with 1-3 actions.
To tell you the truth, I wish they moved away from spell slots; created far more rituals, allowed many spells as 1-minute rituals and made Wizards the best at rituals. Maybe giving them ability to reduce casting times for a number of rituals, allowing the Wizard to prebuff in the morning and move at it that way. Maybe give them ritual with limited contingency?
Limited in the sense that you have very limited set of triggers, and in the morning you can prepare stuff with that instead of casting it at will. Really lean into the Wizards-as-planners.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The reason he's bad compared to the fighter is because blasting, and even debuffing, are really not what a wizard's area of expertise should have to be, and they aren't as effective as simply chopping down the monster.
Debuffs make it much much easier to chop down the monster. The most effective party will have a balance of damage, buffing and debuffing. That level+3 boss does a lot of damage and is hard to hit, even for a party of 4 fighters. Reducing their numbers by 1-2 and increasing your numbers by 1-2 makes it much easier, even if there's only 2 people attacking instead of 4.
Some of the changes to wizards don't even make sense to me. Is there any reason that floating disk, or unseen servant are as weak as they are? That levitate needed a level bump, or that all of the buffs have to be cast in combat? That familiars both seem like an afterthought, and are so transitory (in that they die easily), while also providing very little, by-the-book benefit? Did darkvision need to be self only at level 2? And everything, not just familiars, is so temporary. Deafness only lasts on a crit fail. Contingency is 24 hours. Permanency doesn't exist. Baleful polymorph only lasts on a crit fail.
Is this your definition of "fun spells". Let's see:
- Long-lasting buffs got removed to prevent buffstacking being the optimal strategy. Who cares if the fighter has natively better proficiencies if the wizard can spend some of their spell slots getting +X to all their numbers for the entire day? It's basically the same thing, except the wizard also has other spell slots.
- Darkvision being self-only until a higher level is presumably for the above reason, so there's actually a cost to that permanent buff until very high levels (where the cost of an item that gives darkvision becomes irrelevant as well). Darkvision is currently costing you a heritage, which is the equivalent of a level 2 class feat (compare the resistance ones to poison resistance or look at ancient elf). A level 2 spell and a level 2 class feat are much different in terms of power.
- Floating Disk/Unseen Servant - Unseen servant is still as good as it used to be for... checking for traps. Which is all anyone ever used it for. Floating Disk is a better version of Ant Haul (in terms of weight it can carry) with a slight drawback. And is also a long-lasting 1st level buff (essentially).
- Familiars are kind of lame, I agree, there's like a couple benefits you want and you just forget about them after that. But how much power can you really give them for a 1st level class feat?
- Things only lasting on a crit fail is so they don't autowin encounters a non-trivial % of the time. Baleful Polymorph, Blindness, etc. being long lasting on a fail would basically bring back save or suck, which is what they wanted to avoid this time around so combat doesn't devolve into rocket tag at high levels.
- Permanency is just an ultra long-lasting buff, same issues as long-lasting buffs.
- Contingency is the same and that spell is still good. It's a get out of jail free card and you don't even want it to cost a spell slot?
|
|
7) Bring back Opposition Schools in some way and tie them with some benefit. While yes being worst at casting certain spells hurts versatility; The benefits from such a penalty would allow for characters to be a lot more different and meaningful overall.
I agree with everything except this. Opposition schools are a meaningless drawback. Generally you just ban the school that has the least amount of impactful spells so you don't care about the drawback. They're obviously not going to be balanced for a number of reasons. I'm happy that they're gone because it was so pointless of a mechanical "drawback" in return for what you got for it.
Wizards give up all proficiency and HP to be the best at casting spells. Much like how the Fighters has some of the worst defensive proficiency to be the best at combat.
This isn't necessarily true is it? Out of all the martial classes, it's true fighters have either worse saves (being only M/M/E) or worse AC than the rest, but they have better or equal saves than all the caster classes and alchemist, and they get their AC bumps two levels earlier than the rest of the (non-monk, non-champion) classes.
To tell you the truth, I wish they moved away from spell slots; created far more rituals, allowed many spells as 1-minute rituals and made Wizards the best at rituals. Maybe giving them ability to reduce casting times for a number of rituals, allowing the Wizard to prebuff in the morning and move at it that way. Maybe give them ritual with limited contingency?
Rituals are cool, but rituals as a buffing mechanism are lame. Why do you want prebuffing back? Instead of giving them a spell for better numbers that doesn't cost a slot... why not just give them better numbers? A spell that does so basically just punishes everyone who doesn't take that spell.
I would like some rituals to be 10min cast for some utility spells though, similar to how 5e does them.
| 1 person 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?
This comment to me makes me think that the wizard class just isn't for you. Because Spell Substitution to me is honestly one of the most exciting features in the game. Like, how often will I need spells like Pest Form, Temporary Tool, or Gentle Repose? And a large chunk of the times you'll need spells like that, taking 10 minutes doesn't matter. I love the idea of giving use to less useful spells and never being caught completely unprepared, because a wizard shouldn't be unprepared.
The thesis is definitely worse if you have a GM that doesn't like to give opportunities to learn new spells, but the way I see it is that if a GM knows they should put in a special greataxe to make the barbarian happy then they should be able to know to put a spellbook in to make the wizard/witch happy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dismissing slow because "it's probably saved against" seems a little too hasty to me. Ideally, these spells are aimed at a monster's weak save to prevent just that. A caster often has a decent change to inflict a failed save vs the weak save of a boss monster.
Agree that flanking is a great and low-cost debuff though, and you are right to say it means having at least two martials can be a very strong baseline for flank-&-hits.
|
|
The darkvision comment didn't really address my point. It's a 1 hour buff at second level (and it's not permanent at any level). The issue is, why self-only?
Regarding permanency, it wasn't just to self (could be locations), and it cost money. It was basically a spell form of a magic item, but it could be dispelled.
As for fun spells, I didn't want to give an exhaustive list.
I've complained previously here, which is also not an exhaustive list: https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42ny5&page=15?Did-wizards-get-nerfed#736I'll add, though I think I said it elsewhere before, Dimension Door not bringing friends, or even your familiar, makes it not great.
As for rocket tag, I agree, it was a problem. With martials. They destroyed my bosses in 1-2 rounds in pf1. The wizard was good, but not at doing that. As for save or die (or suck), incapacitate exists. Should it? Was legendary saves from 5E better? Or some other method? I don't know. For me, knob turning is a lot less interesting than qualitative effects. It's nice for the players to actually see the effect of a spell that succeeded, without examining the combat log.
Permanency to locations sounds more like the purview of a ritual. I believe they already said a permanent unseen servant would come with the APG I believe? There's reason to believe you'll get rituals that mimic the effect of permanency'd location spells, they just won't be "as the spell, but permanent".
I meant permanent by "it lasts all day". Thought it was touch at 2nd and scaled differently. That's my bad. No clue why it's self-only at 2nd and touch at 3rd.
I haven't played pf1e, but I have played 3.5 and 5e semi-exhaustively. Martials are useless in both editions (though there's still the argument for needing exactly one martial in 5e). Why? Because a party full of casters can each throw out a spell that renders the boss a cripple. Even with only 40-50% failure chance (in 3.5 it was more like 95% because you just optimise the heck out of your casting stat), the odds are stacked against the boss when it needs to make that save 3-4 times in one turn, after which it can't do anything but slowly get beaten to death. Comparing a martial that is able to one-shot everything to a wizard that isn't crippling all the enemies with an unpassable save is comparing an optimised martial to an unoptimised wizard. And remember, the martial sank their entire build into being able to one-shot things, the wizard could still decide to do something else tomorrow.
Healing between combats via medicine is already the method of preventing buff stacking. You need to stop sometimes to use medicine. It would have allowed for a choice, but now there is none. No reason to rush on, stop and medicine up. Also, most buffs wouldn't be all day. An hour, maybe, or tens of minutes. Something other than 1 minute. The main issue with buffs isn't always even the spell slot, it's the two actions you have to use for each of them, for a fight that lasts maybe 4-5 rounds. There has to be some reasonable middle ground between buffs only lasting one combat, and buffs lasting all day.
This is valid, I'd like to see the "Break between fights" section expanded a bit more on stuff you can do. Make the choice between healing between fights, repairing stuff, refocusing and all the other goodies more of a choice rather than "1 person takes medicine, everyone else sits around, maybe one person searches". But having 1hr+ duration buffs isn't a solution to this problem. There's no choice to make, you just cast them at the start of the day to get a numbers bump. 10 minute duration stuff? It's a bit more interesting, it can last multiple combats if you choose not to take a break. Perhaps a few 1 min spells could stand to be bumped up to 10min.
I will agree that, numbers-wise, the game works (or has for me, as long as we have a martial and a cleric). But the magic is gone, and casters are mostly just weaker, different color martials (their damage is green, instead of red). And I have to say, the auto-regen between fights makes it feel all the more like a video game.
It's a fundamentally unsolvable issue without going even more video-gamey. People lose HP, and they don't want to go into the next combat with 1/2 HP, so they want to take a break. Creates the 15 min adventuring day, how do you solve this?
- 1) Tie resource refreshment to # of encounters, rather than anything time based. The 13th age method. Works, but feeels incredibly gamey.
- 2) Make the "refreshment" rely on spells, potions and other consuambles. See: CLW wand problem.
- 3) DM (and APs) is constantly required to invent some sort of time pressure to stop this. Can feel a bit ridiculous when literally everything you do has to be done right now for some reason.
|
|
Dismissing slow because "it's probably saved against" seems a little too hasty to me. Ideally, these spells are aimed at a monster's weak save to prevent just that. A caster often has a decent change to inflict a failed save vs the weak save of a boss monster.
Agree that flanking is a great and low-cost debuff though, and you are right to say it means having at least two martials can be a very strong baseline for flank-&-hits.
Flanking also stacks with other debuffs, it's a circumstance and everything casters put out is status.
Slow being saved against commonly (presumably against level+ monsters) isn't that bad when it takes 1/6th of the party's actions (2/12) to take away 1/3rd (1/3) of the enemy's actions against a solo boss. It might feel bad though.
The problem with Slow is that (as shown on my table) fort is almost never the lowest save. In fact, it's very consistently the high save for monsters so Slow is only going to have like a 30-35% chance of failure, worse against higher level monsters, which is why I suppose it feels like it gets crit succeeded against a lot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh boy, Wizard thread part 2? Say it ain't so.
I agree that wizard would be massively assisted by getting some school-specific feats under their belt, and some of the focus spells could be improved (or get alternate options). Otherwise, I think Wizard is fine. They just need more pizazz.
|
|
@Exocist
Regarding the hp between combats, I've only glanced at it, but maybe the stamina thing in the GMG is an option (though maybe it's just a reflavoring of what we currently have).
I came across a section of the AP that mentioned a bonus to recovering hit points from Long-Term Rest, and just laughed aloud at it. I don't think we even know the rules for that, as it's never come up in the game.
Stamina is definitely a bit different, it provides some longevity (though IIRC you only get stamina points=Key Ability Mod which can be used to refresh all of your stamina with a 10min break). I would houserule ban the feat that's basically treat wounds for stamina and Steel Your Resolve though, as they seem to go against the spirit of why you'd want to use Stamina in the first place.
That buff in extinction curse is pretty pointless. I houseruled the long rest recovery to be to full HP anyway (con mod*level seems so arbitrary and pointless when you can just spam even 2d8 treat wounds to get to full).
Medicine kind of seems like a necessary skill currently, the one time I had a party with no medicine they had to nearly call it an 8hr break after their first encounter of book 1 chapter 2 extinction curse (in the church) because none of them could heal up the damage. Let one retrain mid-session to medicine just because it would have been cruel to force them to continue without healing, but too lenient to let them take an 8hr rest after every fight.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I would really like to see for casters in general is action enhancing feats like sudden charge or flurry of blows instead of action depleting feats like most (all?) metamagics.
For example for the wizard one possible feat could let you cast a 2-action spell and make a recall knowledge check on top of it for only 2 actions.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would like some rituals to be 10min cast for some utility spells though, similar to how 5e does them.
Well, first, this is the primary thing I want.
Rituals are cool, but rituals as a buffing mechanism are lame. Why do you want prebuffing back? Instead of giving them a spell for better numbers that doesn't cost a slot... why not just give them better numbers? A spell that does so basically just punishes everyone who doesn't take that spell.
Because there would be limit on number of prebuffs you can put, and that way Wizard is differentiated from other casters. You want a reactive buff to current situation? Go Cleric. You want something that'll last all time? Take a Wizard.
Easily put a limit in the ritual that you can only apply stuff that lasts 10min or more (with maybe some spells explicitly exempted or added). A limit of 1 buff per person. Also make a note that having a spell constantly active should have consequences if it's obvious and inconvenient - such as having constant Blur while trying to go around town.
Anyway, I'm more invested in Contigency rituals. I may write down in the Homebrew section my idea. Leave some spells for the Wizard, but make them planners.
This comment to me makes me think that the wizard class just isn't for you. Because Spell Substitution to me is honestly one of the most exciting features in the game. Like, how often will I need spells like Pest Form, Temporary Tool, or Gentle Repose? And a large chunk of the times you'll need spells like that, taking 10 minutes doesn't matter. I love the idea of giving use to less useful spells and never being caught completely unprepared, because a wizard shouldn't be unprepared.
See, I see this Thesis as the "let's give folks used to 5e something". I agree it can be very powerful, but it's the least "wizardly" of all the options. Wizards should plan ahead and focus, not change spells on the fly (even if "fly" is 10 minutes).
This is one reason I absolutely hate circumstantial spells, because they make no sense. If they're that circumstantial, they should be rituals, because no-one should be preparing those spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm, recalls don't (or probably shouldn't by the wording in the book) tell you saves. Good descriptions and some experience can help you guess, but automatically knowing isn't very likely.
This has been a topic in the past. Recall knowledge is quite vague about what information it's supposed to give (it's supposed to be "useful information", of which the book gives some examples without really narrowing down what kind of information is appropriate).
Given that your table experience tells you Wizards are bad and mine doesn't, I think that lends some credence to the idea that not allowing save recalls hurts the game as a whole.
Even if you can't recall saves, figuring out a weak save should be fairly possible without metagaming in many cases. Beef guy? Reflex. Spell guy? Fortitude. Zombie guy? Will or reflex. And so on. There will also be many cases where there isn't an obvious weak save though, so I'm not saying that method is foolproof.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I would really like to see for casters in general is action enhancing feats like sudden charge or flurry of blows instead of action depleting feats like most (all?) metamagics.
For example for the wizard one possible feat could let you cast a 2-action spell and make a recall knowledge check on top of it for only 2 actions.
This, and/or a "free metamagic action" feat in general at the same time Martials are getting their bonus Reactions.
In general, its weird that Caster action economy gets rougher as you go, whereas Martials get more effective actions.
Bards, who eventually get Quickened for Compositions and earlier access to Lingering Composition may be the exception.
Linger Composition may actually be a good archetype to look at copying - and I don't mean extending spell duration.
Something like, "Metamagic Adept, free action, when you cast a spell make a Arcana/Religion etc check. On a success, you may apply a metamagic feat as a free action/reaction/some sort of action advantage at the cost of a focus point."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The party I am in as a player started off with a wizard, a sorcerer, a cleric and a Barbarian. The wizard was a universalist with a familiar. The familiar died in the first encounter because the player was using the familiar to go out and get flanking with the barbarian against a pair of brute type enemies with a high damage attack.
The biggest problem with familiars is that players want to be able to use them all the time in high risk situations, but don’t want to take the life-link master ability. We know that the developers are giving more thought to familiars in the APG, like at least a spell that provides them a safe place to hang out and probably bypass the dimensional door problem. Familiars do offer a lot of potential utility, but taking a week to replace them is brutal in most games that don’t grant a lot of downtime.
The wizard player was always an hour or more late to our sessions so after 4 sessions the GM asked him to leave, but when I got to control his character, the three casters made life pretty miserable on single monsters.
The player that came in afterwards is a rogue and we are still figuring out our teamwork. It feels like we are making bad tactical choices regularly, but still managing to scrape by incredibly difficult encounters, including against a level +3 monster and an encounter where we fought 4 level -2 mooks with bows in superior positions with cover, an equal level martial monster, 2 body guards and a caster level +2 boss. We had two rounds before the boss and the body guards joined in, and the boss buffed with one of those rounds.( We did not rest between facing this encounter and the level +3 encounter. It cost us the barbarian’s life.)
Spells won that encounter. Especially the ability to hit mooks in hard to reach cover with saving throw targeting spells. Concealment is one of the best buffs in the game against bosses. Against level +2 or 3 encounters a 20% miss chance is incredible and shouldn’t be undervalued. Martial are great in PF2, until they can’t get to their enemies or their enemies have cover and you have to cross open terrain. My cleric was mostly useless in that situation except as a heal battery to keep the martials on their feet while the sorcerer proved the Team MVP. A wizard in place of my cleric or either of the martials would have let us overpower both of those are difficult encounters much more effectively.
I find that sometimes my party is a bit over confident about the effectiveness of martials running in and melee attacking things, trusting the cleric to keep them on their feet long enough to survive. The day is definitely over when I run out of healing. (And a player is often dead as a result. The dying rules make it tough to rely on in combat healing against foes that can drop a barbarian in heavy armor with a shield in one round.)
Long post short: there are a lot of little effects that spells can provide that make the difference in serious encounters. Sorcerers rarely have the room to take those spells. Clerics don’t have access to many of them, and parties often expect druids to be healers and that eats up a lot of their spell utility. Scrolls can work for a lot of it, but the arcane list is much better for having the tricksy stuff like stinking cloud and air bubble, grease, hydraulic push and true strike, and the spell slots to make those combos work.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I saw the idea of increased buff duration meaning there'd be a choice after an encounter to press on with the buff or heal-up...
and I thought: If buffs are so good that keeping them going while not healing up is perceived as a strategy that can get you through another encounter, isn't that the very description of a balance issue?
What? It's obviously going to depend on the context. If the party is only a little hurt, electing not to heal might be a good idea.
I honestly can't follow this trail of logic at all. Even if buffs were terrible, there would still be times where you still have enough hp that you decide to push on, and even if buffs were astoundingly OP, there would be times where you're so hurt you have to stop or risk someone dying.
It's not hard to heal the full party without relying on Medicine. But you still can't easily chain encounters in a ten-minute duration. In PF1, only 10 minutes per level spells were maintained between encounters. 1 minute per level spells were hard to keep going for 2 encounters as exploration takes time.
Yeah, the only time I've seen chain-buffing (for 10 min duration spells) is when the party finishes one fight quickly and then have to rush to the next one due to time pressure, or when they finish a fight quickly and efficiently without the enemy being able to alert allies up ahead.