| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Bard player here. From 3.5 to SF through 4.0 and PF1.
Bard was the first class I've read in PF2 and I just dislike what they did to it to the point of not seeing why I would ever play one.Do I rant about the class, call it weak? Nope. I just move on.
You should move on.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So I would like to start off by stating that I was one of those who defended the wizard as being perfectly fine, but I was completely wrong. I only enjoyed wizards at low levels; however, anyone reading this post can take that with a grain of salt, as I don't really like playing mage-type characters in most games. Despite my dislike of the class, my reasoning does not really align with most complaints. In fact, I didn't see the wizard as boring, offensively weak, or as a non-contributor (well, not because of class features and spells). My problem is that the wizard's proficiencies are trash. Mind that most of my experience with wizards is from 12-16, or thereabouts.
Before I further discuss my point, I think it would be important to consider my character. I tried to make a character that would be jack of all trades, and to that end, I made a universalist wizard with the familiar thesis and divine sorcerer archetype. I knew I wanted the most spell casting possible, so universalist was a must with cascade casting starting at level 8, but I had trouble with choosing a thesis because I thought all of them looked good: familiar for the extra spells, metamagic for the additional feats in a feat starved build, spell substitution for spell availability, and spell blending for more high-powered damage spells and incapacitation spells. There were plenty of times that I wished for the other theses, though. As for the sorcerer multiclass, I just wanted access to healing, rp for diametrically opposed schools of casting, and dangerous sorcery because blasting spells looks cool in media. I picked up the spell levels for sorcerer spell casting, hand of the apprentice, reach spell, scroll savant, bond conservation, and superior bond. As I played, I wish I didn't take the feats for sorcerer spells, as the healing was too little with too few spell slots, and hand of the apprentice because keeping up the weapon was too expensive when I could have gotten scrolls. I had a staff of divination and the highest ring of wizardry (these were the most important, as I don't remember the rest of the items). For skills, I focused on crafting (with inventor), arcana, and religion (another reason I wish I didn't shoot for more divine spell slots).
Overall, I had a lot of spells at that level, more than I ever came close to using at the end of the adventuring day, and I never got to cascade cast because of it. I also really wished that I had chosen spell blending. Having extra scrolls also didn't help, as I spent all of my remaining gold after buying the few essential (and my almost useless weapon) on scrolls. In all my fights, I used multi-target spells, even against single bosses because I had the spells to spare. Dominate also proved useful, especially when it was pulled off with a lucky natural 1, as it was ruled that the adjustment from a natural 1 and the incapacitation trait cancel out. I mostly used reach spell with goblin pox to change the range to 30 feet, as I didn't really get the chance for greater range. Phantasmal Killer was always prepared because the damage and frightened condition are really nice, and I love the chance of instant death, even if that effect is incapacitation. Fear was also great to add the frightened condition.I never did use charm, as I think it is really evil and chose to put my bumped up charisma to use. I didn't really have a problem at all with success rates on my spells either, as I was very happy with any effect that was not critical success, which seldom occurred, luckily, but unluckily, I never rolled over a 7, making use of my hand of the apprentice (always with a staff powered true strike) a waste. After looking at the spell closely, as well, I realized that it is entirely way too weak to waste two actions on since there is no bonus damage from weapon specialization, rage, sneak attack, etc. Weapon damage itself is not high enough for me to consider picking that feat again. Utility and problem solving (dispel magic) spells were often helpful, and wall spells were met with mixed reviews, as cutting off enemies was sometimes a blessing and a curse.
Now, this brings me to my gripes. Of course my higher level play was in AoA, so my experience may not be universal. When I could do my thing as a wizard, it was great, but after the first couple of books in the AP, and my subsequent switch to a wizard, things did not go well often. I think the main issue is that the wizard does not have any good DCs as well as poor perception. With the exception of sorcerer, every other class has at least one master level DC or perception by level 11 with some getting legendary at 13 with at least expert in all other DCs. The wizard, by contrast, does not get master DC in will until 17, when the rogue gets the same bump after already being legendary in perception and reflexes four level earlier. What this resulted in was a general weakness in all defensive areas and a lack of initiative to at least strike hard first. This resulted in, at least in feel, with a character who was in danger of every kind of ability or spell since while most creatures need should target a weak save, every wizard's save is a weak save. Domination, blade, disease, fireball: they're all potent against a wizard. And these compound on other weaknesses of the wizard--low HP, no easy maneuverability in melee, and most spells involving a manipulate action. (Seriously, why does every enemy in AoA have attack of opportunity, especially in small, enclosed rooms). Weak saves meant that I needed high stats in the big three for survivability (something I overlooked when creating my character), and made multiclassing into sorcerer a high opportunity cost with wizard being an Int caster, and because of the terrible defenses, I spent a lot of my time trying to recover or skipping turns, hoping to get my malady (usually unconsciousness) remedied. Due to this, I found that before level 5 (from my experience with a different character) is when the most fun to play, especially at level one with reach shocking grasp and goblin pox. I know that there's danger of being knocked out at that level too, but at least the playing field's more even.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The clairvoyance theory doesn't hold for me.
A wizard can cast clairvoyance 5 times per day as a divination specialist caster with arcane bond. Sounds great in theory but it means a wizard can at most scout out 5 rooms in a dungeon, maybe see slightly more if doors are open.
It relies on the wizard being able to get within 500ft of where they want to cast clairvoyance. The require somewhere safe in that range where they can cast a spell with a 1 minute cast time without interruption and then use up to 10 minutes studying the area. Not many smart dungeon owning bad guys don't have some kind of patrols or other means of watching for threats within 500ft of their base.
It relies on knowing where they want the eye to appear within 500ft. That is extremely hit and miss, nothing says you can say 'please show me the entry hall to the castle' or 'please show me the boss room.' When you consider 'anywhere within 500ft' it sort of implies you need to say I want to it appear '150ft from me in that direction at my head height.' There is a reasonable chance that could be the inside of a wall, not an open space, in a piece of furniture. It by no means guarantees that it shows you a useful space or room.
Alternatively you kind of need to know the location you want it to appear which applies you had some knowledge of that location before you cast the spell.
Like so many other 'features' of the 'prepared bookish' wizard it relies on the GM being nice to let it work well. Even then its 5 rooms per day of effort for a div caster at 8th level. Sure you can use higher level spell slots after that level to increase the number of rooms but still has all the other limitation and requirement of GM generosity.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.Bard player here. From 3.5 to SF through 4.0 and PF1.
Bard was the first class I've read in PF2 and I just dislike what they did to it to the point of not seeing why I would ever play one.
Do I rant about the class, call it weak? Nope. I just move on.You should move on.
Just goes to show personal experience may vary.
I'm convinced that the Bard is far and away the most powerful class in PF2 to the point that it warps the game.
They get to mess with the math in ways that no one else does, casually and repeatedly, with no real opposition or difficulty.
In addition to that, they get access to what is certainly the "second best spell list" which trades diversity of damage options for support and healing.
So when I hear "Wizard isn't as good as Bard" I'm also hearing, "Wizard isn't hanging out over the top of the power curve!"
Fighters may be good, but a Bard makes an entire party godlike.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bard was merely brought as one focus because you were so hung up on illusion spells and buffs. But Sorcerers, Druids, Clerics can all be similar examples (maybe not that stronger than Wizard but still just as good and way more fun).
We can compare to Druids, for example. Druids bring most of what Wizards bring in terms of, plus healing, combat prowess, interesting class features such as animal companions, blasting powers, or shapeshifting (for some reason into non-animals too).
Sure, you don't get illusions, but in exchange you get way more shapeshifting - unlike supposed Transmutation specialised Wizards.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
It’s not just one spell per level, it’s also the bonded spell and any further feats you use to get extra spells per day, which means, with scroll savant, by level 14 you will have 10 to 12 more spells per day over the bard.
But it sounds like maybe the thing you most enjoy out of playing a caster is to primarily focus on support/buff casting. The bard is absolutely the best at that in PF2. It is not a debate anywhere. If knowing what your action routine is, and offering the highest level buff support in the game is appealing, then the bard is a great class.
If you really enjoy the puzzle of transforming reality to change the expectations of the encounter (combat or non) and want to be able to do something unexpected as often as possible, the PF2 wizard is a great class for it. That, to me, is fun, and it’s why I don’t need incredibly thematic feats for the class to work. Give me spells and subtle ways to make spells work differently and I will make playing fun with my creative use of spells each day.
Edit: isn’t harmonize to cast a second composition 3 actions every round? It is a good ability, but no wonder you don’t run out of spells. Your party expects you to spend every round standing still and buffing them. That is powerful, but way more boring in play than the wizard.
Bard was merely brought as one focus because you were so hung up on illusion spells and buffs. But Sorcerers, Druids, Clerics can all be similar examples (maybe not that stronger than Wizard but still just as good and way more fun).
We can compare to Druids, for example. Druids bring most of what Wizards bring in terms of, plus healing, combat prowess, interesting class features such as animal companions, blasting powers, or shapeshifting (for some reason into non-animals too).
Sure, you don't get illusions, but in exchange you get way more shapeshifting - unlike supposed Transmutation specialised Wizards.
Bard composition cantrips have been thrown around A LOT as a comparison to show why Wizard focus powers aren't Good Enough, or why Wizard class features aren't Good Enough.
Which is a misleading standard - Bard class features are more or less amazing all around, and almost certainly top tier by a margin.
Wizards vs Druids is a different comparison, and way less unfavorable to the Wizard. The wizard brings more spells with more non-healing variety, and the Druid augments its lower volume of spells to cast with powerful Focus abilities.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
I suppose this is fair enough. Spell Substitution definitely doesn't give immediate satisfaction, and I don't think the Wizard class is for people who need immediate satisfaction. The class is for someone who likes to plan as far ahead as possible.
And while I do think Spell Substitution has plenty of combat use ("There's a lot of things resistant to lightning here, let me swap to fireball") I agree it's mostly for the person that values the wizard as a utility caster. I include a lot of non-combat challenges in my game, so those sorts of characters and players get to shine. I do think referring to anything that's not combat as "flavor moments" to be a bit dismissive, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And while I do think Spell Substitution has plenty of combat use ("There's a lot of things resistant to lightning here, let me swap to fireball") I agree it's mostly for the person that values the wizard as a utility caster. I include a lot of non-combat challenges in my game, so those sorts of characters and players get to shine. I do think referring to anything that's not combat as "flavor moments" to be a bit dismissive, though.
Spell Substitution is an amazing feature for making the game and class approachable to new players, as well.
When I ran Wrath of the Righteous, I had a new-to-DND player who said he wanted to be a Wizard.
I told him straight away that he wanted to play a Sorcerer instead. There was more or less zero chance of avoiding buyers remorse in spell selection as a new player without other players more or less doing it for him - and mythic on top of that!
Now, I can just say, "That's a challenging choice - I'd highly reccomend taking Spell Substitution, as it will make Wizard much more forgiving and a much better experience for you."
Thats a priceless mechanic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wizards vs Druids is a different comparison, and way less unfavorable to the Wizard. The wizard brings more spells with more non-healing variety, and the Druid augments its lower volume of spells to cast with powerful Focus abilities.
I strongly disagree; I think Druids are just as more powerful as Bards, though more focused on themselves rather than whole party. But that's really not an issue here. Let's say Druids are on par with Wizards in pure mechanical power.
I'll try once more to explain you what's the real problem most people have with Wizards: Druids provide way more interesting options and diverse builds than Wizards.
I suppose this is fair enough. Spell Substitution definitely doesn't give immediate satisfaction, and I don't think the Wizard class is for people who need immediate satisfaction. The class is for someone who likes to plan as far ahead as possible.
I actually strongly disagree with this assessment. Spell Substitution is actually for people who cannot plan or come up with creative solutions, and instead rely on just having as broad set of spells as possible to have just the right one always.
One thing I highly (used to) enjoy about playing a Wizard is finding ways to use the spells I remembered in creative ways instead of just swapping in the exact spell I need, and to do it in appropriate manner - Transmuter using transmutation magic to reshape terrain to get to a high place versus Conjurer using summoned creature to tie a rope so we can climb more easily. That's what planning and creativity is about, and what should be at a core of a Wizard - at least from my point of view.
And while I do think Spell Substitution has plenty of combat use ("There's a lot of things resistant to lightning here, let me swap to fireball") I agree it's mostly for the person that values the wizard as a utility caster. I include a lot of non-combat challenges in my game, so those sorts of characters and players get to shine. I do think referring to anything that's not combat as "flavor moments" to be a bit dismissive, though.
Again, I disagree with your explanation of the situation. In fact, you are being dismissive of other players experiences, and also narrowing down your non-combat situations to times when Wizard can find out what is needed in advance - many times, you don't (or shouldn't) have this freedom. Maybe your ally turns out not to be so nice, and a Charm spell would come in nicely, but you can't tell them "give me 10 minutes" and sit down to re-prepare it.
And finally, you are being extremely narrow by focusing on one single thesis, and telling everyone who wants to use any of the other 3 to be "obviously not for a Wizard" is extremely dismissive.
I actually strongly disagree with this assessment. Spell Substitution is actually for people who cannot plan or come up with creative solutions, and instead rely on just having as broad set of spells as possible to have just the right one always.One thing I highly (used to) enjoy about playing a Wizard is finding ways to use the spells I remembered in creative ways instead of just swapping in the exact spell I need, and to do it in appropriate manner - Transmuter using transmutation magic to reshape terrain to get to a high place versus Conjurer using summoned creature to tie a rope so we can climb more easily. That's what planning and creativity is about, and what should be at a core of a Wizard - at least from my point of view.
Spells in PF2 are more narrow than older editions. I'm not going to argue if that's a good thing or not, but it's the truth. There's currently no transmutation spell in the game that can reshape terrain in that way. And conjurors only prep summons in their highest level spell slot, which would be wasted trying to tie a rope (unless, you know, you spent 10 minutes swapping out one of your first level spells to do that). So having a wide range of spells is legitimately one of the most useful things for wizards in this edition.
I don't see the ability to swap out spells as the inability to be creative or plan. I see it as a way to respond to things you can't plan for.
Again, I disagree with your explanation of the situation. In fact, you are being dismissive of other players experiences, and also narrowing down your non-combat situations to times when Wizard can find out what is needed in advance - many times, you don't (or shouldn't) have this freedom. Maybe your ally turns out not to be so nice, and a Charm spell would come in nicely, but you can't tell them "give me 10 minutes" and sit down to re-prepare it.
And finally, you are being extremely narrow by focusing on one single thesis, and telling everyone who wants to use any of the other 3 to be "obviously not for a Wizard" is extremely dismissive.
At no point did I ever say that the other three theses are "obviously not for a Wizard". Deriven, the person I said that to, doesn't seem to like any of the theses, and I don't think the class is for him, just as a class like the Fighter isn't for me or the Bard isn't for SuperBidi. For the record, I like the other ones, just not as much as substitution. The metamagic one is my least favorite but I think that will be fixed as we get more books.
And yes, situations where you don't have 10 minutes happen. But in my experience, don't happen often. You always have at least 10 minutes after combat, and you're generally not pressed for time going through a dungeon.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think "if you don't like Wizards, just don't play one" is rather dismissive as well. Classes come with baggage and niches to fill. I (and I bet a lot of other people here) really like the concept of a Wizard, and I wish I would want to play one, but what's currently in the game doesn't make me. And, in my opinion, it's perfectly reasonable to solve that issue for a lot of people, to make Wizards less boring for us, without ruining them for the people who already like the class or making it overpowered.
The answer is what this game should be all about: options. Give us interesting feats that make every Wizard more unique instead of the same cookie-cutter "I cast six thousand spells a day" build. Give us things to truly differentiate spell schools from each other. Archetypes in the APG might help, but they will help by virtue of straying away from the core concepts of a Wizard. What about people who want a Wizard Wizard, but not the one single conception of it that's currently playable? That's why I'm expressing dissatisfaction with the current state of the class; because I think it can be made more interesting in future books if they branch out of this one single concept.
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think "if you don't like Wizards, just don't play one" is rather dismissive as well.
I mean, its what people have left us with.
We've tried to show people what we think is great about Wizard, and we've been told we're wrong. Theres no value in what we find valuable about the class. Its virtues aren't good enough for you, even though they're good enough for us.
Its possible the class is broken and were just wrong and none of our experiences are valid - but its also possible that your expectations are too high or you simply don't value what the class actually offers. If that's the case, its not the class that should change.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think "if you don't like Wizards, just don't play one" is rather dismissive as well.I mean, its what people have left us with.
We've tried to show people what we think is great about Wizard, and we've been told we're wrong. Theres no value in what we find valuable about the class. Its virtues aren't good enough for you, even though they're good enough for us.
Its possible the class is broken and were just wrong and none of our experiences are valid - but its also possible that your expectations are too high or you simply don't value what the class actually offers. If that's the case, its not the class that should change.
Yeah, this has been my feelings about the thread too, and might bow out at this point.
Also, @Nemo, while I think your points are valid though I disagree, I do think that responding to a person who likes Spell Substitution with "Spell Substitution is actually for people who cannot plan or come up with creative solutions" was a bit unnecessarily harsh, even if you didn't mean it that way.
@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.
Actually while I certainly think Spell Sub is useful, I like Spell Blending and think people are sleeping on it, since your highest level slots are going to always have the most impact, and as a GM I've observed first hand how unquestionably powerful AOE blasting is in the context of action-per-point-of-damage.
I'm planning to combine it with other features that help me get back the spell slots I lose (Spell Battery, or Scroll Savant for instance) to really take advantage of the Wizards extra castings.
Actually while I certainly think Spell Sub is useful, I like Spell Blending and think people are sleeping on it, since your highest level slots are going to always have the most impact, and as a GM I've observed first hand how unquestionably powerful AOE blasting is in the context of action-per-point-of-damage.
Spell blending is pretty amazing for players worried about running out of relevant level spells, and for when you want to make the sorcerer feel REALLY insecure about his number of spell slots.
Other than some specific low level utility spells which are worth keeping (cough true strike cough, though there's also a staff for that), trading up for extra top level and level -1 slots is pretty amazing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its possible the class is broken and were just wrong and none of our experiences are valid - but its also possible that your expectations are too high or you simply don't value what the class actually offers. If that's the case, its not the class that should change.
The thing is, many things that can be argued for or against are brutally dependend on how the GM is running his campaign, of course not only for the wizard but also for other classes. Which means that for a most complete picture you would need to have a look at the wizard in a lab environment (theory crafting), at play experience using a liberal GM and at play experience using a restrictive GM.
Note that this is not about the wizard being weak or not, but about different perceptions based on different experiences.
In one party / campaign the wizard may be a blast to play because new spells are abundant or may be aquired with little effort, there always is some downtime in between encounters to switch spells, information flow is plenty so you can actually prepare and make a plan, the GM is not overly competitive when it comes to combat and divination usually works.
In another party the wizard mostly only gets his spells via level up, time in between encounters is negligible because the GM or the party presses on, the party never truly knows what to expect and has to largely go blind, the GM always plays very tatical and never places more than two enemies within an AOE area wherever possible, and every (high level) dungeon is sufficiently warded versus divination.
Now imagine both players contribution to this thread when it comes to the point if the theory craft is wrong or right...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, @Nemo, while I think your points are valid though I disagree, I do think that responding to a person who likes Spell Substitution with "Spell Substitution is actually for people who cannot plan or come up with creative solutions" was a bit unnecessarily harsh, even if you didn't mean it that way.
Sorry, yeah, it was unnecessarily harsh.
Actually while I certainly think Spell Sub is useful, I like Spell Blending and think people are sleeping on it, since your highest level slots are going to always have the most impact, and as a GM I've observed first hand how unquestionably powerful AOE blasting is in the context of action-per-point-of-damage.
Spell blending is pretty amazing for players worried about running out of relevant level spells, and for when you want to make the sorcerer feel REALLY insecure about his number of spell slots.
Other than some specific low level utility spells which are worth keeping (cough true strike cough, though there's also a staff for that), trading up for extra top level and level -1 slots is pretty amazing.
Especially since Wands, Staves, Familiar Abilities, Scroll Savant and even other weird odds and ends can help you compensate so you can still commit the same amount of lower level resources to utility.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A couple of thoughts.
A lot of folks are asking for more wizard options.
Wizards have been getting more spell options pretty steadily as well as a little bit of feat support from AP back matter content, but they haven't got a lot of class support yet, however I think that is almost certain to change in a major way next month.
Some people are saying that their caster fantasy is not being achieved by the PF2 Wizard. It is true, the mechanics of spell casting and of the wizard have changed enough that the things you could do with a wizard, especially a high level wizard, are much different, and in many ways, more restricted than they currently are in PF1. The addition of the Thesis to the Wizard of PF2 was a big thematic shift away from wizards being defined exclusively by school focus, and towards a narrative of academic focus and application.
I think the witch is probably going to fill a lot more of the thematic concept casters than the PF2 wizard and that is really important for the game: to make sure that people's concepts are playable. We just have to divorce our concept expectations from classes ("I am the fire wizard!") and towards the mechanics that fulfill our fantasy. (I blast fire and want to watch the world burn...hm, maybe I am a sorcerer.)
The thing that no other class can do then a wizard in PF2 is give me access to a large number of diverse spells (arcane spell list) that can be used to solve almost any situation with clever enough applications. In return, I give up a whole lot of reliability and if my plans go wrong, I just might get the whole party killed.
I think if you end up as wizard that is mostly just casting cantrips, especially past level 5, because the challenge of setting up the interesting combo feels either too dependent upon the rest of the party cooperating, or prone to placing a lot of hope on a lucky roll, then you are likely to be disappointed in the class.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the witch is probably going to fill a lot more of the thematic concept casters than the PF2 wizard.
I'm not that sure about this one, to be honest. The witch has a lot of pretty specific baggage, and it will also be "the Familiar caster", with (very likely) no way out of it. It looks like a pretty narrow class to me, theme-wise.
We just have to divorce our concept expectations from classes ("I am the fire wizard!") and towards the mechanics that fulfill our fantasy. (I blast fire and want to watch the world burn...hm, maybe I am a sorcerer.)
So here is where a disconnect comes for me, and probably to some other people too. "I am the fire mage" is a super broad concept, but "I am a fire Wizard" vs "I am a fire Sorcerer" are very different things. If I want to be an intelligent caster that got his fire powers through study and doesn't have any bond with a higher being or force, that can't be achieved by simply being a Sorcerer. When you say "you can already do the fire mage as a Sorcerer", you're indirectly saying that every fire caster on the planet should have a bloodline that was affected by Elementals, Dragons, Genies, etc.
The fire Wizard and the fire Sorcerer should both exist, but do their thing in different ways. I think relegating such broad concepts as "I focus on one element" or "I'm an illusionist" to a single class is extremely limiting.
Hold on there dmerceless.
The Game provides you options for playing both a Fire Wizard, and a Fire Sorcerer. Both are completely doable.
The fact that one's ruleset is more powerful than the other, because sorcerers inherently lend themselves better to hyperspecialization, is not a flaw in game design.
If an intellectual approach is critical for your character concept, it may require you to sacrifice something in order to achieve it. I would reccomend taking advantage of something wizardy to make up the difference, but you may be prevented from the same degree of hyperspecialization as the fire sorc.
Asking the rule set to let you build a fire mage multiple ways is reasonable, and you can absolutely do that.
Asking the ruleset to make all options equally good at fire mage-ing, on the other hand, is probably unrealistic.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that one's ruleset is more powerful than the other, because sorcerers inherently lend themselves better to hyperspecialization, is not a flaw in game design.
Well, first, I don't think fire mage is the best example, I just kept it specifically because of this line from Unicore "We just have to divorce our concept expectations from classes ("I am the fire wizard!") and towards the mechanics that fulfill our fantasy. (I blast fire and want to watch the world burn...hm, maybe I am a sorcerer.)".
And second, I think the fact that the Wizard has almost no way to really specialize on things is exactly what made a lot of people dissatisfied with it. It's not that much about power, it's more about building your character towards a theme and actually feeling rewarded by it. Sure, I can build a fire Wizard, and it won't be a terrible character at all, but it will feel like I'm basically putting a handicap on myself instead of actually specializing on something.
If you have feats and options that reward you with not only power, but positive changes to your gameplay loop, by specializing on something, you can make the specialist feel good about it. Currently, trying to play an Evoker to the core of it's theme feels more like your character is a weirdo who decided to mostly use Evocation spells than an actual Evoker, because the "jack of all trades" is the only Wizard concept that's actually supported by the game.
It's kind of like playing a duelist Ranger (before the archetype on the APG comes out). Sure, it's doable, and it doesn't directly conflict with any of the Ranger features, but why on Earth would I do that instead of Two-Weapon Fighting if there's no support for it?
Currently, trying to play an Evoker to the core of it's theme feels more like your character is a weirdo who decided to mostly use Evocation spells than an actual Evoker, because the "jack of all trades" is the only Wizard concept that's actually supported by the game.
I find it really funny-ironic that the removal of opposition schools, which was probably intended as an unequivocal buff and removal of an "unfun" mechanic, has likely directly contributed to this issue.
Its factually correct that Wizards are currently more jack of all trades, and capitalizing on that is absolutely something core to having fun with a Wizard.
My biggest issue with opposition schools in the past was that they were a famous example of a non-cost. Players just tended to give up whatever was least valuable to them or they didn't care about anyway, and never lose any sleep over what they paid for the benefits of specialization.
Get rid of that, and suddenly we're in a situation where if you arent casting those spells you wouldn't lose sleep over in other circumstances you're wasting your class, and suddenly we all feel like a wizard is forced to be a jack of all trades.
I'm including myself in that last group as well, FYI. The class IS defined by versatility currently, even for the School Specialists.
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.Bard player here. From 3.5 to SF through 4.0 and PF1.
Bard was the first class I've read in PF2 and I just dislike what they did to it to the point of not seeing why I would ever play one.
Do I rant about the class, call it weak? Nope. I just move on.You should move on.
Just goes to show personal experience may vary.
I'm convinced that the Bard is far and away the most powerful class in PF2 to the point that it warps the game.
They get to mess with the math in ways that no one else does, casually and repeatedly, with no real opposition or difficulty.
In addition to that, they get access to what is certainly the "second best spell list" which trades diversity of damage options for support and healing.
So when I hear "Wizard isn't as good as Bard" I'm also hearing, "Wizard isn't hanging out over the top of the power curve!"
Fighters may be good, but a Bard makes an entire party godlike.
My rant about the Bard doesn't concern its power, but the fact that Compositions are now a permanent Slowed condition. I played an Envoy long enough to know that there's nothing more boring than to repeat every round "Get'Em on this enemy". For me, they killed the fun of playing a Bard and everytime I consider playing one I end up with the same conclusion: When will they release an archetype that removes Compositions?
The Wizard is certainly among the weaker classes, but I think it's perfectly playable. A little bit more oomph could be nice but those who regret PF1 Wizard are also regretting its god tier power. Having the proper spell to trivialize most situations was a great part of the fun.
I'm including myself in that last group as well, FYI. The class IS defined by versatility currently, even for the School Specialists.
Wait... are we... agreeing on something? You and I? Shocked face.
Jokes aside, the things you mentioned are exactly why I think the Wizard needs some more optional mechanics (A.k.a Feats) to reward using your specialty and change the way you play around it, given that's what the player want, instead of mechanics that punish you for doing other things or stops you from doing them at all, like opposition schools did.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wait... are we... agreeing on something? You and I? Shocked face.
I'm really not that unreasonable, I'm just passionate about my positions and believe in them enough to warrant enthusiastic support.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Wizard is certainly among the weaker classes, but I think it's perfectly playable. A little bit more oomph could be nice but those who regret PF1 Wizard are also regretting its god tier power. Having the proper spell to trivialize most situations was a great part of the fun.
I don't quite agree that the PF2 Wizard is weak amongst PF2 classes, but I definitely agree with the rest of this paragraph.
I loved playing the god wizard in PF1. It was a campaign I will never forget. It also made the GM work about 10 times harder to modify everything in the Carrion Crown AP from book 4 onward, because it was nearly impossible to stop me from putting a buffed to infinity undead slaughtering paladin right on top of the big boss in every dungeon. He had to rebuild two of the major end bosses and add mythic tiers to them to make the final book a challenge. Meanwhile the rogue in our party literally chose to drop his weapons and hide behind a rock during the most epic fight of the campaign because he felt his character was totally worthless in comparison. We had a bunch more APs we wanted to play, but no one wanted to run them because we felt like we had mastered casting to the point that playing without a wizard just felt like playing with a hand tied behind our back and playing with a wizard meant the players might as well just write their own story for what was going to happen in the AP and the GM would just sit there and say, "you win."
PF2 has threaded a very fine needle for me of giving the wizard the exact right amount of reality bending creativity without drowning it in ultimate power.
Random history lesson and piece of a rant I've had since D&D 3rd edition popped onto the market:
Opposition schools, back in the day, were meant to be part balance and part theme. The idea was that getting more of a particular school was fair if powerful enough spells of other sorts were made not an option... the schools of magic weren't exactly balanced back then, and some spells were given multiple schools instead of narrowing things down for clarity (which is part of how there totally was a "strongest" specialization choice).
But you had your opposed schools locked in based on what you specialized in, rather than choosing for yourself. That created more of a theme to each specialist, and trimmed out certain combinations of magical effects.
For example, if you were a necromancer you could not cast illusion or enchantment magic (so no hiding that your undead minions are undead, and no influencing how people feel about you having undead minions witb your magic).
And because of perceived power-level, an illusionist actually gave up 3 schools rather than 2, but a diviner only gave up 1.
I played a lot of Baldurs Gate, and yeah, those earlier rulesets definitely had a bit more of a "cost" associated with your choice by not allowing the place to choose opposition directly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't quite agree that the PF2 Wizard is weak amongst PF2 classes, but I definitely agree with the rest of this paragraph.
The Wizard is certainly among the weaker classes, but I think it's perfectly playable. A little bit more oomph could be nice but those who regret PF1 Wizard are also regretting its god tier power. Having the proper spell to trivialize most situations was a great part of the fun.
I think that compared to an Arcane Sorcerer the Wizard loses. The Sorcerer really has a far higher versatility. Some Wizard options (Substitution and Blending Specialists) are competitive or at least different enough to justify choosing a Wizard but many options are just straight up worse to me.
So, my full opinion is that a properly built and played Wizard works fine, but you can easily end up with a lackluster character due to bad build choices.| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.Bard player here. From 3.5 to SF through 4.0 and PF1.
Bard was the first class I've read in PF2 and I just dislike what they did to it to the point of not seeing why I would ever play one.
Do I rant about the class, call it weak? Nope. I just move on.You should move on.
If you don't like discussing how to improve the wizard and you're only answer is move on, then follow your advice. This topic is not important to you. You don't see the wizard as a problem. Time to follow your interests.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
It’s not just one spell per level, it’s also the bonded spell and any further feats you use to get extra spells per day, which means, with scroll savant, by level 14 you will have 10 to 12 more spells per day over the bard.
But it sounds like maybe the thing you most enjoy out of playing a caster is to primarily focus on support/buff casting. The bard is absolutely the best at that in PF2. It is not a debate anywhere. If knowing what your action routine is, and offering the highest level buff support in the game is appealing, then the bard is a great class.
If you really enjoy the puzzle of transforming reality to change the expectations of the encounter (combat or non) and want to be able to do something unexpected as often as possible, the PF2 wizard is a great class for it. That, to me, is fun, and it’s why I don’t need incredibly thematic feats for the class to work. Give me spells and subtle ways to make spells work differently and I will make playing fun with my creative use of spells each day.
Edit: isn’t harmonize to cast a second composition 3 actions every round? It is a good ability, but no wonder you don’t run out of spells. Your party expects you to spend every round standing still and buffing them. That is powerful, but way more boring in play than the wizard.
Yeah. Gets kind of boring. Thus why I want a better wizard. At least the buffing is useful compared to the looks I got when I cast burning hands or sleep against incapacitation creatures. They started to make fun of my wizard for being unimpressive and useless. A few times using that early burning hands to add that AoE damage and I rolled 2 1s or a 1 and a 3, then I got to hear the laughs and jokes. It is not much fun to play a class that gets laughed at as pathetic while they were smashing for big damage. You blow off one of your early level spells and it hits like a wet tissue. Terrible feeling.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you don't like discussing how to improve the wizard and you're only answer is move on, then follow your advice. This topic is not important to you. You don't see the wizard as a problem. This this topic is not for you.
Actually, this topic is supposed to be about how Wizards are to play, and whether certain playstyles are viable with them.
The Echo Chamber Where Everyone Agrees Wizards are Bad should probably make its own thread.
If your party mates actually made fun of your poorly performing wizard instead of offering support and looking for solutions... well, thats not an issue with the class either.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wizards vs Druids is a different comparison, and way less unfavorable to the Wizard. The wizard brings more spells with more non-healing variety, and the Druid augments its lower volume of spells to cast with powerful Focus abilities.I strongly disagree; I think Druids are just as more powerful as Bards, though more focused on themselves rather than whole party. But that's really not an issue here. Let's say Druids are on par with Wizards in pure mechanical power.
You aren't kidding. That Tempest Surge focus spell you can use twice a battle is pretty awesome. Does good damage and gives the enemy clumsy 2 for a round that stacks with frightened. You can really bring down some enemies AC with that spell.
Then you spend an action to have your pet attack against an enemy with two lower AC, while the other martials also get to hit the creature with 2 lower AC.
Then heals, using a weapon, and better armor. My druid has a 20 AC with Hide Armor, whereas a similar level arcane caster would have a 17 with clothing with maybe a +1 from a shield cantrip. The druid can also use a shield gaining a 22 AC using shield.
Druid so far is much better at the battle casting.
You aren't kidding. That Tempest Surge focus spell you can use twice a battle is pretty awesome. Does good damage and gives the enemy clumsy 2 for a round that stacks with frightened. You can really bring down some enemies AC with that spell.
Uh, you can't take a Status penalty to your AC twice. Clumsy and Frightened are the same modifier type.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, this topic is supposed to be about how Wizards are to play, and whether certain playstyles are viable with them.
The Echo Chamber Where Everyone Agrees Wizards are Bad should probably make its own thread.
Instead we should let the Echo Chamber Where Everyone Agrees Wizards Are Absolutely Great give wrong impressions to the person asking for real experience. Sure.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Instead we should let the Echo Chamber Where Everyone Agrees Wizards Are Absolutely Great give wrong impressions to the person asking for real experience. Sure.Actually, this topic is supposed to be about how Wizards are to play, and whether certain playstyles are viable with them.
The Echo Chamber Where Everyone Agrees Wizards are Bad should probably make its own thread.
Suggesting that you should play a bard (or druid, or whatever) if you dont like wizards isn't an indication you should abandon the discussion. Your perspective is valuable to the OP.
It may tell them that they'd really prefer a different class. Or they may decide they aren't really concerned with the issue you had. Who knows.
Trying to run people with differing views out of a discussion isn't helpful though. Pushing back toward the original topic is.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't tell them they should play a Bard or a Druid. I told them to expect a Bard or a Druid to outshine their Wizard without even trying. Which will happen and they need to be ready for it.
I didn't tell them they should play a Bard or a Druid. I told them to expect a Bard or a Druid to outshine their Wizard without even trying. Which will happen and they need to be ready for it.
I mean, I kindof agree on the Bard but that's because (as I've noted) Bards are pretty much top tier powerful. Like, 4 person party with a Bard and an Alchemist (so really, more like a 3.5 character party) outperforms a 5 person party with 3 martials and a druid and arcane sorc.
I havent seen anything from a Druid though that really makes a Wizard look bad. They get great offensive and healing focus spells (probably the Best), but their actual spell slots are limited enough that they are rapidly stretched thin if they try to cover more than one spell theme like blasting, healing, support etc. Theyre pretty good, but they rely on their renewable resources more and therefore have a flatter throughout the day power curve than a Wizard should.
An Arcane Sorcerer certainly outcasts them and keeps burning high level spell slots "on theme" longer.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If your party mates actually made fun of your poorly performing wizard instead of offering support and looking for solutions... well, thats not an issue with the class either.
Apart from a lack of character of the other players it may be an issue with any class if it is the result of being able to build an "underperforming" character too easy, respectively if from all the options available only a selected few are viable.
Look, I am neither saying that this is truly the case nor that wizards are bad, but even in our group of old friends, playing TTRPG's together for 25+ years our party wizard who at level 6 for unknown reasons still largely operates on Electric Arc got some strange looks when my warpriest of Sarenrae started using Fireball and Fire Ray. There where like "Wait?! You are not only healing us for tons of HP, but also buffing us (Bless/Protection/Resist Energy), debuffing our enemies (Command/Fear), can stand fast in a tight spot (respectable Con, medium armor and shield) while still being able to dish out good ranged damage?"
So I can at least somewhat relate to Deriven's play experience.
Disclaimer: This is not to be able to brag about my warpriest (who is not even optimized but more of a 'good is good enough' build) but to show that wizard apparently is one of the more difficult to build & play classes. And yes we are already trying to improve gameplay as a group.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have been continuously playing 2E since the play test with my group. my conclusion is that Wizards are not fun to play at all. They did a survey during the play test and asked whether or not people wanted arcanist styled spell casting for wizards. the answer was overwhelming no. My opinion is that when most people answered that question they assumed spells would be changed back to more resemble there previous incarnations as opposed to the play-test versions.
Spells are very narrowly designed now, further there duration tends to be very short. the other prepared casters clerics and druids make up for it very easily with class features and focus spells that are actually very good.
Clerics are prime example of how a prepared casting class should be designed. they are everything the wizard is not.
Druids are better than wizards for alot of reasons, they have way more options, and they are good at the options they can choose.
I saw someone compare the wizard to a fighter. fighters are amazing (probably the best class in the game with the rogue/barb/cleric/champion not too far behind), no matter what route you choose to take as fighter you will good. that's is definitely not the case with wizards. furthermore the choices for a fighter actually matter, the same can't be said for a wizard.
Wizards need either to gain the arcanist spell-casting system, or a way to make thier spells better like the arcanist spell pool.
the way game is designed i would say every other spell caster (i am not counting the alchemist as a spell caster) is just a flat out better choice than a wizard regardless of the circumstance.
I don't see any reason to ever play a wizard, and it sounds like when the witch is released (with it's hex redesign), that without significant changes to the wizard, there really won't be any reason to play a wizard, except you just really want to play a wizard, regardless of how terrible the class is, which is certainly a valid reason in and of itself.
Apart from a lack of character of the other players it may be an issue with any class if it is the result of being able to build an "underperforming" character too easy, respectively if from all the options available only a selected few are viable.
I'll agree wholeheartedly with this in theory - its my whole problem with the Alchemist. There are enough hidden bits and optimization tricks and stacking minor utility things to Alchemist that I think you can build one thats playable, but doing so is difficult and arcane and just way harder than it should be.
I don't think Wizard is in that neighborhood really, though as a Prepared Spellcaster there's definitely a learning curve compared to the other Spellcasters. And you have to choose to take the Safety Net thesis.
Sorcerer's really just have to pick one good broadly applicable spell per level, Clerics get Heals/Harms that are always good, Druids get awesome Focus Spells, Bards can fallback on Compositions.
But that's not really a new thing for Wizards... they've always been harder to play, with the reward being they were totally OP when you got them right.
I suppose you could make the point that now they're harder to play, and the reward is you're as good as everyone else, and that honestly could be an issue. But the solution isn't to give them more power so they go back to being OP when played right, either.
Maybe you could split the difference on one of Deriven's houserule ideas and recommend a more limited version of Spell Substitution as a general class feature? I dunno.
I'm not really expecting errata, because I do believe the class is perfectly fine if played well - I've seen all the tools in action elsewhere, and they aren't worse for being cast by a Wizard. The skill floor may be a bit high though.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hold on there dmerceless.
The Game provides you options for playing both a Fire Wizard, and a Fire Sorcerer. Both are completely doable.
The fact that one's ruleset is more powerful than the other,
This kind of makes the argument that many have been trying to make.
Wizard is only good if you play it 1 particular way, not top tier but its 'good.' However, that 'good' is somewhat dependent on a the GM running a game where you can research through 1 means or another what is coming ahead, where a GM is generous with the info that recall knowledge gives you, that a GM is generous in their interpretation of how some divination spells work.
If you don't want to play that 1 narrow way then play one of the other caster classes or expect to be subpar. That to me sounds counter to what I read about pf2e design concept. There is frequently the argument that a wizard's edge is 'magic' that is their schtick which is why they sacrifice options and don't get other nice toys or even all simple weapon proficiencies. But then that magic schtick only allows you to fulfil 1 wizard fantasy - if you want to be a fire mage play a sorc, if you want to play anything other kind of mage other than this one, play another class). That is inherently the problem.
As a generalist or softly themed class a wizard should be able to fulfil lots of different magic fantasies well. Kind of like the fighter is a fairly soft theme but allows players to choose feats to support the style of fighter they want to play (and do it well, its super hard to build a poor fighter, its very easy to build an ineffective wizard).
2 extra max level spells per day does not a flavour make.
Wizards lack versatility in theme. The defence to every wizard thread is 'they are fine if you play this one specific way, oh and my GM makes it so I can easily have all the info I need about the enemy ahead of time to prepare.'
Part of the problem with PF1e wizard was the scry and fry. The ultra divination wizards that ruined all the surprises. That needed to go. As did save or suck. But saying that wizards need to be able to 'ruin' the surprises ahead of time for them to perform on par with other classes is a poor outcome for many players and me when I am GMing. Knowing the dungeon ahead of time makes it like playing a video game with the walkthrough open next to you, ultimately ruins the fun of exploring and enjoying the game. If a wizard needs that to be good or on par then wizard is a poorly designed in my opinion.
It doesn't appear for the most part people in this thread are complaining that magic was toned down (I think we all agree that was necessary). They are specifically complaining that the wizard is bland, doesn't have fun options like other caster classes got. Its penalized by spellbook mechanics without any great compensation.
Wizards being ok cause they have a high intelligence stat (something any class that wants to can achieve) for recall knowledge checks is not a great justification. Anyone can specialise in being a knowledges character and rogues can do it better by nature of more legendary skills if they want. Mastermind rogue I expect will be a way better knowledge monkey than wizards in a month.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think "if you don't like Wizards, just don't play one" is rather dismissive as well.I mean, its what people have left us with.
We've tried to show people what we think is great about Wizard, and we've been told we're wrong. Theres no value in what we find valuable about the class. Its virtues aren't good enough for you, even though they're good enough for us.
Its possible the class is broken and were just wrong and none of our experiences are valid - but its also possible that your expectations are too high or you simply don't value what the class actually offers. If that's the case, its not the class that should change.
I asked for play experience as in actual play experience with clear examples in play of the wizard doing highly useful things at various levels. I don't want theory-crafting. I've received quite a few good examples of useful things they've done from casting spells, but very little unique to the wizard as other classes have those exact spells.
The main comeback has been look at Spell Substitution, so you can swap out spells using your ten minutes of down time while other classes are refocusing to regain focus points to use highly useful focus spells. What are the highly useful focus spells for wizards? Is there any reason to take anything other than Spell Substitution?
Isn't it a red flag to you at all that the best reason you can come up with to play a wizard is Spell Substitution for spells others can cast? I don't see any of you touting their focus spells other than one player touting warped terrain, other Arcane Thesis, or any other wizard ability other than Spell Substitution which ties everything they do to spells others can cast.
I have played a druid, bard, and sorcerer. I can list highly useful and interesting things I've done with them that exceed the wizard other than their spells.
I have played the wizard to lvl 5. I can list almost nothing comparable to the druid, bard, and sorcerer. I literally have stories of becoming the table joke after trying to unleash a low level burning hands, having the enemies save, then rolling low damage. Or trying a spell and having the creature save doing nothing.
While the martials, druid, bard, and sorcerer never have these kinds of rounds because their abilities work regardless of saves to provide bonuses. Every round these other classes are doing something useful and effective. Yet the wizard with his "spellcasting is his schtick" is almost completely reliant on being effective based on a saving throw, attack roll, and a damage roll without any modifiers like with burning hands. When any of those things go badly, man, you're round is terrible. Sometimes even when they go right, your round looks like you did nothing important because the martials killed all those creatures you dazzled before they could even swing and miss.
All in all, a very frustrating class. I hope it gets better with more books.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a generalist or softly themed class a wizard should be able to fulfil lots of different magic fantasies well. Kind of like the fighter is a fairly soft theme but allows players to choose feats to support the style of fighter they want to play (and do it well, its super hard to build a poor fighter, its very easy to build an ineffective wizard).
I think this is where people are coming to this conversation with very different expectations. I don't think the wizard of PF2 is a soft theme. They are a rigorous academic arcane caster. I think the wizard has gotten more flavor, not less in PF2. I strongly believe that specialist themed feats will be forth coming in the near future, but the Arcane spell list is so broad anyway that opposition schools are really unnecessary to the concept of playing a school focused thematic wizard.
I also think it is disingenuous to say that there is only one wizard type that is playable right now, unless "wizard type" is "selects the right spells from their spell book to address the situation at hand, and can bend how those spells work when necessary." But if that is a wizard type, then I would argue that Fighters as just as limited in their type, as are clerics and bards and almost every class except maybe sorcerer and alchemist. But I call that class niche.
Also the wizard is a complex class already. The added content that people are asking for are not going to make it harder to build a bad wizard. But the Wizard has always and forever, with the one possible exception of D&D4e been the class that was easy to choose the wrong spells for and end up feeling frustrated and useless.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A couple of thoughts.
A lot of folks are asking for more wizard options.
Wizards have been getting more spell options pretty steadily as well as a little bit of feat support from AP back matter content, but they haven't got a lot of class support yet, however I think that is almost certain to change in a major way next month.Some people are saying that their caster fantasy is not being achieved by the PF2 Wizard. It is true, the mechanics of spell casting and of the wizard have changed enough that the things you could do with a wizard, especially a high level wizard, are much different, and in many ways, more restricted than they currently are in PF1. The addition of the Thesis to the Wizard of PF2 was a big thematic shift away from wizards being defined exclusively by school focus, and towards a narrative of academic focus and application.
I think the witch is probably going to fill a lot more of the thematic concept casters than the PF2 wizard and that is really important for the game: to make sure that people's concepts are playable. We just have to divorce our concept expectations from classes ("I am the fire wizard!") and towards the mechanics that fulfill our fantasy. (I blast fire and want to watch the world burn...hm, maybe I am a sorcerer.)
The thing that no other class can do then a wizard in PF2 is give me access to a large number of diverse spells (arcane spell list) that can be used to solve almost any situation with clever enough applications. In return, I give up a whole lot of reliability and if my plans go wrong, I just might get the whole party killed.
I think if you end up as wizard that is mostly just casting cantrips, especially past level 5, because the challenge of setting up the interesting combo feels either too dependent upon the rest of the party cooperating, or prone to placing a lot of hope on a lucky roll, then you are likely to be disappointed in the class.
My friend is running a witch right now in the play test. They can do some interesting things. Some of their options are as "meh" as wizards, but some of their focus spells are quite potent. They are more like sorcerers with different spell lists. Overall, not too bad. We'll see how it goes as they level. Thematically they are cool. And they get the equivalent of Improved Familiar as an innate ability rather than having to take a thesis along with hexes.
My friend is running a witch right now in the play test. They can do...
Forewarning - I've heard they've changed a lot.
For the better, supposedly, but I wouldn't expect the playtest experience to translate accurately.
I'm really excited for it, but thats entirely based on theme and lore.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hold on there dmerceless.
The Game provides you options for playing both a Fire Wizard, and a Fire Sorcerer. Both are completely doable.
The fact that one's ruleset is more powerful than the other, because sorcerers inherently lend themselves better to hyperspecialization, is not a flaw in game design.
If an intellectual approach is critical for your character concept, it may require you to sacrifice something in order to achieve it. I would reccomend taking advantage of something wizardy to make up the difference, but you may be prevented from the same degree of hyperspecialization as the fire sorc.
Asking the rule set to let you build a fire mage multiple ways is reasonable, and you can absolutely do that.
Asking the ruleset to make all options equally good at fire mage-ing, on the other hand, is probably unrealistic.
If I were making a blaster wizard, I would multiclass as sorcerer and take dangerous casting for two feats. It's a fairly low cast. Charisma is more valuable in PF2 than PF1 with Intimidate being a useful skill to set up spell attacks.
My sorcerer multiclassed into wizard to obtain more spell versatility. It worked out pretty perfectly to build a good sorcerer getting the feats I want, while getting a full multiclass wizard built who will have up to 8th level spells and 2 spells of every level up to 6th when all is said and done.
I think a wizard with sorcerer multiclass might be an equally effective blaster with wizard spell versatility making up for the lack of blood magic bonus on certain spells and focus spells.
My friend is running a witch right now in the play test. They can do some interesting things. Some of their options are as "meh" as wizards, but some of their focus spells are quite potent. They are more like sorcerers with different spell lists. Overall, not too bad. We'll see how it goes as they level. Thematically they are cool. And they get the equivalent of Improved Familiar as an innate ability rather than having to take a thesis along with hexes.
Anecdotal, but I'm also GMing for a playtest Witch. However, she's been disappointed by what has been revealed about the APG Witch, to the point where she feels she might switch her character to a familiar thesis wizard and just keep the patron flavor as it would suit her playstyle more. She's rarely uses anything that really defines her as a witch compared to a familiar wizard. I've only seen her use a hex once in the last few levels, as she always prefers casting a cantrip or spell.