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 agree that burning hands can be an oft disappointing spell for wizards to cast. Unless a creature has weakness to fire or Area of effect spells, or you have 3 targets to use it on, it can easily leave you feeling disappointed. However, in the situation where you are fighting swarms or trolls or a horde of lower level minions without AoOs, it can be a real encounter winner.
IT is hard to say: "this is the best spell combo for wizards to memorize," because the wizard doesn't do that well. That is very much more the purview of the sorcerer. The sorcerer does have some "heavy" narrative elements that might make it weird to rethink your character concept if your mechanical desire is to do the same spells over and over again encounter after encounter, but PF2 went hard into that class niche thing with the core rulebook. (you have to be good to be a an Armor Master?)
We are going to keep getting more and more ways to break down some of that as new books come out, but protecting the concept of class niche is an explicit design goal of the game.
If you are playing in a home game, it is entirely possible to talk to your GM about re-skinning any element that feels narratively restrictive.
Clerics are prime example of how a prepared casting class should be designed. they are everything the wizard is not.
Would you mind giving more details on that?
Cleric feats are quite limited as well, you can sort them on 3 categories:
-melee fight, mostly for Warpriests
-Font
-Domain
The Warpriest are good, but only really support melee, and does not suit all build.
The fonts are good, but PF2 has gone a long way toake sure healing cleric are not needed, so it is just a quality of life build type.
Domains, you have a few good ones many average one and quite a few very bad.
Cleric is probably the class the most penalized by RP choice, your deity, which can limit your access of focus spells, weapon proficiency, extra spell (the Divine list is the smallest of all lists), and very important, it can lock you of more than half of the Divine only spells (TN deity lose access to a lot of them).
I seen in one of the post someone complaining about effortless concentration, I'm willing to exchange against or permanent Bless/Bane (which are alignment gated).
Also most of the offensive spells of the Cleric are Fortitude Save which is the highest overall for all monsters.
I love Clerics, but they are far from perfect and need some more feats like every other class.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fonts are good, but PF2 has gone a long way toake sure healing cleric are not needed, so it is just a quality of life build type.
Your mileage may vary.
I've run significant portions of Age of Ashes for two groups, each with a Champion in it. Both groups are pretty resilient, and have not needed significant in combat healing (Lay on Hands + Battle Medicine, and not in most fights).
I started a Extinction Curse campaign in a party with a Free Hand Fighter, two monks, a Wizard and a Cleric and holy crap wtf the difference in incoming damage. Without my Cleric, we'd have people dropped in many encounters - 2 action Heals have been absolutely clutch.
My conclusion that I've drawn is that most parties need some sort of damage compensation mechanism. A Champion mitigating and preventing damage works, but so does a Healing Cleric. Incoming damage in PF2 is hard to avoid and consistent, and is somewhat explosive against a 'squishy' party.
Out of combat healing is more or less replaced by Medicine, and that's awesome.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Poor specialists, they can only build to have six spells of their top spell level. Poor universalists, they can only build to cast 50-70% more spells than a 3 slot class per day.
| 1 person 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.
I made the thread looking for real experience.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Uh, you can't take a Status penalty to your AC twice. Clumsy and Frightened are the same modifier type.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.
Yes. My bad. Fortunately I had played it that way.
| 2 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.
The first few times it happened, they wrote it off as bad luck. After the wizard kept looking like a joke, they had to have fun with it. Some of the jokes were funny. These guys are my friends. They found the weak wizard hilarious, since they were normally accustomed to me being to able to make even low level wizards useful.
I did try different solutions and spells. The wizard was just a very difficult class to make useful for a variety of reasons:
1. Unlucky damage rolls.
2. Short range spells forcing me to spend move actions to get in range to use spells.
3. Lucky saves.
4. Small areas of effect.
5. Hard to set up spells due to creature spread.
5. Resistances like magic or fire. Spell Substitution doesn't do much in an already in progress combat.
Just a lot of little mechanical and game play issues combined with unlucky rolls that added up to a not very effective or fun class compared to what everyone else was doing. It finally reached a point at level 5 where they were saying things like, "Show us some magic mighty wizard" or "Where is that firework spell you have?" Crap like that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
One thing we did notice about the witch is it is very important to pick the most effective hexes. The once per 24 hours makes hexes usable on the PCs a waste of time for the most part. Some of the hexes are very weak or have an effect that is useful to the target and the target's enemies.
The best hexes appeared to be nudge fate and evil eye. Both of those hexes can be used on enemies to great effect to help the party win with good effects even on failure.
The witch does enjoy the extra focus point provided by the familiar.
The spell list is the spell list.
I think improving what familiars can do as well as adjusting the 24 hour limitation on some hexes would improve the witch. It would also help the wizard as well honestly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still maintain a lot of this would have been solved by trimming the arcane list back by 10-15% spells and allowing wizards to pick up off-list and uncommon spells according to their theme. I think whoever wrote the Arcane list got a bit greedy, but one unfortunate result of Arcane cribbing off every other list is that they have by far the fewest unique spells of the four traditions.
Which is, actually, one possible solution. We aren't getting the genie back in the bottle as far as core goes, but they can throttle how many new spells make it onto the Arcane and Occult lists, and introduce school feats that let's your wizard automatically learn spells they'd otherwise have to jump through hoops or multiclass to add to their spellbook. Would fit the theme of wizards as studiers of magic.
I still maintain a lot of this would have been solved by trimming the arcane list back by 10-15% spells and allowing wizards to pick up off-list and uncommon spells according to their theme. I think whoever wrote the Arcane list got a bit greedy, but one unfortunate result of Arcane cribbing off every other list is that they have by far the fewest unique spells of the four traditions.
Which is, actually, one possible solution. We aren't getting the genie back in the bottle as far as core goes, but they can throttle how many new spells make it onto the Arcane and Occult lists, and introduce school feats that let's your wizard automatically learn spells they'd otherwise have to jump through hoops or multiclass to add to their spellbook. Would fit the theme of wizards as studiers of magic.
That would be a huge change to Wizards from tradition, but that's not a good reason not to do it.
This is actually a really cool idea.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's the necromancy spells that bug me the most. Given my understanding of how the traditions and essences work, I don't think Arcane should have gotten very many of the necromancy spells, including specifically the ones that animate undead. I am aware of the explanation that Arcane is putting an artificial mind into a manipulated body of matter, but I feel that's a reach. And sounds more like making a Flesh golem than a Zombie. But I would 100% want Necromancer specialized Wizards to have ALL the undead spells they can stand, even if they rifled through some cleric's pockets to get them.
It's the necromancy spells that bug me the most. Given my understanding of how the traditions and essences work, I don't think Arcane should have gotten very many of the necromancy spells, including specifically the ones that animate undead. I am aware of the explanation that Arcane is putting an artificial mind into a manipulated body of matter, but I feel that's a reach. And sounds more like making a Flesh golem than a Zombie. But I would 100% want Necromancer specialized Wizards to have ALL the undead spells they can stand, even if they rifled through some cleric's pockets to get them.
You're essentially talking about the Unified Theory Legendary Arcana feat translated into class feats, but with Spells.
Close enough. I think Wizards should be able to understand the fundamentals of all types of magic, as they're the premiere researchers of magic. And school specialists should be so well versed in the magic of their school that their able to cast a limited and preset selection of spells that no other Arcane caster can reach.
Edit: Mind, that doesn't solve a lot of the issues raised in the thread, that casting itself feels kind of lame to a lot of people, but it would at least push the theme and reward some specialization, which might help.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Clerics are prime example of how a prepared casting class should be designed. they are everything the wizard is not.Would you mind giving more details on that?
Cleric feats are quite limited as well, you can sort them on 3 categories:
-melee fight, mostly for Warpriests
-Font
-DomainThe Warpriest are good, but only really support melee, and does not suit all build.
The fonts are good, but PF2 has gone a long way toake sure healing cleric are not needed, so it is just a quality of life build type.
Domains, you have a few good ones many average one and quite a few very bad.
Cleric is probably the class the most penalized by RP choice, your deity, which can limit your access of focus spells, weapon proficiency, extra spell (the Divine list is the smallest of all lists), and very important, it can lock you of more than half of the Divine only spells (TN deity lose access to a lot of them).
I seen in one of the post someone complaining about effortless concentration, I'm willing to exchange against or permanent Bless/Bane (which are alignment gated).
Also most of the offensive spells of the Cleric are Fortitude Save which is the highest overall for all monsters.
I love Clerics, but they are far from perfect and need some more feats like every other class.
not "needing" in combat healing being does not mean in combat healing isn't super powerful.
Clerics are beautifully designed.
1. pretty much whatever choice you make you will be the best in combat healer. IN 2E in combat healing is tremendously powerful. sure you can do without it, but if you have it
2. The class feats you choose have a meaningful affect on how you choose to play, they change the way the cleric plays, what you see as limited, I see as focused. so while you may not have the widest variety of choices to make, the choices that you make are significant. I will take significant choices over meaningless variety every time.
3. there are quite a few focus spells that are very good
4. The spell list, is limited, but extremely focused, and your divine font gives you the ability to explore that spell list. The cleric does well at things it's been designed to do well at.
5. the fort save thing is not really true for the monsters the cleric is designed to combat undead and fiends. Except the skeleton warrior most of the undead have bad fort saves and fiends that do have good fort saves also happen to have a weakness good damage. Paizo did an amazing job with the cleric spell list.
So in closing the cleric does exactly what it was designed to do
Be an incredible healer
be great at removing negative conditions
be great at blasting undead and fiends
or be a good mix of martial and just merely "good" at the above three things if you choose.
the whole point of PF2 is that no single class is good at everything, but that they are good at their niche.
The wizard is supposed to be and written up to b a the master of magic, but it isnt, and further none your choices really have any affect on how the game plays for you.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Also anecdotally and also playtest witch, but gods if felt bad. I think I gave up doing anything other than "Electric Arc" all the time every time (oh, and Heal because we didn't have a cleric). The handful of times I did anything else it felt like I had wasted my actions.
My favoritest was when I cast Spirit Link. Oh yes, that one was so useful for a first level spell. Its like healing, except that net HP resources don't actually change and also it takes longer. I did that once and nearly got the target (and myself) killed in the process. I mean, sure, its technically a healing-capable spell on the occult list...but wow. Its bad. I'm not sure I'd even recommend a Bard or Occult sorcerer take it. I wouldn't even cast it if it was a cantrip.
I barely even used my hex (Life Boost) as in combat it was less effective than Heal and out of combat I was pushed aside by the non-magical healing monkey.
I did piss with the cauldron, because "HAHA F- YOU, WITCH!" crafting is 50% worse than normal (but the other first level feats aren't any better (mechanically a leshy familiar is better, due to the side benefits that the feat grants, but I very specifically wanted a raven)). I mean really, 60 days of downtime (and all of your starting coin) to craft a half-dozen potions? Who is this feat FOR? Because it sure isn't players.
If I had been a wizard, I don't think things would've been all that much better, except I wouldn't have had Heal. So I guess there's that?
So, I guess I'm looking forward to the changes, but I think I'll be over here in the corner being upset, because I don't think the class can be what I enjoyed about my PF1 witch (because that's the Bard's job now).
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think clerics are pretty terribly designed, but that mostly comes down to deity. It decides way too much of your character's mechanics for what should be a flavour choice. Deities decide:
- Alignment for alignment based spells. TN deities make these spells unusable, but the difference between any deity that has G in their alignment and one that doesn't is pretty big. Especially if you're running APs where a large % of the enemies are evil, but split among L, N and C. It also affects stuff like Champion MC (relevant for cloistered clerics) and whether you get eternal blessing (good) or eternal bane (yuck).
- Favoured Weapon - It's not that big, but the difference between getting a synergetic favoured weapon (a good str based one for warpriests or a good finesse/ranged one for cloistered) is the difference between being able to have a 1 action option for good damage and not. It even scales later into the game if you get e.g. a shortbow which is going to be useful to have at every level.
- Domains - This is a big one because it decides your focus powers. The difference between having a good focus power and having a bad one is night and day. Good focus powers give you so much extra longevity before you have to rely on cantrips. Bad ones you will either never use or won't affect your spell usage throughout the day.
- Spells - Another big one because the cleric is not only a prepared caster, but also the divine list has a lot of gaps. E.g. There's no decent blasting spells until 6th level, so a deity like Sarenrae that can give you Fireball to hold over that gap has a big impact. Deities that give you a bunch of highly situational spells, or spells that do similar things to what the divine list already does, or just bad spells (e.g. Milani) are going to be useless in that regard.
- Heal/Harm Font - Heal font is clearly much better unless the majority of your party is Dhampirs.
All of that combines to give you a large amount of your class' mechanics coming from deity, with some deities being very clearly inferior to others in that regard. My cleric player in AoA picked nethys for flavour and absolutely hated it because Nethys pretty much gave him nothing aside from magic missile.
The best hexes appeared to be nudge fate and evil eye. Both of those hexes can be used on enemies to great effect to help the party win with good effects even on failure.
There was also Personal Blizzard and Elemental Betrayal
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think clerics are pretty terribly designed, but that mostly comes down to deity. It decides way too much of your character's mechanics for what should be a flavour choice. Deities decide:
- Alignment for alignment based spells. TN deities make these spells unusable, but the difference between any deity that has G in their alignment and one that doesn't is pretty big. Especially if you're running APs where a large % of the enemies are evil, but split among L, N and C. It also affects stuff like Champion MC (relevant for cloistered clerics) and whether you get eternal blessing (good) or eternal bane (yuck).
- Favoured Weapon - It's not that big, but the difference between getting a synergetic favoured weapon (a good str based one for warpriests or a good finesse/ranged one for cloistered) is the difference between being able to have a 1 action option for good damage and not. It even scales later into the game if you get e.g. a shortbow which is going to be useful to have at every level.
- Domains - This is a big one because it decides your focus powers. The difference between having a good focus power and having a bad one is night and day. Good focus powers give you so much extra longevity before you have to rely on cantrips. Bad ones you will either never use or won't affect your spell usage throughout the day.
- Spells - Another big one because the cleric is not only a prepared caster, but also the divine list has a lot of gaps. E.g. There's no decent blasting spells until 6th level, so a deity like Sarenrae that can give you Fireball to hold over that gap has a big impact. Deities that give you a bunch of highly situational spells, or spells that do similar things to what the divine list already does, or just bad spells (e.g. Milani) are going to be useless in that regard.
- Heal/Harm Font - Heal font is clearly much better unless the majority of your party is Dhampirs.
All of that combines to give you a large amount of your class' mechanics coming from deity, with some deities...
we will have to agree to disagree. a deity is a flavor choice for most characters. it makes no sense that a deity was would be a favor choice for cleric. Why are you playing Cleric then? The Class is a literal servant of a deity. regardless of what a cleric you are, your choice of deity should be the most important choice that character has made.
Second your deity gives you at most 3 spells, 9 if you are nethys. if three spells were that important, this thread or the millions about wizards wouldn't exist. nearly every domain has at least one focus spell worth casting.
the cleric has excellent ways to blast undead and fiends early. If you want general blasting, you want the primal spell list.
The class is perfectly designed for it's niche. If you are looking for Codzilla then yes you will be disappointed.
| 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.
Heavily bookish is a great theme for the kind of wizard you continually advocate (the divination wizard able to research threats ahead of time). The I ‘deeply study fire and flame and am kind of a pyromaniac’ is not a path to an effective wizard. There are other ways of being bookish. Divination and research being effective/available is highly GM and game dependent. Also when it is effective in the kind of scry and fry game-style you have championed or extolled on based on pf1e it does have a tendency of ruining the challenge and fun of games. Ruining the surprise or challenge for others. Its not necessarily a rewarding playstyle for many and tends to make running games a GM very unfun.
What I am taking away is ‘the wizard is a bookish generalist who isn’t better at magic just has a couple of extra spells and is only effective if you are heavily able to research or use divination to understand threats ahead of time.’ The knowing thing a head of time has the ‘playing game with a walkthrough’ problem attached to it. The being a knowledge skill monkey isn’t unique to wizard and in a month the Mastermind rogue and Investigator are likely to be a lot better at it than a wizard which really just leave divination spells. Divination spells are great if you GM allows them to be. Many are gated (for good reason) behind rarity.
Wizards do not feel like they are better at magic than sorcs, druids, bards etc. Arcane spell list is not unique to them anymore, occult and primal are all much stronger spell lists than they were in PF1e. I would argue wizard is not a complex class, it has probably the fewest feat choices. It is limited by the number of spells in their spell book (as opposed to other prepared casters that have access to their entire list), it is limited in effective feat choices. Its not complex because there are fewer options. Bards and sorcs (with the right feats) can do a limited swap or add to their spell lists. They get less base skills than sorcs, druids, bards. A bard or sorc that makes Int their second stat can easily have the same number of trained skills as a wizard.
Fighters are more able to theme themselves than wizards. As a fighter I can theme myself as a tank, as a duelist, archer, two weapon fighter, smasher (great weapons). I have feat support for several chains of fighter ‘theme.’ As a rogue I can be a charlatan, a bully or a sneak, and in the near future I can be a knowledge master and have feat support for it. As a bard I can be a lore person, a more flexible caster or focus on being the best performer/buffer. As a druid I can focus on melee and utility, a blaster, a supporter, and get cool options like a useful pet. Even clerics get better feat support for heal/harm their signature than wizards do. Clerics are better at magic as they have a lot of feats that have riders to their main spells. They have feats to support heal/buff, melee or damage/necro builds. I could go on but you get the picture. Wizards don’t even have great feat support knowledge/divination checks. In fact none of their feats are really good at that bookish researcher type. That might get fixed in future splat books but the core wizard should have been able to stand on its own and meet more than 1 concept that is highly GM dependant.
Wizards don’t really ‘bend magic’ to any appreciable degree better than other classes, they share many of the same metamagic feats with other classes. Other than ‘spell substitution’ as a thesis they don’t really have a way to open their spell book and deal with the problem at hand until the next day. So I don’t see that as a genuine feature. If Spell substitution was a standard class feature (like inspire courage) it would go a long way to making that statement true, right now outside of that thesis that is not a true statement. Even then spell substitution has a 10minute lead time so its only if the situation at hand can wait that long. I am not saying that wizards should have ultimate flexible spell casting, more that isn’t a true statement and maybe it should never become a true statement. If wizards had a focus spell that allowed them to spend an action (or 2) to swap any prepared spell for any other spell from their spellbook that would really make them feel like they had a versatility edge.
• Is bookish nerd with a focus on divination and GMs making the information you want available the only ‘good’ way to play a wizard (compared to a fire mage is subpar compared to a fire sorc as stated above)?
• What in your opinion makes them a complex class compared to any other caster class? All caster get spell selection in one of two forms, neither is more complex than the other especially. The only complexity I see is choosing what spells to buy – something that is a limitation (like oppositions schools were, not that I like oppositions schools) that is hardly a positive class feature.
• Is there a good build for a wizard that isn’t the bookish nerd/researcher/diviner that stand compares to similar classes trying to fill the same niche (e.g. fire wizard vs fire sorc)? Cause if your GM is not generous with familiars, clumping enemies, pre battle research/divination and what info you get from Recall knowledge you are out of luck. GM can be applying RAW and still make all those things very limited, what can a wizard player do to control that in game rather than rerolling or leaving the game? It’s a real problem for a lot of people. GMs may have valid reasons not to allow divination/research to ruin surprises (prevent the scry and fry you have many times mentioned you enjoyed and boasted about burning out a GM from).
I am genuinely interested in what options there are right now for people who only play core. What options there are for wizards with GMs that aren’t generous with research, recall knowledge and divination checks. I am interested in what options there are to support multiple wizard playstyles are there is with pretty much every other class in pf2e.
|
|
we will have to agree to disagree. a deity is a flavor choice for most characters. it makes no sense that a deity was would be a favor choice for cleric. Why are you playing Cleric then? The Class is a literal servant of a deity. regardless of what a cleric you are, your choice of deity be the most important choice that character has made.
It is but not for the right reasons. I'm thinking it should be more "I picked Cayden Cailean because I like him as a deity", not "I pick Cayden Cailean because he gives me good weapons, domains and spells".
Second your deity gives you at most 3 spells, 9 if you are nethys. if three spells were that important, this thread or the millions about wizards wouldn't exist. nearly every domain has at least one focus spell worth casting.
Not... really? There's domains with usable focus points, but I'd say there's more domains with focus spells that you don't want to use every encounter (which is the entire point of focus spells) than domains which have good focus powers.
the cleric has excellent ways to blast undead and fiends early. If you want general blasting, you want the primal spell list.
Sure, and part of the weakness of the divine list is their bad blasting against non-fiends and undead early. Why then are there some deities that directly remove this weakness while others provide spells that you will probably never prepare? The design of what spells they give you seems haphazard in that regard, it was clearly based on the flavour of the deity but that leads to many deities having a bad set of spells.
• Is bookish nerd with a focus on divination and GMs making the information you want available the only ‘good’ way to play a wizard (compared to a fire mage is subpar compared to a fire sorc as stated above)?
• What in your opinion makes them a complex class compared to any other caster class? All caster get spell selection in one of two forms, neither is more complex than the other especially. The only complexity I see is choosing what spells to buy – something that is a limitation (like oppositions schools were, not that I like oppositions schools) that is hardly a positive class feature.
• Is there a good build for a wizard that isn’t the bookish nerd/researcher/diviner that stand compares to similar classes trying to fill the same niche (e.g. fire wizard vs fire sorc)? Cause if your GM is not generous with familiars, clumping enemies, pre battle research/divination and what info you get from Recall knowledge you are out of luck. GM can be applying RAW and still make all those things very limited, what can a wizard player do to control that in game rather than rerolling or leaving the game? It’s a real problem for a lot of people. GMs may have valid reasons not to allow divination/research to ruin surprises (prevent the scry and fry you have many times mentioned you enjoyed and boasted about burning out a GM from).
1. No. The PF2 diviner still looks fun, but it is not the only good wizard. The illusionist with conceal spell and silent spell and both focus spells is very thematically an illusionist. The Abjurer with the first level spell tether, and one or two good tanks with powerful reactions makes for great team play that can really lock down an enemy and make its attacks useless. Even more so if the enemy is a caster. The evoker's first level focus power is not sexy, but it makes for a decent extra guaranteed damage and with true strike and good blasting spells, the arcane caster is the only caster that can reliably hit with Acid Arrow, shocking grasp and the the other few spell attack roll spells. I have not really tried out or looked to closely at the conjurer, the transmuter, the enchanter or the necromancer. I think the necromancer is not really there yet as a fun specialization, but that seems like an acknowledged problem from the developers.
2. The broad arcane spell list AND the need to select the right spells every day is a complicated feature. Whether you have a lot of information about the challenges that lie ahead that day or not, the wizard's effectiveness is determined at spell selection (unless you take spell substitution, but even then you can get it wrong in ways you can't make up later). Wizards learning new spells from spell books and scrolls has always been a fun element of playing a wizard that felt really weird and nonsensical on the witch to me. The cleric has this to a minor amount, but just lacks the spells to make the choice particularly crucial to their role in the party. As long as they can heal everyone and possibly add in to dispelling and fighting against undead and demons, everything else they do is an extra boon. The Druid can get their spell selection wrong if they try to get to tricky with it, but the very fact that they can heal means that the magical healing often falls on them, and if they don't have good berries, it can take up a lot of their spell slots to cover combat healing. The wizard gets far more spells and less to do with their actions in the party other than to cast spells in interesting and useful ways. By level 5 that is really what the wizard should be doing every round, not just once or twice an encounter. Spells that can be sustained are great for that kind of battlefield control. The more special things you give a wizard to do other than cast spells, the less casting spells is the focus of their class.3. "what can a wizard player do to control that in game rather than rerolling or leaving the game?" If your GM wants your wizard to be terrible, then you are not in a good position as a player. Wizards bend reality. If the GM grows resentful of a character bending reality, they are going to make life miserable on your character. This is actually another aspect of the complexity of the class. Illusions, divination, GMs not metagaming knowledge of the spells you are casting on your team mates, giving you useful information with your knowledge checks, it is all extra work that the GM has to do over a player with a fighter that just wants to hit hard all of the time. You definitely have to talk to your GM about the experience you are wanting to have and what is preventing it or else the wizard is not a fun class to play. I don't really think there is a way to have the "bend reality" class in a game and not have it be GM dependent though. Unless you are playing a GM-less cooperative story telling game and that is pretty far off of what PF2 is.
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.
Regarding Arcane Thesis, I'm not terribly familiar with Familiar Focus so I'll skip that.
Spell Blending is great for "I don't care about versatility, I just want more fireball". It means you're 2 highest-level spell slots above the equivalent sorcerer, and that's a pretty big upside.Metamagic isn't amazing right now due to limited selection, but at worst it's still Reach + Widen Spell. That offers you a lot more versatility in combat, since you don't need to move into danger to get those close range spells, and can get better ranges on your area spells.
Regarding focus spells, Force Bolt is incredibly unsexy, but it works great. It's consistent, functional, and does its job. Hand of the Apprentice is a well-known one for what it does, though that requires a little work to optimize. Diviner's Sight is handy. Dread Aura, while worse than Dirge of Doom initially, can become a lot more action-efficient with Effortless Concentration. Life Siphon acts as a reaction-using 1-action Heal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
** spoiler omitted **
I answer to your spoiler about the Wizard build. He chose options that I find underwhelming so I'm not surprised he struggles. At level 5, you're main contribution are your level 3 spells. He prepares 2 spells and cast 3... Compared to the Cleric 2 prepared spells + Heal and 3 + Charisma modifier spell cast he's obviously weak.
With a specialist substituer, he would prepare 3 spells and cast 4 with the added versatility of substitution. So a bit less spells cast per day but more versatility than the Cleric.With a specialist blender, he would prepare 4 spells and cast 5. More spells prepared and nearly as many spells cast at the cost of a limited first level spell list (that noone cares about at that level anyway).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dread Aura, while worse than Dirge of Doom initially, can become a lot more action-efficient with Effortless Concentration. Life Siphon acts as a reaction-using 1-action Heal.Dread Aura is a somatic/verbal focus spell gained at 8th level, that cost 2 actions to cast. Effortless Concentration is gained at level 16.
Dirge of Doom is a verbal spell focus cantrip gained at 6th level, that costs 1 action to cast. Lingering Composition is gained at level 1.
The Wizard using Dread Aura needs to be level 16 to be better than a Bard casting a spell they got at level 6. Aka the Wizard becomes better 10 level later, when the Bard has also gotten Effortless Concentration and is casting both Dirge of Doom and a Sustain spell.
Heck a bard using Lingering Performance can theoretically sustain 5 spells at a time.
Wizard also has up to 3 higher top level spells with Spell Blending, literally doubling the Bard. That's a big difference in exchange.
(But yes, Dread Aura is overall worse than Dirge.)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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 think you have serious misunderstandings how academics work. They specialise. They become masters in their one topic. They have lot of general knowledge, sure, and they can do a lot of things, but also, they spend most of their time working on this one itty bitty little piece of their field until they are masters.
Current PF2 Wizard feels like grandpa who likes to fix things and has every possible tool ever sold somewhere in his garage, and can use any of them even though he isn't a master of any of them.
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.
How can Wizard bend the spells more than any other class? And again, unless you spend ungodly amounts of money and effort tracking down any and all spells to write them into your many spellbooks, both Cleric and Druid will have a greater effective range of spells.
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.
I have no idea why you think this. Wizard is not particularly complex right now, although there are many trap spells.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.Regarding Arcane Thesis, I'm not terribly familiar with Familiar Focus so I'll skip that.
Spell Blending is great for "I don't care about versatility, I just want more fireball". It means you're 2 highest-level spell slots above the equivalent sorcerer, and that's a pretty big upside.
Metamagic isn't amazing right now due to limited selection, but at worst it's still Reach + Widen Spell. That offers you a lot more versatility in combat, since you don't need to move into danger to get those close range spells, and can get better ranges on your area spells.Regarding focus spells, Force Bolt is incredibly unsexy, but it works great. It's consistent, functional, and does its job. Hand of the Apprentice is a well-known one for what it does, though that requires a little work to optimize. Diviner's Sight is handy. Dread Aura, while worse than Dirge of Doom initially, can become a lot more action-efficient with Effortless Concentration. Life Siphon acts as a reaction-using 1-action Heal.
My wizard was a necromancer because I wanted to try Life Siphon. It looked pretty good. Too bad Grim Tendrils is terrible. I took that as my first necromancy spell hoping to do a nice bit of damage. It was worse than burning hands. At lvl 5 got my first fireball thinking life would change, launched it, rolled middling damage, two of the four creatures saved, did 20 to a couple and 10 to a couple. Sixty points, not too shabby. Then the archer crit one, overkilled it. The rogue did that much in two hits at lvl 5 with a +1 striking rapier. The fireball I could use maybe four times a day if that was all I prepared. That 60 damage spread on four targets was less than 2 rogue hits on a single target. And about a longbow crit by a precision ranger. Seems lvl 5 was also a good level for the martials.
I did discover sorcerer undead bloodline drain life. Not amazing, but one action that does damage and adds temporary hit points. Good little nova spell. Once again the sorcerer has a focus spell better than the wizard. That seems to sum up the wizard class. You can do nothing better than another class can do other than if given time cast different spells. That's your main power: spell versatility. That power was very good in PF1, but meh in PF2.
I'm sure given more spell books the designers will make a few spells that are so good the wizard's spell versatility provides them a few good bones.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My wizard was a necromancer because I wanted to try Life Siphon. It looked pretty good. Too bad Grim Tendrils is terrible. I took that as my first necromancy spell hoping to do a nice bit of damage. It was worse than burning hands. At lvl 5 got my first fireball thinking life would change, launched it, rolled middling damage, two of the four creatures saved, did 20 to a couple and 10 to a couple. Sixty points, not too shabby. Then the archer crit one, overkilled it. The rogue did that much in two hits at lvl 5 with a +1 striking rapier. The fireball I could use...
According to Citricking's data, level 5 martials deal on average 20 points of damage per round against on level foes. Funny fact, according to the same data, Rogues are the highest damage dealing martials at level 5 and it's the only level they are so high.
I won't dismiss your feeling but I know many people who would consider such a Fireball a very good use of 2 actions.
I'm very confused how a rogue dealt 60 points of damage in 2 attacks with a +1 striking rapier - did they crit one or both of them? Their damage with sneak attack should only be like 4d6+4=18.
The rogue did that much in two hits at lvl 5 with a +1 striking rapier. The fireball I could use...
Could've also been high damage roll. I've watched a GM roll max on an 8d10 attack, so anything I'd possible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm very confused how a rogue dealt 60 points of damage in 2 attacks with a +1 striking rapier - did they crit one or both of them? Their damage with sneak attack should only be like 4d6+4=18.
If the first attack was a crit, that comes out about right. Expected damage of 58.5, since the Rapier is Deadly d8. And Rogues just got Expert in Weapons (and the 2nd sneak die), while the Wizard stays Trained in spell DCs until level 7. So yeah, levels 5 and 6 will look relatively better for the Rogue in a comparison.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Level 5 and 6 are two levels where the number comparisons for wizards vs martials on DPR are rough for casters. I think the excitement about having a 3rd level of spells was supposed to be the compromising feature, as 5th level is the old bench mark of wizards starting to feel like wizards, but lvl 7 is probably now the level where you start to feel more significantly more powerful as a wizard every level.
Personally it doesn’t feel outrageous to me, but if a magic item came out giving a +1 to spell attack rolls, level 5 would be the right level for it. Personally I hope that they do something more interesting than that, but I don’t think it’d be game breaking.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Level 5 and 6 are two levels where the number comparisons for wizards vs martials on DPR are rough for casters. I think the excitement about having a 3rd level of spells was supposed to be the compromising feature, as 5th level is the old bench mark of wizards starting to feel like wizards, but lvl 7 is probably now the level where you start to feel more significantly more powerful as a wizard every level.
Personally it doesn’t feel outrageous to me, but if a magic item came out giving a +1 to spell attack rolls, level 5 would be the right level for it. Personally I hope that they do something more interesting than that, but I don’t think it’d be game breaking.
Its one of these things where its really unfortunate that it happens right at the end of book 1 of your typical AP, because the best solution is probably to educate encounter designers to avoid certain encounter archetypes at those levels.
AoA 1 Spoiler
Its one of these things where its really unfortunate that it happens right at the end of book 1 of your typical AP, because the best solution is probably to educate encounter designers to avoid certain encounter archetypes at those levels.AoA 1 Spoiler ** spoiler omitted **
My party just completed that book. That encounter in particular cost us our barbarian and an NPC, but we really mucked up the approach and went in unrested and with most of our spells exhausted. We probably wouldn't have lost anyone otherwise.
I agree that adventure design probably is behind the curve of knowing where to pull punches and where to step into them. I think it will get dialed in and I always recommend GMs visit the boards before running an AP to look at what people are saying about it. Perhaps it would be good for their to be threads with titles like, "so you are planning on running X AP" where GMs just share the encounters or elements of the APs that really gave their players trouble.
At the same time, at least the wizard has a big advantage over the sorcerer of getting through level 5 and 6 with spells that work with your accuracy limitations without committing you long term to 3rd level spells that might not be as fun or useful compared to other options once you get your proficiency boost.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My wizard was a necromancer because I wanted to try Life Siphon. It looked pretty good. Too bad Grim Tendrils is terrible. I took that as my first necromancy spell hoping to do a nice bit of damage. It was worse than burning hands. At lvl 5 got my first fireball thinking life would change, launched it, rolled middling damage, two of the four creatures saved, did 20 to a couple and 10 to a couple. Sixty points, not too shabby. Then the archer crit one, overkilled it. The rogue did that much in two hits at lvl 5 with a +1 striking rapier. The fireball I could use...According to Citricking's data, level 5 martials deal on average 20 points of damage per round against on level foes. Funny fact, according to the same data, Rogues are the highest damage dealing martials at level 5 and it's the only level they are so high.
I won't dismiss your feeling but I know many people who would consider such a Fireball a very good use of 2 actions.
So lvl 5 is a particularly good level for rogues. Interesting.
Rogues do a lot of damage within a party, which seems too difficult for a damage program to deal with all the variables. Rogue crits are nasty. A rogue with haste against a debuffed creature with Thievery racket and the debilitation adding 2d6 to sneak attack is vicious. The rogue with a greater striking rune at lvl 13 is dealing is 3d8 plus 6d6 damage with his elven curveblade sneak attack for an average 40 points a hit and 80 points a crit. Their damage and all their skills make a rogue a great class. Very fun to play and highly useful. I was happy to see the rogue in such a good position in PF2. I liked the 5E rogue as well. They really made them shine from 3E.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm very confused how a rogue dealt 60 points of damage in 2 attacks with a +1 striking rapier - did they crit one or both of them? Their damage with sneak attack should only be like 4d6+4=18.
The rogue did that much in two hits at lvl 5 with a +1 striking rapier. The fireball I could use...
One must have been a crit with deadly with the rapier. It was a some months back and two modules ago. Rogue does impressive damage and impressive actions all the time. Another top tier class in PF2.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One must have been a crit with deadly with the rapier. It was a some months back and two modules ago. Rogue does impressive damage and impressive actions all the time. Another top tier class in PF2.I'm very confused how a rogue dealt 60 points of damage in 2 attacks with a +1 striking rapier - did they crit one or both of them? Their damage with sneak attack should only be like 4d6+4=18.
The rogue did that much in two hits at lvl 5 with a +1 striking rapier. The fireball I could use...
Squishy, but quite lethal. I have a player playing as a ruffian with a staff in my Extinction curse campaign (she's a staff acrobat), and she is definitely the power striker of the party. At level 3 she crit for over 30 points last night (max damage on D8 + 4 STR + a boost from the bard and sneak damage).
@Swoosh
What QOL improvements are you speaking of that have been suggested for the wizard. (Genuine question - I’m interested in exploring those kinds of options)
I’ve seen a lot of balance suggestions being thrown around, some minor-ish (spell attack runes being the most common, I don’t like this but I don’t think it would break the game too hard depending on how big the numbers got), and some seriously major buffs, often relating to the incapacitation trait or number buffs to DCs.
Wizard threads seem a lot more polarized than other class threads to me.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The most interesting thing to come out of this thread and its predecessors I think is just how thoroughly traumatized a section of this community has been by the PF1 wizard.
I'm not sure if this is what you're going for, but it sounds like you're implying that people are biased because they had bad experiences with overpowered Wizards last edition...
I don't think that its fair to equate 'not wanting to return to the status quo' of Wizards being gods among men to unreasonable trauma.
That said, what makes this discussion difficult for me is...
I've seen magic in play for all 20 levels, and most of the spells used have been on the Wizard spell list. The Arcane list in general reads like a Greatest Hits album of magic in PF2, other than healing. Magic is good. No issues with Magic.
Wizards objectively are the best at magic. They get more access to meta-magic and more controllable (IE, not divine font) spell slots than anyone else by a significant margin, if they want to.
Most of the comparisons of class abilities, are comparisons of Wizard Class abilities to Class abilities that are paid for by the other class having significantly fewer Spell Slots. A Wizard cant have something equal to Compositions, Bards having Competitions is why they're worse at magic (approx than half the top level spell slots in some cases).
I had never heard Prepared Spellcasting described as the less good type of spellcasting until this thread. History tells me it has always been superior to be able to prepare spells as opposed to having them be mostly set. Prepared Spellcasting + unlimited Spell Substitution would have been considered amazing in prior editions.
No one seems to want to buy into the idea of the Wizard as the bookish, studious type that eschews hyperspecialization for a broad knowledge of magic in general. The loss of opposition schools is being treated like an issue? This is more or less the same description the class had before, except now it takes precedence over their status as world altering God-figures.
The only actual fullblown Wizard I've played with, another player to level 4 as a Diviner, has no issues with the class and thinks its great.
So yeah, I'm struggling.
The thread that does keep reoccurring is that Wizards aren't 'good enough' or 'other classes are better', or examples of 'bad experiences' that center around not doing enough damage, or not being 'effective'. This all does seem to indicate that a lot of the issues people have, are a about the power of the class.
I'm extremely sympathetic to people wanting changes to give the class more identity, or make certain specializations feel more special.
But so long as we're talking about Wizard Focus Spells being less good than Bard focus spells - yeah, it sounds like people are wanting to go back toward the "Wizard is best" situation we had before, because current Wizards aren't 'powerful enough. And I don't think I'm alone in being opposed to that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Squishy, but quite lethal. I have a player playing as a ruffian with a staff in my Extinction curse campaign (she's a staff acrobat), and she is definitely the power striker of the party. At level 3 she crit for over 30 points last night (max damage on D8 + 4 STR + a boost from the bard and sneak damage).One must have been a crit with deadly with the rapier. It was a some months back and two modules ago. Rogue does impressive damage and impressive actions all the time. Another top tier class in PF2.I'm very confused how a rogue dealt 60 points of damage in 2 attacks with a +1 striking rapier - did they crit one or both of them? Their damage with sneak attack should only be like 4d6+4=18.
The rogue did that much in two hits at lvl 5 with a +1 striking rapier. The fireball I could use...
The Ruffian has some good options. We have a Ruffian in another campaign. They have some impressive abilities as well. The ability to apply a weakness to a creature is nice.
Anyone want to hop on the above thread and provide feedback for some changes I'm thinking of trying, that would be helpful.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen magic in play for all 20 levels, and most of the spells used have been on the Wizard spell list. The Arcane list in general reads like a Greatest Hits album of magic in PF2, other than healing. Magic is good. No issues with Magic.
YOU have no issues with magic. YOU are able to do what you want. Me, for example, cannot play a Transmuter that specialises in Combat Transforms because Wizards literally have NO combat transforms until level 7. But I can have two different speed enhancement spells on 1st level. Oh, and my bonus cantrip is wasted slot.
People wanting to play Necromancers cannot, because guess what, there is very little support for Necromancers too.
This is just illustrative; there is plenty other objections.
Wizards objectively are the best at magic.
Again, YOU think this. The rest of us, who don't define "throw most spells per day" as being "best", do not think so. There is nothing objective about your opinion.
They get more access to meta-magic and more controllable (IE, not divine font) spell slots than anyone else by a significant margin, if they want to.
Metamagic which is pretty bad. You seem to confuse AMOUNT for QUALITY.
Most of the comparisons of class abilities, are comparisons of Wizard Class abilities to Class abilities that are paid for by the other class having significantly fewer Spell Slots. A Wizard cant have something equal to Compositions, Bards having Competitions is why they're worse at magic (approx than half the top level spell slots in some cases).
Again with your focus on AMOUNT. Not everyone defines "best" as "largest amount".
I had never heard Prepared Spellcasting described as the less good type of spellcasting until this thread.
Nobody is saying prepared spellcasting as being the less good type. Stop strawmanning.
WIZARD SPELLCASTING is the problem. Others do not have experience of having the entirety of Arcane spell list in their spellbooks, with enough time and information to choose just the right spell.History tells me it has always been superior to be able to prepare spells as opposed to having them be mostly set. Prepared Spellcasting + unlimited Spell Substitution would have been considered amazing in prior editions.
Maybe it would - but this is not the previous edition. Not to mention that not everyone subscribes to your incredibly narrow and single view of Wizards.
No one seems to want to buy into the idea of the Wizard as the bookish, studious type that eschews hyperspecialization for a broad knowledge of magic in general. The loss of opposition schools is being treated like an issue?
Because the bookish, studious types generally go for hyperspecialization. Just because YOU want to play a Wizard whose entire purpose is to scribe Arcane spell list into their spellbook, doesn't mean everyone else wants to. And since you're so focused on previous editions, maybe try reading them:
Role: While universalist wizards might study to prepare themselves for any manner of danger, specialist wizards research schools of magic that make them exceptionally skilled within a specific focus.| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, here's my play experience. I've played a PF2 Wizard(Evoker) to 5th level. For comparison, I've also played a PF2 Druid to 7th level. Both are PFS characters.
Spell List: The Primal list is very solid; it's got the potential to heal, blast, take animal forms. My druid can serve different needs depending on party composition, which is a real plus in PFS.
The Arcane list is also very good although as an Evoker I see a lot of overlap. Arcane does get True Strike, which will be quite the boon when I pick up big hitting spells that require an attack roll, such as Disintegrate. In the end, I'd call the lists fairly even.
Proficiencies: Druid wins here. All simple weapons and hide armor beats a subset of simple weapons and no armor. Druid also gets Expert Perception at 3rd level, vs the Wizard waiting until 11th.
Key Ability Score: Druid also wins this one, now that Perception governs Initiative. And in general, Saving Throw abilities beat non-save abilities.
Spellcasting: The wizard finally wins a category. As an Evoker, I get an extra spell per level, PLUS one use of arcane bond. At 5th level, I've got Shocking Grasp in the 1 slot, either Acid Arrow or Flaming Sphere in the 2 slot, and Fireball in the 3 slot. Oh, and let's call it Electric Arc in the bonus cantrip slot. An extra cantrip shouldn't be under-stated, it's worth half a class feat. And unless you are a Transmuter, there's a useful cantrip to grab.
Arcane bond was invaluable in an adventure where we fought enemies that could turn Invisible. I had cast Glitterdust, but the enemy made its save, so the invisibility negation only lasted two rounds. Once that lapsed, I was able to Arcane Bond and cast it again. The enemy failed this time, and we were able to mop them up after that. For that reason, I don't like thinking of it as an extra spell of the highest slot. Use it to re-cast a key spell in a crucial moment.
Class Feats: Here's the place where I think Wizard could use a little love. That said, I'm not worried; as more class feats are printed the Wizard will improve. My wizard decided to go with the Metamagic Experimentation thesis. Reach Spell is phenomenal. Shocking Grasp from 30 feet is great fun, as is Electric Arc from 60 feet. (Druids can also take Reach Spell, but they need to have access to e.g. Natural Ambition or use their 2nd level class feat to get it)
After that: ehh. I decided to double down on Metamagic and pick up both Conceal Spell and Silent Spell. Trouble is; I'm not an Enchanter or Illusionist or otherwise someone that needs to be hiding my spellcasting. Maybe at some point in the future, I'll be in an area affected by Silence, and at that point Silent Spell will be *Awesome*. Until then, it's a couple of feats that do nothing. Perhaps if new Wizard feats come out of the APG, I'll retrain into them. At 6th level, I will probably take Spell Penetration. Again, it's a niche feat. When it comes into play, it's awesome, but most of the time it's not doing anything for me.
In contrast, my Animal Order Druid is spending half of his feats on an animal companion; a creature that measurably adds to every encounter. The other Druid Orders also have compelling options, though I decided on a Multiclass Dedication for said druid, and am spending half my feats there.
As an aside comment to the OP: I too have had not great luck with Burning Hands. One time, I was in the perfect place for it, and rolled snake eyes, doing 2 damage to something like 5 "minion" enemies. Another time, I ran up to cast it on a pair of enemies, then realized I would have been much better off if I stayed where I was and Electric Arc'd them. Now that I'm at 5th level, I can't see myself ever preparing it again; Fireball will cover my AoE fire needs.
To sum up: If you want to play a blaster, you've got a lot of options: Evoker Wizard, Storm Druid, Draconic or Elemental Sorcerer are the ones that stand out. I'm playing a Wizard because I wanted my character to be a bookish nerd interested in the lore of Ancient Thassalon that also happened to drop fireballs on his enemies. The spells themselves are great, but the class feats could use some love. But that's a solvable problem, and I suspect the APG will have some neat toys to play with on that front.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nemo, Spell Slot Count is more or less the only differentiation in Spellcasting ability. By that metric, Wizards are the best spellcasters (other than debatably Clerics, but Divine Font is weird). I'm focusing on amount because its a valid and reasonable point to focus on, even if you don't think so.
Yeah, I hear you. You have issues with Wizard. I'm not discounting those issues, and never have. I'm still participating because I'm reading what you have to say and considering it, trying to understand it.
For example, you saying that you don't have the options you want for Necromancy or Transmutation is a good thought. There's no real reason for the Transmutation stuff, is there? Those spells exist.
My 'view' of wizards is based on what they are good at, not on the things that they aren't. I don't 'want' them to be anything necessarily, I'm just looking at reality and making the best of it, instead of the worst.
Perhaps instead of becoming angry and hostile, you could look at my points as a challenge to address.
I'm not here to police how you play - I'm not your GM.
But I am primarily a GM, and if I had a Wizard player who did have an issue, this information is important for me to understand.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nemo, Spell Slot Count is more or less the only differentiation in Spellcasting ability.
I strongly disagree this is the only differentiation; for one, I would argue that overall spell list and access to spells matters quite a bit.
By that metric, Wizards are the best spellcasters (other than debatably Clerics, but Divine Font is weird). I'm focusing on amount because its a valid and reasonable point to focus on, even if you don't think so.
Again, you are ignoring the fact that other classes get far more use out of their Focus spells. According to your classification, Champions are by far the best spellcasters, because I guarantee you, their healing spell (which is always max level) will be used far more every day than any other spell of any other class except maybe Bards' cantrips.
Yeah, I hear you. You have issues with Wizard. I'm not discounting those issues, and never have. I'm still participating because I'm reading what you have to say and considering it, trying to understand it.
You have been discounting them since the start. You just keep repeating that we're the ones in the wrong because we don't want to conform to your idea of a wizard.
For example, you saying that you don't have the options you want for Necromancy or Transmutation is a good thought. There's no real reason for the Transmutation stuff, is there? Those spells exist.
I don't understand what you mean there?
My 'view' of wizards is based on what they are good at, not on the things that they aren't. I don't 'want' them to be anything necessarily, I'm just looking at reality and making the best of it, instead of the worst.
According to PF2 definition of Wizard:
Yet magical theory is vast, and there’s no way you can study it all. You either specialize in one of the eight schools of magic, gaining deeper understanding of the nuances of those spells above all others, or favor a broader approach that emphasizes the way all magic comes together at the expense of depth.
This clearly describes different approaches to Wizards, yet only one is mechanically supported. And I still argue, even that is not properly supported because Wizards STILL only get access to Arcane spell list. On the other hand, both Clerics and Sorcerers do get to access spells outside their spell lists. In a fairly reasonable way, but you can't really say that "all magic" is at all making sense.
I don't try to pretend everything is okay just because that is what is. If you do that, nothing will ever change.
Perhaps instead of becoming angry and hostile, you could look at my points as a challenge to address.
I did take your points as a challenge to address. You seem quite consistent in ignoring mine (and everyone else's) comments by repeating your mantra. This is page 7 of this discussion. I'm tired of trying to discuss something with someone not interested in discussion.
I'm not here to police how you play - I'm not your GM.
And yet you repeatedly tell us to stop playing Wizards.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, here's my play experience. I've played a PF2 Wizard(Evoker) to 5th level. For comparison, I've also played a PF2 Druid to 7th level. Both are PFS characters.
Spell List: The Primal list is very solid; it's got the potential to heal, blast, take animal forms. My druid can serve different needs depending on party composition, which is a real plus in PFS.
The Arcane list is also very good although as an Evoker I see a lot of overlap. Arcane does get True Strike, which will be quite the boon when I pick up big hitting spells that require an attack roll, such as Disintegrate. In the end, I'd call the lists fairly even.
Proficiencies: Druid wins here. All simple weapons and hide armor beats a subset of simple weapons and no armor. Druid also gets Expert Perception at 3rd level, vs the Wizard waiting until 11th.
Key Ability Score: Druid also wins this one, now that Perception governs Initiative. And in general, Saving Throw abilities beat non-save abilities.
Spellcasting: The wizard finally wins a category. As an Evoker, I get an extra spell per level, PLUS one use of arcane bond. At 5th level, I've got Shocking Grasp in the 1 slot, either Acid Arrow or Flaming Sphere in the 2 slot, and Fireball in the 3 slot. Oh, and let's call it Electric Arc in the bonus cantrip slot. An extra cantrip shouldn't be under-stated, it's worth half a class feat. And unless you are a Transmuter, there's a useful cantrip to grab.
Arcane bond was invaluable in an adventure where we fought enemies that could turn Invisible. I had cast Glitterdust, but the enemy made its save, so the invisibility negation only lasted two rounds. Once that lapsed, I was able to Arcane Bond and cast it again. The enemy failed this time, and we were able to mop them up after that. For that reason, I don't like thinking of it as an extra spell of the highest slot. Use it to re-cast a key spell in a crucial moment.
Class Feats: Here's the place where I think Wizard could use a little love. That said, I'm not worried; as more class feats are printed...
Good info. I noticed you didn't mention focus spells. I agree. The wizard's spellcasting is their best thing. Their focus abilities and feats, not so much. More books with metamagic feats should make feat selection better.
I play a Storm Druid with Order Explorer for an animal companion. Storm druid is pretty nasty. Their focus spell is quite nasty for damage and effect. My bird is great for doing a little damage, flanking, and moving around the field providing assistance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good info. I noticed you didn't mention focus spells. I agree. The wizard's spellcasting is their best thing. Their focus abilities and feats, not so much. More books with metamagic feats should make feat selection better.
I play a Storm Druid with Order Explorer for an animal companion. Storm druid is pretty nasty. Their focus spell is quite nasty for damage and effect. My bird is great for doing a little damage, flanking, and moving around the field providing assistance.
That's true. I don't think Wizard's focus spells are bad, mind you, just that Druid's focus spells are really good. Tempest Surge is great; probably on par with a spell one level lower than max. As an Animal Druid, I think Heal Animal is fantastic. In contrast, I think Force Bolt is a good focus spell, but again, it's more situational. I tend to save it for when, after a blast spell, the GM says something like "and that monster is barely teetering on", then it's a one-action guaranteed damage that will drop said monster. It works great for monsters with Ferocity as well. In terms of other wizards, I've seen Universalists use Hand of the Apprentice to good effect, though that requires putting striking runes on your weapons. One neat trick is to put Striking runes on a magic Staff, since you're already tolding it to cast your spells.
Another note on Focus: For some reason, Wizards are just not as good at recovering it; they get their "Refocus back 2 focus points" feat at 14th instead of 12th, and don't get to refocus up to 3 at all. Now, unless they are multi-classing they probably won't get to 3 points anyway, so maybe it's moot. But yeah, Druids and Sorcerors have Wizards beat on the focus spell front, at least when it comes to blasting.And that sorta continues the trend I'm seeing: my Wizard's abilities are very situational. If I'm in the right situation, they are the best thing in the world. If not, they are ho-hum. So if you're the sort of player that feels awesome when said situation comes up, that's probably a good fit. On the other hand, if you are liable to feel bad that said situations don't come up very often, and most of the time these feats don't do much, maybe a different build would be more to your liking.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wizards objectively are the best at magic. They get more access to meta-magic and more controllable (IE, not divine font) spell slots than anyone else by a significant margin, if they want to.
We're going to have to agree to disagree. Wizards are only subjectively better at magic. The framework that you believe makes them better is 2 more spells at max level and access to the arcane spell list. They have a couple of highly situational meta-magic feats that other classes don't get.
But they don't have spammable useful cantrips like a bard every round or particularly strong and focus spells (ala druid).
They never have full access to their complete spell list - they are limited by what they can afford to put in their spell book and carry.
They aren't unique in their access to the arcane spell list and scrolls are now much more affordable. An arcane sorc that is willing to spend on scrolls (rather than purchasing spells) can match a wizard in versatility and max spell slots if they want to go all in.
There are feats for spontaneous spellcasters to add or swap a spell out on a day by day basis which can help with adjusting their repetoire of max level spells. Signature spells offer another level of flexibility to number of different effectively max level spells prepared even if limited by slots. Sorc and bard very quickly have more max level spells available to chose from than wizards due to signature spells. Heightened lower level spells may not always be quite as good at spell at level but are rarely bad and give a lot of tactical flexibility if you are smart about spell choices.
Extra spell slots means your adventuring day might be an encounter or 2 longer, not that you are better in any given encounter.
Nothing about a wizard really says 'better at magic' as it stands. But again that is my subjective opinion.
Plenty of people are reporting a different play experience. Wizards only feeling like wizards after level 7 is not great, for a 3rd of the game more likely half or more in many games is poor design. It was more understandable in AD&D 2e where they they started behind the curve and needed more experience per level but ended up super strong by the end of the game. Then again magic was far, far deadlier in AD&D 2e (earliest edition I properly played).
I strongly disagree that 'access to the divine spell list, 1 or 2 extra available meta-magic feats, and 2 extra spells at max level' amounts to best at magic. Compared to 3 or more good focus spells available (druid/bard) also always cast at max level. Spammable 1 action strong focus cantrips.
If wizards are supposed to be the most magically flexible its bad that the ability to swap a spell on short notice is tied to 1 thesis. But otherwise the additional metamagic feats they have access to are highly situational and campaign dependent.
Right now they might be able to go 1 or 2 extra encounters but even that is questionable due to other classes having stronger 'encounter' magic (read combat magic) focus spells and the ability to replenish 3 focus points.
What I have read from this thread is:
Wizards have a narrow play style right now that doesn't start to feel on par with some other classes till level 7.
Wizards are fine if your GM is generous with how strong divination and research options are before major encounters/dungeons.
Wizards key strength is versatility, although that versatility could be duplicated on an arcane sorc with the right consumables.
Wizards get extra spells slots reducing their need for more consumables and possibly extending the number of encounters they can do a day. Its questionable if they do given how strong some focus spells/cantrips are or the ability for other classes to contribute in melee without being a liability as well as cast. Many wizard focus spells are really situational where as some focus spells are every encounter.
Wizard flexibility is highly dependent on thesis.
Wizards will be fine once they get more feat options
The Arcane spell lists is great cause it is so broad. Although there is a realistic limit to how much that breadth really means given I have to find/buy/research spells, am limited in the number I can prepare, am limited in being able to change for a given situation on the fly. Meaning that flexibility is heavily reduced in the ability to take advantage of it in real terms. We already have a trend of 'these are the best 4 spells to have prepared at this level' so added flexibility is somewhat situational and might be covered in consumables easily enough when needed.
I am not sold that wizards really are 'the masters' of magic 'objectively' or are better at it 'objectively.' There is simply not enough data (and likely never will be) to say they are. The framework used to state that is very subjective.
Objectively I can say they have an extra high level spell slot which may mean an extra high level spell slot prepared. Objectively I can say they have the greatest potential ability to change their spell list day by day with a lot of assumptions about the number of spells they have bought/have in their spell list.
Objectively I can say the arcane spell list has the most breadth although maybe not the most depth. How good/useful that breadth is for any given character, game etc is highly subjective and experiences will greatly vary.
Difference in perception of the wizard's strength/fun seems to depend a lot on how much people value the extra spell slot, the couple extra meta magic feats, and access to the arcane spell list and whether that supports their fantasy of what a wizard is. For some it does, but there also seems to be a lot who it isn't working for.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wizards are good from level 1 to level 4 ish as well, but they are stuck spamming cantrips mostly in combat. Also their spell number advantage is a lot higher than 2 max spells, they get an extra spellevery level and lots more ways to recast them.
Druids and bards have good focus spells and other things to do with their actions so they cast spells once or twice an encounter tops.
Clerics might be casting every round, but it is probably heal spells and maybe one or two buffs. Sustain spells are pretty rough for them.
These really only leaves wizards and sorcerers as casters that cast spells each round. That is what getting “best at spells” means to me. They don’t have other responsibilities in the party other than casting.
If spamming the same spells encounter after encounter is the play style you enjoy, the sorcerer is the better “best at spells” class for you.
If really thinking and overthinking your spell selection every day sounds more fun, then the wizard is probably a better choice. I really don’t know where the witch is going to fit in this yet.
Remember, all wizard spells heighten for free, so they quickly end up with lots of spells they could put in each slot, even if the GM is being stingy with extra spells.