I do think that some of the wizard specializations are less developed than others. Transmutation and Necromancy really jump out at me as unfinished. But lots of other things were too in just the core rule book and I really think you will see some decent wizard stuff in the APG.
But most of the specialized schools have enough spells on their list to be very different from each other in play and still utilize the flexibility of their open spell book. I probably would let the augmented summoning focus spell be a reaction that could be cast immediately after completing a summoning spell. At the very least, it should automatically count for sustaining the summon on the turn you use it. A +1 status bonus to all checks and DCs is pretty good, but the action requirement is just too awkward since you have to be sustaining your summons anyway. The most protective ward would need is to function a little more like bless, where you only have to sustain it to make it bigger. It is a little weird that you have to make it bigger every round that you keep it going.
I am opposed to a full +1 to +3 item bonus to all spell attack roll spells because it makes it too much of a must have item and it gets really really powerful with true strike on some spells like disintegrate, and heightened shocking grasp cast through spectral hand. Also I have no idea what is going on with polar ray and if there will be more spell attack roll spells like that with no crit modifier to damage. If that was a mistake, and most future spell attack roll spells will double damage on crits, then item bonuses to spell attack rolls would really get broken for the wizard. If we get more like polar ray, it might be ok, but some, like disintegrate would be too good and the items will have to deliberately not work when paired with true strike. I think there might be some more creative options than just wands of "make spell attack roll spells broken for wizards." a +3 status modifier paired with the ability to get flanking AND Truestrike on spells with nasty crit riders is very very powerful.
| 4 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...
'Scuse me, but more spells mean you can actually spend more turns in an encounter throwing out slotted spells, a mage who's conserving is going to do less damage to make sure they have gas in the tank for whatever comes next, whereas a mage who doesn't have to conserve so much can pressure foes much harder.
Ergo, over the same number of encounters, more slots means more effective turns on average (assuming you can't afford to spend a high end spell every turn in the first place, which as a GM here with two sorcerers and a cleric whose gas-tanks I have to keep in mind, you can't.)
In this game, an extra turn or two of a spell like Fireball is an earth shattering difference in effectiveness.
Refuge in subjectivity is all well and good, but it has it's limits, and declaring extra slots to have such little value strains credibility.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And yet another night of caster damage uselessness where the support Bard did way more than the sorcerer and cleric healed. Not having weapons with item bonuses to attack spells makes it worse. This was with my sorcerer.
I guess the only use for a damage caster is AoE damage. Single target damage is pointless even if you try to build for it.
We already have a cleric and bard. I think I'm going to switch to an archer. No point trying to make a damage caster yet. There is not a caster class made to do good single target magic damage. Aoe damage is situational and often just ok damage until higher level. Most BBEGs are single target damage fights. If you want to be effective in the most important fights other than buffing and support, make a martial seems to be the clear message.
I"m going to have to accept that buffing and the occasional AoE fight is where casters shine. The fly and haste spell were extremely useful during the fight, but the damage spells by the sorcerer extremely lame against a single higher level target. I think that is one thing I would like Paizo to add at some point: a ranged class that does it's damage with magic. Good, martial level single target damage.
| 2 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.
There get 1 extra spell per level over bards, druids and clerics (although clerics get font). They get 1 recast. Other casters can also spam cantrips at 1-4 but get a range of other useful things they can be effective at (composition cantrips, not a wet paper-towel in melee).
Not sold wizards come out ahead or that a case has been made that they have are in an equal position to other casters classes that can bring cantrips + other useful abilities to the table. Usefulness of extra spell per level over Bard, Druid and Cleric is questionable, given the others compensate with generally stronger focus spell (useful as an extra spell each encounter), font (especially if harm font if we want to look at filling the damage/support role of a wizard).
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.
Disagree, druid/bard focus abilities likely to be useful every encounter, bonus spell slot at each level is useful once per day. Average encounter being 4ish rounds with a good useful focus spell (for role) easily beats 1 extra spell per level once per day.
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.
Your mileage may vary, this is true if your cleric is relegated to heal bot (not essential in PF2e by design) rather than combat/damage support. 2 action harm is amazing. Sustain spells are rough for everyone that wants to move and cast so not really relevant.
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.
This stinks of the mentality of 'if you have a heal button in your class available that is what you must be' mentality. Plenty of cleric flavours and deities which are not about healing. This is a very Kalgan attitude towards WoW Paladins that thankfully has been abandoned as it stunk as a design. You assume only wizards and sorcs should be free of having other responsibilities but that is really a narrow view. The fact Wizards cannot perform other roles where other classes can fill the wizard role is telling in itself.
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.
Play experience has been that as a wizard unless I get the luxury of knowing in advance what I will be fighting/needing and have access to the appropriate spells in my spellbook most of the time I will take the same (safe) load out that is likely to be effective and hedge my bets.
I would say sorcs and bards need greater thinking and over thinking as they need to consider what signature spells to have. Its equal to the wizard.
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.
Signature spells heighten for free too and are always prepared. Signature spells are a lot more powerful (and compete if chosen well) with a lot of the advantage of 'wizard start of day' flexibility. Number of spells I can chose between to use my highest level spell slots on as a sorcerer is far greater than a wizard during
Lets look at 8th level sorc vs wizard (after level 7 where it was previously stated in this thread that wizards start feeling effective/like wizards)
Wizard (specialist)
3 + 1 spell slots per level
1 recast per day.
Up to 16 unique spells prepared. Up to 4 prepared at max level. Can cast 4 max level spells + 1 recast.
Sorc (arcane bloodline not that is matters but just say the spell list debate isn't an issue)
4 spell slots per level
Up to 16 unique spells prepared/available. Spells known that can be cast at max level 6. Can cast 4 max level spells (no recast).
While the wizard can change what they have prepared based on whats available in their spellbook day by day they have less options in what they can do/cast in their spellslots after daily prep (spell sub thesis allows some flexibility).
Sorc has more 'at the ready' flexibility and if they picked their signature spells well can potentially have the right spell available. This is even more true if they know the theme of the campaign (which kind of enemies). Wizards only really win out if the type of badguys changes a lot and the wizard has a reliable means of finding out what badguys they will be fighting before prepping for the day (high level of uncertainty).
Sorc bloodline ability attaches 'riders' (after cast benefits/bonuses) to their bloodline spells. Wizards don't get riders or even feats to give riders.
Clerics get riders on their key heal and harm spells, they have more ways to improve those spells than wizards do for any spell they can cast. School focus spells would have been far better if they were a free action with focus point cost that improved a spell cast from that school are granted you a boon for casting it. Even abjuration getting a buff similar to the Cleric Feat 'Deity's protection' or 'Defensive recovery' at the cost of a focus point for casting an abjuration spell would have been great. Then I would say wizards feel more like the masters of magic and school specialisation felt like a thing. Of course it would be easy to now add this as feats but I feel 1st level school focus spells should have added a rider or buff to spells of that school when cast.
I really think metamagic as focus spells for wizards would really have made them shine.
Some ideas (all cost 1 focus point):
Tansmutation - When you cast a transmutation spell on another target you also gain that benefit for 1 round.
Evocation - increase the by +2 per die of damage (alternatively increase the damage die by 1 size)
Necromancy - gain 2 temporary HP per level of spell you cast.
Abjuration - can Damage reduction equal to the level of the spell you cast until the start of your next turn. Or gain +2 AC until the start of your next turn (either as a focus spell would be fine).
Universal - 1 action 1 focus point - Change 1 spell you have prepared to instantly prepare 1 spell you have in your spellbook.
Those kind of things would have helped make a wizard feel like a master of magic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Scuse me, but more spells mean you can actually spend more turns in an encounter throwing out slotted spells, a mage who's conserving is going to do less damage to make sure they have gas in the tank for whatever comes next, whereas a mage who doesn't have to conserve so much can pressure foes much harder.
Ergo, over the same number of encounters, more slots means more effective turns on average (assuming you can't afford to spend a high end spell every turn in the first place, which as a GM here with two sorcerers and a cleric whose gas-tanks I have to keep in mind, you can't.)
In this game, an extra turn or two of a spell like Fireball is an earth shattering difference in effectiveness.
Refuge in subjectivity is all well and good, but it has it's limits, and declaring extra slots to have such little value strains credibility.
Not really. 1 extra spell slot per level means at most 9 extra rounds per day (so up to 2 encounters assuming all spells are encounter relevant and useful for at least 1 encounter).
It means your adventuring day might go 2 extra encounters. A lot of lower level spells tend to be less encounter relevant (not always but rarely are all of them going to be cast over just Electric Arc).
Extra slots means they can do 1 to 2 extra encounter assuming all casters do every turn is spam a spell from a spell slot - this has not been my experience. There are plenty of comments that indicate that casters are spending a lot of their time casting cantrips and I have no indication that adventuring days have been cut short because bards/druids run out of spells. I also have no experience (nor read any comments) that the wizard had spells to keep going but the party had to stop because the druid was out. So the value of those those extra slots is questionable particularly as lower level spellslots have diminishing hard value for usefulness in encounters over time. This also ignores that sorcerers have as many slots available as a wizard.
Granted Fireball is a great spell... if you have it prepared... if it is at a level where the damage is still significant against the monster levels you are fighting... if your foes are positioned in a way that you can cast fireball without frying your friends. Thats a lot of caveats. Some classes/bloodlines have focus spells that easily compete with fireball and stay relevant for damage so have at least 1 (sometimes 3 depending on level/feats) for each encounter.
So while extra spell slots are nice (its only equal with sorc, and only if you are a specialist), they may not always be useful (had the wrong spell prepared), didn't have that many encounters etc. It hardly makes them a 'master of magic.'
So not much of a strain.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
'Scuse me, but more spells mean you can actually spend more turns in an encounter throwing out slotted spells
The problem is looking at slotted spells as if they're the only resource that matter.
A storm druid has a combat ready. That can functionally translates to not just one extra spell per day, but one extra spell per encounter. Wizards have focus spells too, but most of them aren't going to be able to replace combat actions in the way tempest surge or wild shape/wild morph can (call of the grave and hand of the apprentice can work, albeit the latter spell gets expensive as you level up and the former has targeting issues).
The cleric you were just complaining about having a limited gas tank in the same post can have more top level slots than a Wizard. Limited in what you can cast from them, but often a spell you were going to cast anyways (and everyone has just been pretending drain bonded item is a free extra slot with no restrictions anyways so meh).
There's clearly a lot more going on with each of these classes. So I'm not sure just shouting "extra spell slots" over and over every time someone says something actually ends up adding much on its own.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
2 action harm is amazing.
Errr... how? It doesn't get the +8/spell level (that's only for healing undead) so you're spending 2 actions to get 1d8/slot level at 30ft range on a fort save. If you think Fireball is bad, 2 action harm is much, much, much worse.
1 action harm is pretty ok for nova potential.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not really. 1 extra spell slot per level means at most 9 extra rounds per day (so up to 2 encounters assuming all spells are encounter relevant and useful for at least 1 encounter).It means your adventuring day might go 2 extra encounters. A lot of lower level spells tend to be less encounter relevant (not always but rarely are all of them going to be cast over just Electric Arc).
A 2-action focus spell generally averages in power to a spell of 1 lower level than max. Compare Elemental Blast to Fireball, for example.
Comparing to the druid based on that principle, that means in 2 combats, the wizard will do more, 1 combat will be even, and the remaining combats will be weaker. We're also assuming the wizard never uses their focus spell, which for an offensive wizard can be something like Force Bolt. If there are less combats in the day, the wizard shines more.
Given this, how is the druid objectively better than the wizard?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not really. 1 extra spell slot per level means at most 9 extra rounds per day (so up to 2 encounters assuming all spells are encounter relevant and useful for at least 1 encounter).It means your adventuring day might go 2 extra encounters. A lot of lower level spells tend to be less encounter relevant (not always but rarely are all of them going to be cast over just Electric Arc).
A 2-action focus spell generally averages in power to a spell of 1 lower level than max. Compare Elemental Blast to Fireball, for example.
Comparing to the druid based on that principle, that means in 2 combats, the wizard will do more, 1 combat will be even, and the remaining combats will be weaker. We're also assuming the wizard never uses their focus spell, which for an offensive wizard can be something like Force Bolt. If there are less combats in the day, the wizard shines more.
Given this, how is the druid objectively better than the wizard?
Except Elemental Blast auto levels and fireball does not. Elemental blast (and the Sorc's fireball for that matter) benefits from bloodline magic which mitigates this. The sorc always has access to elemental blast and can build to get 3 free casts per encounter without affecting their usual repetiore. Not to mention sorc's get the same number of spell slots as a wizard can have the same number of spells 'prepared' (just can't change them day to day) and is a lot more flexible with what they can do with those prepared/known spells.
Druids Vs - depends. Druids generally have more useful focus spells but lets assume blaster.
Can get many of the same commonly advocated blasting spells as a wizard (just 1 less per spell level). Gets access to Impaling Briars or Stormlord both amazing sustain spells with cool battlefield control options and 10d6 damage for 1 action every round for up to a minute.
Or can use a focus spell to contribute respectable damage in melee if they want to conserve blasting spells for when there are more targets (wizards get to cantrip if aoes are not an option I guess?)
Druids have a reasonable amount of flexibility and the primal spell list can cover a lot of the utility/damage that the arcane does + has healing for if needed in a pinch. Druids get better weapon and armor profs for when anti magic zones (or other reasons casting is unavailable/inadvisable) happen. Druids have better base HP and overall better survivability without relying on the opportunity cost of spell slots.
Druids don't need to get lucky and find/buy their spells, they get immediate access to all common spells upon reaching the required level.
Its harder to say what a wizard gets over a druid other than +1 spell slot per level and 1 recast per day, or same number of spells per level and recast at each level 1 per day.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is probably a minor point, but of the magical tradition skills, in my opinion right now Arcana gets the best skill feats. And a Wizard will be better at Arcana checks than an Arcane sorcerer. Certainly, part of the selection of which caster class comes down to “what skills do you want to be good at?” If you want to be a Face, go sorcerer. If you want Nature/Survival/Medicine, that’s Druid (or maybe a cleric of Saranrae or another god with a good spell list + solid domain spell). And if you want to be a master of Lore, right now you can’t beat the Wizard. (Those suggestions may change next month when we see what the Oracle and Witch look like, of course)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not really. 1 extra spell slot per level means at most 9 extra rounds per day (so up to 2 encounters assuming all spells are encounter relevant and useful for at least 1 encounter).It means your adventuring day might go 2 extra encounters. A lot of lower level spells tend to be less encounter relevant (not always but rarely are all of them going to be cast over just Electric Arc).
A 2-action focus spell generally averages in power to a spell of 1 lower level than max. Compare Elemental Blast to Fireball, for example.
Comparing to the druid based on that principle, that means in 2 combats, the wizard will do more, 1 combat will be even, and the remaining combats will be weaker. We're also assuming the wizard never uses their focus spell, which for an offensive wizard can be something like Force Bolt. If there are less combats in the day, the wizard shines more.
Given this, how is the druid objectively better than the wizard?
Except Elemental Blast auto levels and fireball does not. Elemental blast (and the Sorc's fireball for that matter) benefits from bloodline magic which mitigates this. The sorc always has access to elemental blast and can build to get 3 free casts per encounter without affecting their usual repetiore. Not to mention sorc's get the same number of spell slots as a wizard can have the same number of spells 'prepared' (just can't change them day to day) and is a lot more flexible with what they can do with those prepared/known spells.
Druids Vs - depends. Druids generally have more useful focus spells but lets assume blaster.
Can get many of the same commonly advocated blasting spells as a wizard (just 1 less per spell level). Gets access to Impaling Briars or Stormlord both amazing sustain spells with cool battlefield control options and 10d6 damage for 1 action every round for up to a minute.
Or can use a focus spell to contribute respectable damage in melee if they want to conserve blasting spells for when there...
Your comparison clearly shows that some Wizard options are plain weak. Other options, on the other hand, have way bigger assets. A Spell Blending Specialist will cast nearly twice more high level spells with a twice bigger choice compared to a Druid. It should be, in my opinion, the default Wizard people compare to other classes. Spell Substitution is hard to properly use and Familiar, Metamagic and Generalist are just thematic options.
Before creating my Wizard, I've played a 5th level Metamagic Generalist (Ezren) in a PFS adventure once. During the session, I haven't used any Metamagic feat nor the ability to recast a low level spell. It convinced me these options are not worth it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is probably a minor point, but of the magical tradition skills, in my opinion right now Arcana gets the best skill feats. And a Wizard will be better at Arcana checks than an Arcane sorcerer. Certainly, part of the selection of which caster class comes down to “what skills do you want to be good at?” If you want to be a Face, go sorcerer. If you want Nature/Survival/Medicine, that’s Druid (or maybe a cleric of Saranrae or another god with a good spell list + solid domain spell). And if you want to be a master of Lore, right now you can’t beat the Wizard. (Those suggestions may change next month when we see what the Oracle and Witch look like, of course)
Why would the wizard and not the enigma bard be the master of lore?
I played a sorcerer. Given the four +2 ability scores per five levels with a maximum of 20, it's very easy to boost your intel up to 18. A bard with Enigma muse is the master of lore. My multiclass sorcerer had a 17 intel by 5th level with Master in Arcana. Once again it's not hard to do with other classes what some seem to think the wizard does very well.
The PF2 changes made it so stats can't get too whacky and it's very easy to work up stats. So no way for the wizard to have an intel so much higher than anyone else that you can't touch him unless everyone else ignores intel because of it's low value as a stat.
|
|
This is probably a minor point, but of the magical tradition skills, in my opinion right now Arcana gets the best skill feats. And a Wizard will be better at Arcana checks than an Arcane sorcerer. Certainly, part of the selection of which caster class comes down to “what skills do you want to be good at?” If you want to be a Face, go sorcerer. If you want Nature/Survival/Medicine, that’s Druid (or maybe a cleric of Saranrae or another god with a good spell list + solid domain spell). And if you want to be a master of Lore, right now you can’t beat the Wizard. (Those suggestions may change next month when we see what the Oracle and Witch look like, of course)Why would the wizard and not the enigma bard be the master of lore?
I played a sorcerer. Given the four +2 ability scores per five levels with a maximum of 20, it's very easy to boost your intel up to 18. A bard with Enigma muse is the master of lore. My multiclass sorcerer had a 17 intel by 5th level with Master in Arcana. Once again it's not hard to do with other classes what some seem to think the wizard does very well.
The PF2 changes made it so stats can't get too whacky and it's very easy to work up stats. So no way for the wizard to have an intel so much higher than anyone else that you can't touch him unless everyone else ignores intel because of it's low value as a stat.
While you can increase INT on a sorc or enigma bard, it's not without significant cost relative to a wizard. As you've pointed out before, casters have the worst proficiencies in the game. You need all 4 of Con, Wis, Dex and casting stat boosted. As a sorc or bard, if you're boosting Int, you're neglecting one of Con, Wis or Dex which is... not ideal.
I've seen what happens to Wis dump wizards, can't imagine Con or Wis dump sorc/bard fairs any better.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While you can increase INT on a sorc or enigma bard, it's not without significant cost relative to a wizard. As you've pointed out before, casters have the worst proficiencies in the game. You need all 4 of Con, Wis, Dex and casting stat boosted. As a sorc or bard, if you're boosting Int, you're neglecting one of Con, Wis or Dex which is... not ideal.
Int is actually quite small influence on the overall value, given that proficiency increases with level. Thus, I'd argue Rogues are unbeatable at being masters of Lore. Or if you really insist on maxing Int, Alchemist have more skills than Wizards.
Finally, if you're building a "master of lore", you're not going for mechanically best character anyway, so what does it matter?
I've seen what happens to Wis dump wizards, can't imagine Con or Wis dump sorc/bard fairs any better.
I have no idea what you are talking about. I'm playing a Wis 10 Wizard right now, that's the best dump stat. Going first in initiative is not that valuable as people seem to insist, as save-or-suck or just nova strikes are really rare.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why would the wizard and not the enigma bard be the master of lore?
I played a sorcerer. Given the four +2 ability scores per five levels with a maximum of 20, it's very easy to boost your intel up to 18. A bard with Enigma muse is the master of lore. My multiclass sorcerer had a 17 intel by 5th level with Master in Arcana. Once again it's not hard to do with other classes what some seem to think the wizard does very well.
Okay, even if you decide to boost your Bards int up to 18 by 20th level, a Wizard will have an Int of 24, given a Diadem of Intellect.
The Enigma bard has Bardic Lore. Let’s say they take Legendary Occultism (very reasonable for a Bard), so therefore they are an Expert at Bardic Lore. At 20th level, they are +28 to Bardic Lore.Let’s say the Wizard has taken a feat that gives +Level to all skills at some point in those 20 levels. (Untrained Improvisation, or the Human Ancestry feat that that but better, or maybe even Pathfinder Dedication). Now, to recall knowledge with ANY Lore, they get +30. (+7 From Int, +3 from the Diadem, +20 from level). That jumps to +38 if the Wizard wants to be a specialist via Additional Lore, vs the Bard’s +32 in Legendary lores.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Int is actually quite small influence on the overall value, given that proficiency increases with level. Thus, I'd argue Rogues are unbeatable at being masters of Lore. Or if you really insist on maxing Int, Alchemist have more skills than Wizards.
Sure, Rogues have more skill feats, so they can certainly take Additional Lore more often than Wizards can. Presumably, if you wanted to go that route, you’d play an Investigator, assuming they get to keep the same number of skill feats.
Finally, if you're building a "master of lore", you're not going for mechanically best character anyway, so what does it matter?
Really? You feel that having a character concept like “I want to play a very studious and learned character, so I am going to play a Wizard, and put skill feats into Additional Lore and the like, is not a valid decision to make because it would be better to take, I dunno, Battle Medicine because it’s a “mechanically better option”? I disagree with that view of character creation fairly strongly. Or maybe I don’t understand your point.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let’s say the Wizard has taken a feat that gives +Level to all skills at some point in those 20 levels. (Untrained Improvisation, or the Human Ancestry feat that that but better, or maybe even Pathfinder Dedication). Now, to recall knowledge with ANY Lore, they get +30. (+7 From Int, +3 from the Diadem, +20 from level). That jumps to +38 if the Wizard wants to be a specialist via Additional Lore, vs the Bard’s +32 in Legendary lores.
Untrained Improvisation is half level, not level. So that drops the Wizard using that to +28, four behind the Bard.
The human feat Clever Improviser grants Untrained Improvisation.
Sooo....
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have no idea what you are talking about. I'm playing a Wis 10 Wizard right now, that's the best dump stat. Going first in initiative is not that valuable as people seem to insist, as save-or-suck or just nova strikes are really rare.
Initiative isn't the problem, it's will saves. Playing through AoA
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let’s say the Wizard has taken a feat that gives +Level to all skills at some point in those 20 levels. (Untrained Improvisation, or the Human Ancestry feat that that but better, or maybe even Pathfinder Dedication). Now, to recall knowledge with ANY Lore, they get +30. (+7 From Int, +3 from the Diadem, +20 from level). That jumps to +38 if the Wizard wants to be a specialist via Additional Lore, vs the Bard’s +32 in Legendary lores.Untrained Improvisation is half level, not level. So that drops the Wizard using that to +28, four behind the Bard.
The human feat Clever Improviser grants Untrained Improvisation.
Sooo....
It improves to full level at 7th level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why would the wizard and not the enigma bard be the master of lore?
I played a sorcerer. Given the four +2 ability scores per five levels with a maximum of 20, it's very easy to boost your intel up to 18. A bard with Enigma muse is the master of lore. My multiclass sorcerer had a 17 intel by 5th level with Master in Arcana. Once again it's not hard to do with other classes what some seem to think the wizard does very well.
Okay, even if you decide to boost your Bards int up to 18 by 20th level, a Wizard will have an Int of 24, given a Diadem of Intellect.
The Enigma bard has Bardic Lore. Let’s say they take Legendary Occultism (very reasonable for a Bard), so therefore they are an Expert at Bardic Lore. At 20th level, they are +28 to Bardic Lore.
Let’s say the Wizard has taken a feat that gives +Level to all skills at some point in those 20 levels. (Untrained Improvisation, or the Human Ancestry feat that that but better, or maybe even Pathfinder Dedication). Now, to recall knowledge with ANY Lore, they get +30. (+7 From Int, +3 from the Diadem, +20 from level). That jumps to +38 if the Wizard wants to be a specialist via Additional Lore, vs the Bard’s +32 in Legendary lores.
How are you getting a 24? Stats max at 22, right? 20 using stat boosts, then +2 from item?
Bardic Lore covers everything, not just the four skills from the Legendary Arcana. It covers it for all levels, not just once you get Legendary.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It improves to full level at 7th level.Let’s say the Wizard has taken a feat that gives +Level to all skills at some point in those 20 levels. (Untrained Improvisation, or the Human Ancestry feat that that but better, or maybe even Pathfinder Dedication). Now, to recall knowledge with ANY Lore, they get +30. (+7 From Int, +3 from the Diadem, +20 from level). That jumps to +38 if the Wizard wants to be a specialist via Additional Lore, vs the Bard’s +32 in Legendary lores.Untrained Improvisation is half level, not level. So that drops the Wizard using that to +28, four behind the Bard.
The human feat Clever Improviser grants Untrained Improvisation.
Sooo....
So the wizard has to spend additional feats that anyone of the same ancestry can buy to accomplish what you listed. So basically what you just indicated is anyone with a decent intel or who wants to spend a few ability ups on intel and a few feats can become a master of Lore.
Once again, another area being touted as the wizard's area that can be accomplished by any class of the same ancestry for a few feats and ability ups. If another class can do the same thing, then it is not unique to the wizard.
From everything I"m reading the wizard doesn't have much they can do that stands out as unique or sufficiently better than another class other than cast more spells and change a single spell during 10 minutes of downtime if they happen to have the right spell in their book.
It's not very compelling given a limited number of spells that most people take with other classes are the most useful.
Why would the wizard and not the enigma bard be the master of lore?
I played a sorcerer. Given the four +2 ability scores per five levels with a maximum of 20, it's very easy to boost your intel up to 18. A bard with Enigma muse is the master of lore. My multiclass sorcerer had a 17 intel by 5th level with Master in Arcana. Once again it's not hard to do with other classes what some seem to think the wizard does very well.
Okay, even if you decide to boost your Bards int up to 18 by 20th level, a Wizard will have an Int of 24, given a Diadem of Intellect.
The Enigma bard has Bardic Lore. Let’s say they take Legendary Occultism (very reasonable for a Bard), so therefore they are an Expert at Bardic Lore. At 20th level, they are +28 to Bardic Lore.
Let’s say the Wizard has taken a feat that gives +Level to all skills at some point in those 20 levels. (Untrained Improvisation, or the Human Ancestry feat that that but better, or maybe even Pathfinder Dedication). Now, to recall knowledge with ANY Lore, they get +30. (+7 From Int, +3 from the Diadem, +20 from level). That jumps to +38 if the Wizard wants to be a specialist via Additional Lore, vs the Bard’s +32 in Legendary lores.How are you getting a 24? Stats max at 22, right? 20 using stat boosts, then +2 from item?
Bardic Lore covers everything, not just the four skills from the Legendary Arcana. It covers it for all levels, not just once you get Legendary.
18+1+1+1+1=22 from level up, +2 from item is 24 at 20th level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let’s say the Wizard has taken a feat that gives +Level to all skills at some point in those 20 levels. (Untrained Improvisation, or the Human Ancestry feat that that but better, or maybe even Pathfinder Dedication). Now, to recall knowledge with ANY Lore, they get +30. (+7 From Int, +3 from the Diadem, +20 from level). That jumps to +38 if the Wizard wants to be a specialist via Additional Lore, vs the Bard’s +32 in Legendary lores.Untrained Improvisation is half level, not level. So that drops the Wizard using that to +28, four behind the Bard.
The human feat Clever Improviser grants Untrained Improvisation.
Sooo....
Its full level from 7th level. its really only from levels 3 (when you can take it) to 6 you only get half. https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=861
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
18+1+1+1+1=22 from level up, +2 from item is 24 at 20th level.Why would the wizard and not the enigma bard be the master of lore?
I played a sorcerer. Given the four +2 ability scores per five levels with a maximum of 20, it's very easy to boost your intel up to 18. A bard with Enigma muse is the master of lore. My multiclass sorcerer had a 17 intel by 5th level with Master in Arcana. Once again it's not hard to do with other classes what some seem to think the wizard does very well.
Okay, even if you decide to boost your Bards int up to 18 by 20th level, a Wizard will have an Int of 24, given a Diadem of Intellect.
The Enigma bard has Bardic Lore. Let’s say they take Legendary Occultism (very reasonable for a Bard), so therefore they are an Expert at Bardic Lore. At 20th level, they are +28 to Bardic Lore.
Let’s say the Wizard has taken a feat that gives +Level to all skills at some point in those 20 levels. (Untrained Improvisation, or the Human Ancestry feat that that but better, or maybe even Pathfinder Dedication). Now, to recall knowledge with ANY Lore, they get +30. (+7 From Int, +3 from the Diadem, +20 from level). That jumps to +38 if the Wizard wants to be a specialist via Additional Lore, vs the Bard’s +32 in Legendary lores.How are you getting a 24? Stats max at 22, right? 20 using stat boosts, then +2 from item?
Bardic Lore covers everything, not just the four skills from the Legendary Arcana. It covers it for all levels, not just once you get Legendary.
The stat buy up is max to 22. I did not realize that. I thought it capped at 20.
'Scuse me, but more spells mean you can actually spend more turns in an encounter throwing out slotted spellsThe problem is looking at slotted spells as if they're the only resource that matter.
A storm druid has a combat ready. That can functionally translates to not just one extra spell per day, but one extra spell per encounter. Wizards have focus spells too, but most of them aren't going to be able to replace combat actions in the way tempest surge or wild shape/wild morph can (call of the grave and hand of the apprentice can work, albeit the latter spell gets expensive as you level up and the former has targeting issues).
The cleric you were just complaining about having a limited gas tank in the same post can have more top level slots than a Wizard. Limited in what you can cast from them, but often a spell you were going to cast anyways (and everyone has just been pretending drain bonded item is a free extra slot with no restrictions anyways so meh).
There's clearly a lot more going on with each of these classes. So I'm not sure just shouting "extra spell slots" over and over every time someone says something actually ends up adding much on its own.
Sure, but those are just different builds, they aren't supposed to be weaker than the wizard after all, the game is supposed to be balanced.
A druid being able to Wildshape effectively as a regular thing is a significant portion of her class feats, and it doesn't fulfill the same role as the extra slots the wizard gets both natively and with Bond (I'm confused what you think the difficulty is with Drain Bonded Item?) But they're each a part of the power budget for their classes.
Ditto for the Storm Druid abilities, ditto for Cleric Font.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bardic Lore covers everything, not just the four skills from the Legendary Arcana. It covers it for all levels, not just once you get Legendary.
I'm not talking about Unified Theory (which is a good feat, but not as good as everyone makes it out to be. What I am saying is, for the investment of one General Feat, starting at 7th level, my wizard can add +lvl to All skills. That includes all Lore skills. The wizard will have higher Int than the Enigma Bard. Lets say, at 10th level, the Bard has a 16 int (which is a pretty serious investment in Int for a bard), while the Wizard has a 20 (expected). The Wizard and the Bard have the same exact bonus to ALL lore checks. The bard had to pick the Enigma muse class path, or the Multifarious Muse class feat. The wizard just had to spend one general feat pick at 3th or 7th level.
|
I agree that having more spells is a pro for the wizard. As I've stated before, at higher levels, it's perfectly alright to "waste" a highest level AoE on a single target. I've done it multiple times because wizards, by that point, have the spell quantity to do so. Also, with phantasmal killer, I always had an option for single-target damage. I also used a lot of true strike damage spells despite never hitting at high level because I never rolled over a 7. I also never saw using my entire turn to cast a spell as a waste because those were the rare moments when my character was safe.
As for recall knowledge, I was also wrong about it. I never used it in combat, but that was due in part to guessing what the low stat of a creature was (I only messed up with deep dwarves, who have high reflex, weirdly). It also seemed like a waste of an action, honestly. I understand why people hate being told to just recall knowledge; however, on the flip side, if the DM is describing what you sense, it usually isn't necessary.
My solution after playing wizard would be to give it a feat or something to move out of attack of opportunity range (outside of reach at later levels) as an action (at least then, the wizard would not have to worry about getting smashed into putty in a room with limited space) and to give it Resolve at 11 (or 12-13) and legendary level Resolve at 17 so that it has one good save to lessen the burden on ability scores.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, Rogues have more skill feats, so they can certainly take Additional Lore more often than Wizards can. Presumably, if you wanted to go that route, you’d play an Investigator, assuming they get to keep the same number of skill feats.
I didn't want to bring in Investigator, as it's not out yet. But yes, it will for sure best down Wizard as master or lores, if for no other reason than it will have extra skills to start with.
Really? You feel that having a character concept like “I want to play a very studious and learned character, so I am going to play a Wizard, and put skill feats into Additional Lore and the like, is not a valid decision to make because it would be better to take, I dunno, Battle Medicine because it’s a “mechanically better option”? I disagree with that view of character creation fairly strongly. Or maybe I don’t understand your point.
My point was that you can't fault others for choosing to put ability increases into Int as mechanically unsound if you are building a master of lore character.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
While this may be the 2nd "Wizards Suck" megathread, the overall number of threads in this vein has gone well into the double digits.
Overall I'm seeing a lot of different problems discussed and a lot of potential solutions being offered up by the base as a whole. Not everyone agrees on what the problems are, people don't seem to have landed on a popular "fix" yet either.
To me this all comes down to one major issue: Concept Execution
The Wizard sits in a position where its concept "The master of arcane magic, treating magic like science and leveraging that for mastery over the secrets of the universe" is cool as all hell. Executing on that concept is hard, because it's both 1) Kinda Narrow and 2) Hard to balance between concept and game.
This leads to issues where Wizards either become Gods or become useless, depending on where overall balance falls. By their concept, Wizards should become godly as they reach the height of their power - as mastery of the universe tends to do that to a person. But, Pathfinder being a co-op game, letting one person run away with power while others don't stay on par isn't great for overall enjoyment.
Letting other characters, ones whose core concepts don't reach for such lofty heights, be on par with Wizards is also something of a concept execution problem. Balancing means that all characters get pushed against the same power-ceiling regardless of if they set out to be the world's greatest musician or if they worked for decades to rip the universe asunder and bend it to their will. This isn't a bad thing, games need balance or else they just don't work, but it does leave the Wizard with a fundamental problem in their core concept.
If you can never make good on your classes core aspirations, why play that class?
I don't have an answer, it's a tough nut to crack. Just something to chew on I guess.
________
One thing I think would go a long to solve the problem, from a player experience end, is to give the Wizard some form of additional "Oomph". Something that aligns with the concept without necessarily pushing it towards its ends goal.
The special action that Investigators are getting "Devise a stratagem", I think would be an amazing addition to the Wizard, with some thematic and practical tweaks.
I'm spitballing this idea as I type, but something like:
Forward Planning
Each day, during their daily preparations, a Wizard can make a series of Recall Knowledge actions against foes they think they may face that day. If they success, they make a Forward Plan against foes of that type. A Wizard can make a number of Forward Plans each day equal to their Int modifier.
Wizards gain the "Just As Planned" action.
Just As Planned [>]
Until the end of your next turn, the Wizard apply a bonus equal to the highest spell level they can cast to one Skill check, Saving throw, or attack roll against a specified foe whose type they have made a Forward Plan against.That enemy becomes immune to the effects of Just As Planned until the Wizard next makes their daily preparation.
The above is just a casual idea to add some additional power to the Wizard which scales over time but doesn't break them at any particular level. The above may be too powerful, like I said, I just spitballed it, but I think something in the same vein might be good for the Wizard. Just something in their concept that adds some oomph.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I definitely view clever improviser -> any lore skill to be basically pure cheese and would not allow it at my table.
If you allow clever improviser to access lore skills, it’s probably the best standalone skill feat in the entire game, basically solving recall knowledge forever at the cost of a single skill feat. If this is not allowed, the feat is merely alright.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My point was that you can't fault others for choosing to put ability increases into Int as mechanically unsound if you are building a master of lore character.
Ahh, okay, I see where the miscommunication happened. In my starting bit, I was comparing classes that could be blaster casters: Wizard, Druid, Sorcerer. I think I only made this implicit, but being a master of lore was a secondary concern, as a way to decide among Wizard/Druid/Sorcerer. Once you’ve decided that you want a blast class, pickling which class could be done by deciding which type of skill checks you wanted to be good at. Then we got into the tangent of Wizard vs Enigma Bard, and it morphed into “If I wanted to make a class whose primary goal was to be master of lore, would it be a Wizard or Enigma Bard?”, which is not where I started.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Clever Improviser and Untrained Improvisation have no limit of what skills they work for.
So yes they do work with lore skills. After all just because their type is "lore" does not mean they are not skills.
That is my belief, though it seems that others do not share it. That discussion probably merits its own thread in Rules Discussion, however.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, my main issue with Clever Improviser -> lore is how much it accomplishes for the extremely low price of a skill feat. IMO, it falls under the "too good to be true" rule of page 443, and that's how I run it.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, my main issue with Clever Improviser -> lore is how much it accomplishes for the extremely low price of a skill feat. IMO, it falls under the "too good to be true" rule of page 443, and that's how I run it.
There is no such thing as the "too good to be true" rule.
Sometimes a rule could be interpreted multiple ways. If one version is too good to be true, it probably is. If a rule seems to have wording with problematic repercussions or doesn’t work as intended, work with your group to find a good solution, rather than just playing with the rule as printed.
People like to throw around the Ambiguous Rules convention like a cudgel, especially on this forum, but that's not how its intended to be used.
Firstly, it's not actually a rule in itself its a convention to ensure playability at a table. Hence why it's in the game conventions text box and not the rest of the rules around it.
Pathfinder has many specific rules, but you’ll also want to keep these general guidelines in mind when playing.
Secondly, where is the ambiguity?
Both Bardic Lore and Clever Improviser (along with Untrained Improvisation) are all fairly short and to the point abilities.
Adding a line to the effect of "you don't gain this bonus to all skill subcategories" would not have been hard.
To me, it's not ambiguous, you just sound like you want it to be.
Thirdly, to the actual point.
Does the case that a 5th level ancestry feat is better at something than a 1st level class tip "too good to be true"? For me, no. Ancestries are a big part of the game now, and a 5th level feat should be more powerful than a 1st.
They also don't actually do the same thing. They do comparable things sure, but the Bardic Lore is a free feat that one gets are part of a Muse package. The Enigma muse is internally balanced around your use of lore, as it's a big part of the Muses deal. It's not something that makes sense to actually look at in isolation.
Further, sometimes, something is just better than another thing. It doesn't make the first 'something' too good to be true.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Saying something should be argued in a separate thread and then going on to keep arguing that same topic in the very next comment is a little strange to me. I'm not saying it invalidates the content of either of your posts, separately, but you're sending some mixed messages here.
If have an objection to me calling it the "too good to be true rule", I can just call it the "too good to be true convention" instead. Doesn't really change anything, since it still informs how I run my table the exact same way.
|
|
Rules and conventions aren't the same thing.
Naturally you can do what you want at your table, but what you've actually done is house-rule those abilities. This is fine in and of itself, house-ruling is as old as TTRPGs, I just get irked when people invoke a non-existent rule to push their house-rule out to others.
This comment isn't specific to you by the way, just something that happens around here when people bring up "Ambiguous Rules".
Plus, ambiguity can be in the eye of the beholder. As someone who went to law school, I've seen the depths one can twist otherwise straightforward language.
- Requires 2x Class feats invested ( Dedication + Basic Muse Feat )
Were people talking about multiclassing Wizard into Bard? I just thought it was a direct comparison between the abilities. I suppose that's on the table if you can't get access to Human ancestry feats.
Anyhow!
I made thread in the rules sub for this! Let's move this debate over there so we can get back to Wizarding!
It improves to full level at 7th level.
Whoops, you're right. I missed that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems different to me.
For what concern shields, people can stick to sturdy ones ( even though they'd like more flexibility ) if they prefer to be able to perform a shield block.
Instead, for what concerns Untrained Improvvisation and Clever Improviser, by considering ANY possible lore to be elegible for those feat you will have skills:
- With Int as main stat ( by just increasing int, you will have Anything increased )
- A lower DC ( the DC, since it's a niche part from a Knowledge skill, will be from 2 to 5 points lower if compared to a Knowledge check, depends the situation/DM ). Which means that you could achieve the same results of an Expert/master on ANY subject.
Just with a general feat.
So shields have very strict options, while using untrained improvisation or clever improviser for any lore skill would mean to have Expert/Master almost in Anything.
You don't get the DC reduction with Bardic Lore. DC reduction comes from the fact that you use a specialized lore that Bardic Lore isn't. I would apply the same to Clever Improvisation.
Ups, I hadn't seen the other subject. Ignore my comment. Anyway, the other subject gets to the same conclusion.
The Wizard is the PF2 version of the Medium - meh until level 19+, when all the bonus 10th level spells and the 20th level feats vault it ahead.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Wizard is the PF2 version of the Medium - meh until level 19+, when all the bonus 10th level spells and the 20th level feats vault it ahead.
I'm not waiting until 19th level. I'm going to wait for more books to come out and hope they make a wizard/sorcerer type focused on magic damage that doesn't require more than one target. I don't feel like playing a martial buff bot. I'll leave that to those that enjoy that style of play or make a bard when I want to buff the party.