One of the best things PF2 did was clearly state that 1 minute spells were intended to last for an encounter, and that 10 minute spells typically lasted for an encounter unless you did not search or employ recovery actions not measured in actions before immediately pressing into the next encounter.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1 minute spells barely last one short encounter*. 10 minute spells last one encounter, period, unless the break was simple opening doors.
Encounter of meaningful strength. Otherwise, why are you even casting buffs.
|
1 minute spells barely last one short encounter*. 10 minute spells last one encounter, period, unless the break was simple opening doors.
Encounter of meaningful strength. Otherwise, why are you even casting buffs.
Wait, how long do encounters last in your games? As a player and a GM, it's usually no more than 4-5 rounds, tops.
What is an "Encounter of meaningful strength"? Moderate? Severe? Extreme?
@Nobledrake
Okay? I guess I agree, it would probably happen less since if buffs had 1 hour durations there wouldn't be a much of a choice to make in the first place - you could just spend 10 minutes healing and then press on and keep the buff.
I'm not sure I understand what conclusion we're supposed to draw from this though?
*As for "encounters of meaningful lengths", I'd concur that the encounters at my table tends to be 4-5 rounds (there are exceptions, multi-phase boss fights tend to be quite a bit longer). 4 rounds tend to be plenty of time to get value out of many buffs though, especially if you set an ambush and are capable of prebuffing with a 10 minute duration buff.
In PF1, by level 15 or 16 your 1 minute per level buffs lasted long enough to clear entire dungeons. A high level diviner with a lot of dimensional door and a thorough scouting of the dungeon would let you jump right in on the end boss before they could buff, kill them quickly, and then jump around the dungeon to kill off the most dangerous lieutenants before teleporting the entire party away to secret locations. Our party would set up multiple bases around the really difficult dungeons, and make the main sleeping rooms all look exactly the same in case we got scried upon while we were resting. APs never had their wizard villains as paranoid, because if they were, 99% of parties would lose to a single high level wizard played well. It was its own kind of fun, but it was exhausting to play and the poor GM had to take a year break after we finished the campaign.
You do not have to give wizards very much at all in terms of recon ability and mobility to turn the entire party into a weapon that is like bringing a jet fighter to a knife fight.
But really what I see having happened is the role of each buff was given consideration, and then the duration was set accordingly - which is my mage armor and some others actually had their default duration increased.
This I definitely agree with. 2E buffs have "roles" based on duration. Something like Mage Armor is an all-day buff, while the 10-minute buffs are ambush/combat buffs. Finally you 1-minute buffs that are basically only castable while in a fight. 1E durations often felt very arbitrary from a design viewpoint imo.
1 minute spells barely last one short encounter*. 10 minute spells last one encounter, period, unless the break was simple opening doors.
Encounter of meaningful strength. Otherwise, why are you even casting buffs.
I've never had an encounter last longer than 6 rounds, 10 rounds is a ridiculous length to call short.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also wonder if the developers didn't intentionally approach the bonded item/familiar and its building feats as a way to bypass the need for having buffs last longer.
Part of the problem with the high level buff cycle of PF1 was that you juiced up so heavily that you pretty much only had the length of time your buffs lasted to get everything done for the day, hence the x minute work day. But it is possible that a fair bit of that was taken care of by reducing the number of bonus types you can benefit from. If there is a course change in the future, I imagine it will just come from new spells with slightly longer durations and slightly different and lesser effects.
Edit:
I have had some PF2 encounters last longer than 10 rounds, but those are usually the kind of encounters where reinforcements come in on top of a fight already in progress.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've never had an encounter last longer than 6 rounds, 10 rounds is a ridiculous length to call short.
I haven't had tons of play experience but with a non-powergamer party i would say the easy encounters were around 4 rounds, normal 7, and for harder encounters they would routinely go past 10 rounds since once a pc drops there's a lot of back and forth now trying to save your friend or the pc just getting back into combat and everyone's damage output tends to drop.
My experience is that longer encounters directly correspond to those encounters with weird movement mechanics, and occasionally those with unusual immunities to abilities the party is reliant on.
The vast majority are in the 3-6 round range.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Our last encounter was around 20 turns, however I have to admit that it really was a chain of encounters on an overland map. My Bless, Protection and the barbarians rage all ran out mid fight.
Our last encounter was around 20 turns, however I have to admit that it really was a chain of encounters on an overland map. My Bless, Protection and the barbarians rage all ran out mid fight.
Fair point about combining encounters, now that I think about it I may have had an encounter last 8 rounds after we took on two moderate encounters at the same time.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's have a look through them
I generally agree with your assessment about focus spells.
But my issue with schools go beyond that in that I generally am just frustrated by how little they add to your class. You pretty much just get the focus spell and then the limit on what your extra spell of each level has to be, but beyond that there's not very much that makes an Evoker feel substantially different than a Conjurer, Universalist or Enchanter.
Which strikes me as a bigger problem than any numerical balance issue because it tends to make wizards trend toward the same idea regardless of 'build'.
imo Wizards are in a good place if you play them correctly, but that a correct Wizard build is a much narrower concept than for many other classes and doing so encourages the player to strip the themeing out of their character.
Things like characters who focus around a single spell('I only cast explosion'), or spells along a single theme('I specialize in manipulating minds' or 'I'm a demonologist') are cornerstone spellcaster archetypes in fantasy fiction, but pretty much anathema to the PF2 wizard, even though that's supposed to be the purest and most unfiltered 'mage' class in the game.
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.
One of my parties has done this after using magic to scout a "dungeon". They knew where enemies were likely to be, and therefore had a general plan in place to hit groups of enemies tactically in succession.
imo Wizards are in a good place if you play them correctly, but that a correct Wizard build is a much narrower concept than for many other classes and doing so encourages the player to strip the themeing out of their character.Things like characters who focus around a single spell('I only cast explosion'), or spells along a single theme('I specialize in manipulating minds' or 'I'm a demonologist') are cornerstone spellcaster archetypes in fantasy fiction, but pretty much anathema to the PF2 wizard, even though that's supposed to be the purest and most unfiltered 'mage' class in the game.
I think this might be where there is space for the Arcanist to make an eventual return to PF2, because I agree that the wizard of the past has served as a catch basin for a lot of fantasy character types that were probably not PF2 wizards.
Although I think the focusing around a single spell/group of spells build does work pretty well as a sorcerer in PF2. The imperial sorcerer might work pretty well for the kind of mage that you are envisioning.
Things like characters who focus around a single spell('I only cast explosion'), or spells along a single theme('I specialize in manipulating minds' or 'I'm a demonologist') are cornerstone spellcaster archetypes in fantasy fiction, but pretty much anathema to the PF2 wizard, even though that's supposed to be the purest and most unfiltered 'mage' class in the game.
Building characters around a single spell is impossible (but I don't think it has ever been something really even in PF1). But in my opinion, you can build characters around a single theme with the Spell Blending thesis. I don't think there's any need to be versatile to be efficient. If you have a whole load of high level spells focusing on a concept, it should work out quite fine. But it must be a broad concept, like direct damage or debuff/control, not something as small as mental spells (even if in this edition it's actualy better than in the past).
I don't think the issue people have with the Wizard is the need for versatility. People complain more about the lack of options and a lack of sustainability/power (both are linked, as you need less power if you're more sustainable).| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.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?
Why? Explain the scenario where I need to do this?
I have played three campaigns. One to lvl 13, one to lvl 3, and another to lvl 8, not a single wizard in any of them. Not a single time have needed anything like Spell Substitution. Skills do very well for influencing people not requiring Charm. Athletics is good for forcing doors. There are only a small number of highly effective spells available on the spell lists of other classes.
My bard for example has invisibility as a signature spell, dispel magic as a signature spell, banishment as a signature spell, AoE damage, and is a much, much better buffer and great at Charisma based skills. He also has Esoteric Polymath which allows him to swap a spell out a day on the Occult list or have an extra spell.
People on here are way overselling Spell Substitution. If you have to way oversell an ability that allows you to change out spells, something rarely needed, then I hope at least the game designers are seeing the problem with that.
If the most "fun" and useful Thesis a wizard has is the ability to switch out a single spell with 10 minutes of downtime that others are using to refocus to gain cool focus spell abilities, then we have a very different idea of what a fun and interesting class ability is.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
then we have a very different idea of what a fun and interesting class ability is.
I mean... Maybe that's the case here? I've seen a lot of people who like spell substitution. As soon as the Wizard player at my table saw it as an option they instantly decided to take it and have been getting a lot of use out of it in my campaign.
If this ability in particular doesn't speak to you... maybe that's okay? It's one of my favourite class features.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
A pretty common theme there seems to be -
"I don't value the things a Wizard gets instead of the things Bard gets as highly as the things the Bard gets."
If you dont value the extra spell slots, wizard class features and feats, etc. as highly as the things Bards pick up in exchange... play a Bard.
That doesn't mean the Wizard class features aren't good, or don't have value. Theyre the sort of things that entice people other than yourself to play a Wizard.
Also, Wizards cant have class features as good as a bards, they picked up two max level spell slots instead. Magic is their defining class feature.
| 2 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...
What I am working on is possibly turning the wizard into the arcane version of the fighter with some general magical increases. I wanted more feedback before I do it. I will likely finish my Age of Ashes campaign before I try to house rule some things with magic.
Some things I'm noticing:
1. Other caster classes feel good because their one action options are good and lack the focus point limits wizards experience.
2. High level AoE damage spells can be devastating.
3. Shapechanging seems to be the purview of the druid. I will likely leave that to them.
4. I want to do some more testing on incapacitation effects. I don't want casters ending BBEG encounters easily. I also don't want minion level mobs shrugging off incapacitation spells because of too many saves.
Some fixes I'm leaning towards:
1. Rewriting most focus spells adding heightened abilities and action costs that make them more attractive and competitive. Turning some of them into cantrips with power increases using focus points.
2. I will likely boost single target cantrips to d6 damage. Add the splash trait to acid splash. Review some of the heighten+2 cantrips.
3. I'm also thinking of making weapon specialization work with cantrips and spells with attack rolls. I don't see at all why the PF2 game designers did not use this opportunity to show that attack casters are just as good with their attack spells as martials are with their weapons. It would have been an easy add and been very flavorful as well.
For some reason improving to hit via increased spell expertise seems fine, but not getting a little extra damage from weapon specialization for attack cantrips or spells? Seems like a missed opportunity to show spells are weapons too. It would even help GISHes feel better about using cantrips and investing multiple feats to get up to Master Spellcasting.
4. And spell substitution as an innate ability given it only allows one spell change with 10 minutes of downtime seems balanced.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
It's not about being the best. It's about being at least competitive, interesting, and fun.
I've played many of the other classes. They are not the best, but their overall abilities are useful, fun, and interesting. Only the wizard was not in my experience.
If you're going to play an abjurer whose wizard focus is protecting people and you only get to protect one stat, why not be better at protecting that one stat than the bard who is providing a very powerful boost to three areas of defense. If the abjurer ability was a 30 foot emanation immediately for protective ward eventually heightening to a +3 status bonus to AC at near max level, then that would be quite a nice ability. A +1 status bonus in a 5 foot emanation you have to sustain every round to expand when you don't really want to be in combat range due to your low hit points and AC isn't a great ability imo.
I don't see why anyone would want Protective Ward given how real combats flow in the game. Why would an abjurer wizard want to be in range to provide the +1 status bonus to AC given many creatures have reach and AoOs on top of looking at a soft target like a robed wizard as an easy kill if in melee range.
Not only is Protective Ward not competitive, it seems like it was developed by an abjurer looking to die. What type of wizard abjurer would develop a ward he had to be in combat range to use?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
A pretty common theme there seems to be -
"I don't value the things a Wizard gets instead of the things Bard gets as highly as the things the Bard gets."
If you dont value the extra spell slots, wizard class features and feats, etc. as highly as the things Bards pick up in exchange... play a Bard.
You seem pretty consistently to miss the point (on purpose or not). The point is not that WE value Bard more, it's that we see how Bard is better at what we as the Wizard is supposed to be.
Fighter is supposed to be all about their weapons. Hence, they have better weapon training progression than anyone else.
Wizard is supposed to be all about magic, hence they have... A few more spells? I don't want more spells, I want my spells to be better.
That doesn't mean the Wizard class features aren't good, or don't have value. Theyre the sort of things that entice people other than yourself to play a Wizard.
You are talking about one OPTIONAL feature. Sure, you like it, play it. But can the rest of us have some features that are actually interesting and not afterthoughts? Why is your conception of a Wizard the only conception that is valid?
Also, Wizards cant have class features as good as a bards, they picked up two max level spell slots instead. Magic is their defining class feature.
Two max level slots isn't a feature, it's a lack of a feature. And it is no way equivalent to everything else Bards (or Druids, or Clerics, or even Sorcerers) get.
Honestly, I'm hoping Witch will satisfy my need for a Int-based prepared caster which is fun to play. Because sadly, Wizard is the Fighter of this edition.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't want more spells, I want my spells to be better.
Unfortunately, that's pretty much contrary to the fundamental design of Pathfinder 2E. You don't get to be better than your peers at a thing, so much as you get to be different.
Fighter is a notable exception, because they get "Fighting" pretty much to the exclusion of other class features.
A wizard is not the Fighter of Magic Users, they are the bookish, scholarly magic needs of spellcasters.
| 3 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?
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.
This is the most exciting feature in the game to you? A thesis that isn't even necessary to accomplish the goals of an adventure?
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Deriven
It’s super exciting to me at least, and I don’t know what goals your adventures have that aren’t accomplished or at least helped by an increase in versatility. This incredulity over the fact that people have different opinions than you is a kinda tiring.
You don’t see anyone else going “Spell Substitution isn’t your favorite feature of all time? The feature that improves your versatility to such an incredible degree?!”
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unfortunately, that's pretty much contrary to the fundamental design of Pathfinder 2E. You don't get to be better than your peers at a thing, so much as you get to be different.
Fighter is a notable exception, because they get "Fighting" pretty much to the exclusion of other class features.
Champions don't get Legendary in Armour Proficiency compared to Master for others?
Barbarian doesn't deal way more damage per hit than other martials?
Monks don't get Legendary Unarmoured proficiency?
I must be reading a different book than you...
A wizard is not the Fighter of Magic Users, they are the bookish, scholarly magic needs of spellcasters.
Errr, what? Wizard is exactly supposed to be the Fighter of magic users. Magic is all Wizard has, as you yourself has said. If that doesn't give you better mastery than others, then well, whats the point of the class?
Since when are Wizards supposed to be spell batteries? Honestly, I can see some designer saying "Wizards are underpowered, lets give them extra spells over everyone else", and frankly, that is the whole problem with their approach in this edition.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
A pretty common theme there seems to be -
"I don't value the things a Wizard gets instead of the things Bard gets as highly as the things the Bard gets."
If you dont value the extra spell slots, wizard class features and feats, etc. as highly as the things Bards pick up in exchange... play a Bard.
That doesn't mean the Wizard class features aren't good, or don't have value. Theyre the sort of things that entice people other than yourself to play a Wizard.
Also, Wizards cant have class features as good as a bards, they picked up two max level spell slots instead. Magic is their defining class feature.
I did switch to a bard. I quit my wizard and played a bard because the wizard was so much worse than the bard. Never looked back.
What the other casters do is not magic? I bring to the able most of what a wizard brings on top of more effective one action buff options that a wizard can't even do.
Magic is the wizard's defining spell feature yet the compositions a bard can cast over and over and over again are magic better than the spells a wizard can cast.
And bards don't need one more spell slot when their composition cantrips are more powerful than what a wizard can put in his equivalent level slots. If a wizard had access to composition cantrips even as spells, he would probably take them in his spell slots.
I have teleport. I have invisibility. I have group haste. I have Phantasmal Calamity, Phantasmal Killer, True Strike, Shadow Blast (a great AoE ability that is more versatile than most), Shadow Siphon (amazing Aoe Counter ability as a reaction), group slow. I have magic missile as a signature spell. I just took True Target, an amazing group buff attack sell I can cast while using Inspire Heroics with Inspire Courage to really unload on a BBEG.
I don't have combination options like this with a wizard. That is unforunate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, they should never have given Wizards the Arcane Bond either. I disliked this feature in first edition too, even though it's mechanically amazing, I know.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the most "fun" and useful Thesis a wizard has is the ability to switch out a single spell with 10 minutes of downtime that others are using to refocus to gain cool focus spell abilities, then we have a very different idea of what a fun and interesting class ability is.
On this topic, I will point out that since Wizard refocusing activities involve "studying your spellbook", most GMs would likely allow you to use Spell Substition and refocus at the same time, letting you do double duty and allowing you to refocus at the same time as everyone else.
Of course, the fact that most Wizard focus powers look rather underwhelming (disclaimer, have not used any in play) makes that ability less beneficial overall. Some of the advanced school spells are neat, but you need to get to level 8 for those.
I read your original post, and while I think points 1-4 are more relevant to the spell system as a whole than the Wizard class specifically, I think that what the Wizard truly suffers from is a lack of interesting options, especially at low levels.
For instance, I like the feat Scroll Savant - free scrolls of utility spells that you just may need during the day? That seems a properly Wizard-like ability, and it lets them do something that other full casters can't do. That feat, though? Level 10.
In PF1, the main reason you played a Wizard was to be the best spellcaster in the game. That seems to be the intended design space behind the Wizard in PF2, but the lack of interesting options makes them feel like they aren't. I'd like to see some feats that gave them either more interesting things to do, or things that made them better at spellcasting.
For instance, I like Squiggit's suggestion of feats that have a pre-requisite of specialization in a specific school. That would give specialization more meaning and help make up for some of the low-level school spells that are more lackluster.
I also think a feat (or maybe focus power?) that allows you to treat spells with...
Energy Absorption is nice. It requires no adjustments.
@Nemo
If you don’t like Arcane bond, and you want the wizard to work completely differently (different progression, ritual casting)... at some point I feel like it might just be better to let the class go and hope a future class will have what you want instead. A lot of people do actually enjoy the wizard class in its current state after all. I don’t see what benefit a total overhaul of the class, changing every aspect of it, would give versus a new class being more in line with what you’re looking for.
If you're going to play an abjurer whose wizard focus is protecting people and you only get to protect one stat, why not be better at protecting that one stat than the bard who is providing a very powerful boost to three areas of defense. If the abjurer ability was a 30 foot emanation immediately for protective ward eventually heightening to a +3 status bonus to AC at near max level, then that would be quite a nice ability. A +1 status bonus in a 5 foot emanation you have to sustain every round to expand when you don't really want...
The Abjurer's focus power is just a nice additional thing they can do with their focus point and an action a round that will typically last all combat. The Abjurer also gets enough spells to make a zone on the battlefield nearly impregnable and might not be as worried about being up front as other casters. Some of the decent abjuration spells are on the bard list as well, but the bard (and the sorcerer) get too few spells known to be nearly as reliable a defensive master as the abjurer.
There are situational spells like:
Resist energy, tether, lock, glyph of warding, dimensional anchor, non deception, freedom of movement, resilient sphere, and spell immunity, which will not see use every day, but could allow for some really creative and interesting plans in the right situation.
If that kind of strategizing is fun to you, then the wizard of PF2 is a lot of fun. The Abjurer in one of the parties I GM for does nasty things with tether and a paladin and fighter in the party. Even if you don't have that, It is actually a very effective 1st level spell against higher level enemies because if they take an action to attack the tether, its been worth it, and the -5 speed on a successful save can get really really annoying for any monsters that don't move fast to begin with.
Also the Abjurer gets:
shattering gem, Dispel magic, globe of invulnerability, and Stoneskin
so they can make attacking them a lot less fun than other casters.
With their higher level focus power, they can be a real pain against enemies that do any kind of energy damage.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A pretty common theme there seems to be -
"I don't value the things a Wizard gets instead of the things Bard gets as highly as the things the Bard gets."
If you dont value the extra spell slots, wizard class features and feats, etc. as highly as the things Bards pick up in exchange... play a Bard.
Really second this.
It is simply normal that somebody could find a class he/she doesn't like.
You could like the wizard on 3.5 but not in 4e, and then you could find it cool again in 5e.
My attitude towards things I don't entirely like is
"I don't play/use them"
Or
"I play them because even if there is a lot of stuff I don't like, the pros are more than the cons. Which also means that I have fun"
I like the wizard class too much to allow this. PF1 one was out for ten years? I'm not going ten years with a wizard class I don't like waiting for the next edition.
I'll rewrite the class to make it more interesting and fun, so people feel like playing them. There are at least two of us in my group who enjoy playing wizards including myself.
I like just about everything in PF2 but the wizard. I plan to play PF2 into the future. I'm going to rework the wizard into a place at least equal to the bard, druid, cleric, and sorcerer.
I'm leaning towards arcane equivalent of a fighter as in magic combat specialist. We'll see what the final changes look like. I ain't having no wizard whose best ability is Spell Substitution. Spell Substitution should just be something they can do, not a special thesis.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't want more spells, I want my spells to be better.Unfortunately, that's pretty much contrary to the fundamental design of Pathfinder 2E. You don't get to be better than your peers at a thing, so much as you get to be different.
Fighter is a notable exception, because they get "Fighting" pretty much to the exclusion of other class features.
A wizard is not the Fighter of Magic Users, they are the bookish, scholarly magic needs of spellcasters.
A fighter also has very good defensive features as well. They have fewer magical abilities, but they're pretty much great at fighting and defending themselves from combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Nemo
If you don’t like Arcane bond, and you want the wizard to work completely differently (different progression, ritual casting)... at some point I feel like it might just be better to let the class go and hope a future class will have what you want instead. A lot of people do actually enjoy the wizard class in its current state after all. I don’t see what benefit a total overhaul of the class, changing every aspect of it, would give versus a new class being more in line with what you’re looking for.
Yup, I'm looking to Witch now to scratch my itch (rhyme unintended).
But I'm also not sure that large percentage of people enjoy the current wizard. There is only a persistent small group focused on Spell Substitution. Every other thesis is not even attempted to be defended.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fighter is a notable exception, because they get "Fighting" pretty much to the exclusion of other class features.
And Monk in unarmored defense, and Champion in armor, and Barbarian in Fort saves, and Rogue in Reflex saves, and Bard in Will saves, and Ranger in Perception...
Oh yes, Wizard is better than Warpriest when it comes to casting, just like everybody else.
@Deriven
Homebrew is absolutely a good response to disliking a part of the system. Hope whatever you cook up works for your group.
@Nemo
Out of the theses, I consider Spell Substitution to be both useful and fun and Spell Blending to be pretty cool though idk about it’s usefulness. The metamagic one I actually really like in theory (I’m a big sucker for those kinds of flexibility feats), but I think it’s greatly held back by the lack of metamagic currently in the game. If the APG or future books adds more metamagic, I would have a hard time not picking it tbh. Familiar I don’t love (though I do think quite a few of the master abilities are useful), but I think it’s valid as an option for people who want that fantasy.
Ultimately, I think the existence of a 4-slot prepared class is valid and should exist as an option for people who just want to prioritize spells. Hoping the Witch gives you at least some of what you want, it’s looking like it’s turning into kind of an arcane bard variant which may or may not be something you’re looking for (I’m excited at least).
Random unrelated thing; I think people saying fighters are the best at “fighting” are losing a lot of nuance. Fighters bring some specific advantages to combat, as does every martial class. They also don’t sacrifice much out-of-combat utility compared to a normal martial either.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Deriven
It’s super exciting to me at least, and I don’t know what goals your adventures have that aren’t accomplished or at least helped by an increase in versatility. This incredulity over the fact that people have different opinions than you is a kinda tiring.
You don’t see anyone else going “Spell Substitution isn’t your favorite feature of all time? The feature that improves your versatility to such an incredible degree?!”
I see a few others who like Spell Substitution. As a player of many wizards over the years through many editions of D&D, I have never seen this feature so oversold.
In PF1, wizards handled the need for spell versatility with wands, scrolls, and leaving open an occasional spell slot to fill later if needed. Spell Substitution was unnecessary and certainly not the game changing spell feature it is being sold as in PF2. Given how cheap scrolls are to make in PF2 at later levels, I don't see why making some scrolls in packs of 4 wouldn't more than supply you with adequate spells to not need to swap out with your down time.
We have a different way of seeing things. When I think of a class, I think of it in terms of, "Is this class fun to play? Is this class doing something that stands out compared to other classes? Are there fun builds with this class? Do I look forward to leveling it?"
For every other class the answer to those questions was yes. For the wizard, the answer was no.
Yet in every other edition of D&D I answered yes to the above questions except perhaps 5E. And even in 5E I made it to level 16 as a wizard and felt quite useful at times.
The very first class I made in PF2 was a wizard. I always try a wizard in every new edition of D&D first, which is why I made a wizard in 5E first as well. The wizard is my favorite class.
Imagine my disappointment to see my favorite class so reduced. I will not have the wizard so weak for the next ten years. I am hoping future books greatly improve wizard options.
I will defend other theses.
Familiar - requires communication with your GM to get a sense of the expectations of the table on what will get your familiar killed and it takes a commitment to take some "boring" familiar abilities to help keep your familiar alive if you plan on using them for more than a spell and focus battery, but a free cantrip and a bonus focus point once a day is pretty good "extra stuff" right of the gate, with the familiar just sitting in your pocket. (I will admit that most folks into this now will probably be more enamored with the witch and we won't see a lot of it post APG).
Spell Blending- Have all the cantrips for the first couple of levels when cantrips are what you really need to be able to blast consistently and target weaknesses. Then at higher levels have the most highest level spells ever! Very useful.
Metamagic - if you are not a human, you are not getting reach or widen at first level. Both of them can be pretty useful at letting you target a enemy, or an extra enemy, without having to move closer to do so. But it is the 4th level power that really gets useful. Now you don't have to commit to one metamagic feat. It is a free, flexible class feat for the thing you do the most of, casting spells.
So all 4 of them have fun applications, and I wouldn't be surprised if we get more in the future, possibly as soon as the APG.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
...
Not much you listed can't be done as a bard.
Did you read the Shadow Siphon spell? Very nice for reducing energy damage against the party.
The main difference between the wizard and the bard is I can do a very powerful 1 action composition to buff the party, while at the same time dispelling magic, casting an AOE spell, casting haste, or doing what the wizard is supposedly so great at.
That is where the disappointment was palpable. The wizard would cast a spell, then cast shield. Cantrip, cast shield. Cast a spell, shield. You may occasionally work in a Recall Knowledge or a True Strike or a sustain for Flaming Sphere. But none it was as effective as a bard casting a composition cantrip.
The bard was even better at Demoralizing and then casting a spell after debuffing the person he was casting on. Even his focus action spells like Lingering Song or Inspire Heroics are free actions that you use as part of casting the composition.
Inspire Heroics increases Inspire Defense or Inspire Courage for an entire group within 60 feet of you as a free action to a +2 status bonus.
Yet a wizard focus point spell like Augment Summoning is 1 action and increases single weak summon by +1 for a minute. Why isn't augment summon a free action?
Some of it really doesn't make sense. It's very frustrating.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Shadow siphon, a 5th level spell that works against 1 spell to half its damage. Not a bad spell, but against an enemy wizard, you are going to blow through your spell slots you can cast this out of pretty quickly as a bard.
In my tables' experience, Bard spell casting is almost always exhausted within a few encounters, and the bard is mostly inspiring courage and then firing a bow and maybe trying to intimidate someone or fire their bow again, casting one interesting spell a combat. Creative wizards have much more sustained casting power. That is fun and exciting for me. If more spells is uninteresting to you, then I agree that you are not going to enjoy the PF2 wizard.
I have played some and GMd more, I'll give it a go.
What is your experience with the following:
1. Incapacitation Trait: This affects every fight against any challenge that is even 1 level above the group. It affects how you must align your spell slots since even minion level mobs at high level are usually equal or a few levels lower in major encounters.
It definitely affects your spell selection and requires you to carefully manage your offensive spells. However, it has its tricks, and once you get used to it it can actually be useful. As a general rule, you might not want single-target incap - they're nice, but not great. Instead, look for area incaps that can severely cripple groups of lower level creatures, and never use your highest slots.
The result is going to be a devastating area spell which your party members are nearly immune to.Single target incaps can be situationally useful, but again, takes a while to get used to how they work and to understand why and when to use them - I don't have too much advice beside experience. Keep your eyes open, try to get a feel for the fights, and you'll start to notice how they can work without burning too high level spells for them. It's a bit of a gamble otherwise.
2. Domination/Charm: What is your experience with domination and charm in PF2? Both have the incapacitation trait. Have you been able to effectively use these to acquire a servant creature that is effective against the enemies you fight at your level?
Charm isn't really meant to give you a servant, but it's been very useful to grease the wheels of noncombat situations. Sneaking past is a lot easier when the guard is your old buddy, and annoying constables can get a lot more accomodating. For combat servants, Domination is your spell of choice. As for what level it should be used at, however, I'll have to refer you to the previous question - it's a delicate balance between not wasting a too high slot, not wasting the spell on someone with too good a save, and understanding which target this is going to work best against - the slightly-less-powerful bodyguard of the high-level wizard? Let's go! Whether he joins the fight for a turn or two or simply step aside for a minute, this is a great use of a spell. The BBEG lich? How about no.
3. Summons: Have the summons you have access to at your highest level been effective fighting enemies you fight at max level? Are they worth using?
I haven't used many summons myself, however one of my players has (Summon Entity, spell level 5+). They've been very useful and effective as both meatshields and assistants, but tend to fall off against single big bosses. The main advantage of summons is that they are a single spell that keeps doing things over time, and help you conserve resources (both yours and other people's: remember, taking damage requires healing and healing requires time which sometimes you don't have).
4. Shapechanging: Have your shapechange spells been effective? Can a wizard use a shapechange spell and be effective? Have you found wizard builds that allow you to make Shapechange effective like multicassing with monk for flurry?
Again, not myself. A fellow player made these rather useful, but her HP were a lot higher than mine. I think that's what's keeping me from using shapeshifting in general, while the stat increase would actually be a lot more favourable to wizards, there isn't much to soften the blows. Definitely falls in a similar category as summons due to the economic savings of using a single spell with long term returns, but much riskier when it's your skin.
5. What spells are most effective as you level?
Personally, I found the best results coming not from offensive spells but from protection, buffing, and summoning. That said, I was playing an Abjurer in a party with several martials, so damage was not lacking. YMMV. Look at spells that your party will benefit from, and keep in mind that explosions last one second and normally don't change much (unless they kill - in which case part of the spell was likely wasted). It's not a sword which you can swing forever.
That doesn't mean offensive spells are useless - absolutely they are good and have their place, but think carefully about what you use and when, and sometimes consider that hit point whittling might not be your best use of resources. There was a bit of a shock (pun intended) when I dissed Fireball in favour of Gravity Well, a spell which pulls creatures towards a center point. Repositioning has been fairly useful, and large groups of enemies getting yanked out of position and all neatly grouped up can set up nice effects for other casters or even axe fighters, but I would prepare this spell 3 times over if I had even a hint of bridges or mountains. Fireball, not so much.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is the most exciting feature in the game to you? A thesis that isn't even necessary to accomplish the goals of an adventure?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.
Not the most exciting one, that would be hard to pin down, but yeah, I like it quite a bit! It allows you to prepare your spells differently than you normally would, like I explained in my comment. Wizards' whole schtick is versatility, and this just makes that even better. Why have Alarm prepared all day when you can just swap to it before bed? Why have Floating Disk or Ant Haul prepared before you need to lift something? You find out what spells the demilich at the end of the dungeon likes to cast by interrogating their minion, and then swap to Spell Immunity and cast it on the Barbarian. A common complaint about wizard theorycrafting is that the wizard won't always have the right spell prepared. This thesis is the answer to that.
A common rebuttal to Spell Substitution is to craft scrolls, but it takes 4 days to craft 1-4 identical scrolls. You can learn a lot of spells in that time, that you can switch to at any point with spell substitution (I should note that I consider Magical Shorthand a mandatory feat for any spellbook class).
Also, what feature in the game would you say is necessary to accomplish the goals of an adventure? Many of the most highly acclaimed features in the game aren't strictly necessary to accomplish your goals, Inspire Courage being one of them.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Shadow siphon, a 5th level spell that works against 1 spell to half its damage. Not a bad spell, but against an enemy wizard, you are going to blow through your spell slots you can cast this out of pretty quickly as a bard.
In my tables' experience, Bard spell casting is almost always exhausted within a few encounters, and the bard is mostly inspiring courage and then firing a bow and maybe trying to intimidate someone or fire their bow again, casting one interesting spell a combat. Creative wizards have much more sustained casting power. That is fun and exciting for me. If more spells is uninteresting to you, then I agree that you are not going to enjoy the PF2 wizard.
I haven't found much the wizard can do as effective as casting Inspire Courage or Inspire Defense. I generally do Harmonize to do both.
I haven't ran out of spells too quickly. One less spell than the wizard isn't as much as you think. I'm still not sure why everyone thinks one less spell per level is much, when you can cast a 1 action cantrip to basically do better than what the wizard does with a spell slot.
I would say the biggest drawback to the bard is the party gets disappointed if you don't buff them. The wizard doesn't have that problem. People expect him to cast, while the bard is expected to buff the party.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is the most exciting feature in the game to you? A thesis that isn't even necessary to accomplish the goals of an adventure?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.
Not the most exciting one, that would be hard to pin down, but yeah, I like it quite a bit! It allows you to prepare your spells differently than you normally would, like I explained in my comment. Wizards' whole schtick is versatility, and this just makes that even better. Why have Alarm prepared all day when you can just swap to it before bed? Why have Floating Disk or Ant Haul prepared before you need to lift something? You find out what spells the demilich at the end of the dungeon likes to cast by interrogating their minion, and then swap to Spell Immunity and cast it on the Barbarian. A common complaint about wizard theorycrafting is that the wizard won't always have the right spell prepared. This thesis is the answer to that.
A common rebuttal to Spell Substitution is to craft scrolls, but it takes 4 days to craft 1-4 identical scrolls. You can learn a lot of spells in that time, that you can switch to at any point with spell substitution (I should note that I consider Magical Shorthand a mandatory feat...
Inspire courage and Inspire Defense have a tangible effect on defeating combat goals usable immediately upon entering combat without waiting.
Scrolls are good. As far as I read it, you get 4 scrolls per 4 days of crafting for an often moderate price.
I can see Spell Substitution being enjoyable for non-combat flavor moments. My group is very combat focused. If it don't win the combat, it's just not great to us.