| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to hear some real play experience with the PF2 wizard. So far this class seems extremely underwhelming compared to every other class. No one in my group can find a reason to play one other than as a multiclass. I like to hear about real experience versus theoretical or low level.
What is your experience with the following:
1. Incapacitation Trait: This affects every fight against any challenge that is even 1 level above the group. It affects how you must align your spell slots since even minion level mobs at high level are usually equal or a few levels lower in major encounters.
For example, if you're level 12 you will fight some minions that are level 8 to 10 requiring 4th and 5th level slots to affect with incapacitation spells. And these lower level minions often are easily killed, less of a threat, and often not worth using incapacitation spells against.
2. Domination/Charm: What is your experience with domination and charm in PF2? Both have the incapacitation trait. Have you been able to effectively use these to acquire a servant creature that is effective against the enemies you fight at your level?
3. Summons: Have the summons you have access to at your highest level been effective fighting enemies you fight at max level? Are they worth using?
4. Shapechanging: Have your shapechange spells been effective? Can a wizard use a shapechange spell and be effective? Have you found wizard builds that allow you to make Shapechange effective like multicassing with monk for flurry?
5. What spells are most effective as you level?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't have any play experience (though I'm very excited to eventually play my spell substituting universalist) but your first four points seem to address spellcasting as a whole, not specifically the wizard.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Both my parties have a wizard in them (level 10 in one and 2 in another). Both have been very useful. Wizards could probably use a slight boost (honestly just make thesis better or improve them st some level), but they aren't terribly far behind in combat and are ahead of sorcerer outside of a fight.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. Incapacitation Trait: This affects every fight against any challenge that is even 1 level above the group. It affects how you must align your spell slots since even minion level mobs at high level are usually equal or a few levels lower in major encounters.
This is not strictly true. A full half the time, Incapacitate spells work fine on foes one level higher. They work on people of up to double the spell's level, but you get them a level earlier than that (ie: 5th level spells work on 10th level enemies, but you first get them as a PC at 9th).
It's two level higher foes who are forever resistant to such effects.
For example, if you're level 12 you will fight some minions that are level 8 to 10 requiring 4th and 5th level slots to affect with incapacitation spells. And these lower level minions often are easily killed, less of a threat, and often not worth using incapacitation spells against.
I haven't played a Wizard, but this has an easy and straightforward answer that applies to all spell casters: Don't use single target spells (aside from cantrips, anyway) on low level foes.
A single 4th or 5th level spell to take out a large portion of an encounter is a fine trade at 12th level (though, IMO, this won't usually be an Incapacitate spell), if it's really a significant portion of said encounter.
In order to be a significant portion of an encounter vs. such low level foes, you generally need to effect several of them...and thus the spell needs to be area effect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm the GM but I have a wizard player in a party with a rogue, barbarian, champion, and druid (all just hit level 8). I don't crunch the numbers and all that jazz, so while I've heard a lot of controversy regarding the Wizard I can't say that I can give any real, quantitative results for the play experience, but I've personally come to the conclusion that I think that while I initially thought the Wizard was slightly underpowered, I think it has a higher learning curve to be on par with other characters.
The Wizard in question is a universalist, no familiar, no focus spells, primarily trying to play a "control wizard." This decision from the player was more from a desire to express their own self-control since they typically played big, explosive evocation wizards in PF1 as opposed to a conscious decision that emerged from actually studying the class in PF2. So, with that in mind...
What is your experience with the following:1. Incapacitation Trait: This affects every fight against any challenge that is even 1 level above the group. It affects how you must align your spell slots since even minion level mobs at high level are usually equal or a few levels lower in major encounters.
For example, if you're level 12 you will fight some minions that are level 8 to 10 requiring 4th and 5th level slots to affect with incapacitation spells. And these lower level minions often are easily killed, less of a threat, and often not worth using incapacitation spells against.
For the most part, my player has been pretty good at gauging threats and deciding when to bust out incapacitation spells. I've also found that while in PF1 I would throw encounters that were 2-3 levels higher than the players, in PF2 I often involve additional lower level "minions" because those are some of the best encounters we've had. I'm not wild about Incapacitation effects, personally, but I've come to like them more than I expected. When they work, they've worked wonderfully, and the player saves most of their incapacitation spells for enemies they've used Recall Knowledge on to determine their worst save (I've been pretty liberal with our interpretation of what Recalling Knowledge reveals, so I've been treating it similar to Battle Assessment, which our Rogue has, and, thanks to his excellent Perception, has been equally beneficial for our Wizard).
2. Domination/Charm: What is your experience with domination and charm in PF2? Both have the incapacitation trait. Have you been able to effectively use these to acquire a servant creature that is effective against the enemies you fight at your level?
I've only seen Charm in play, and it's been pretty solid. I don't run it like some form of mind control, but the value of the Friendly condition has been invaluable fairly recently. They have never used Charm to have a target fight for them (nor have they tried), but they have prevented fights from occurring by carefully winning them over to their side.
3. Summons: Have the summons you have access to at your highest level been effective fighting enemies you fight at max level? Are they worth using?
For the Wizard? No, they don't prepare summon spells. Our Druid, however, loves them. But even then they only come out infrequently. With the proper time to cast them, they have been really invaluable (especially against less intelligent foes who will willingly attack them). I can't otherwise comment too much. I want to like them more but they do seem pretty niche.
4. Shapechanging: Have your shapechange spells been effective? Can a wizard use a shapechange spell and be effective? Have you found wizard builds that allow you to make Shapechange effective like multicassing with monk for flurry?
I have not had any shapechanging spells cast in our current campaign, so I can't really comment here. They sound interesting, though!
5. What spells are most effective as you level?
It's hard to say. I'm hesitant to answer as the GM, but my player really likes the Agitate spell, Phantasmal Killer, Magic Missile, Shield, Mirror Image, Stoneskin, and Invisibility, which have all been pretty regularly used. Their main flaw, IMO, is that in playing off-type they've forgotten to pick a lot of evocation spells, which is their best way of targeting Reflex saves.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to hear some real play experience with the PF2 wizard. So far this class seems extremely underwhelming compared to every other class. No one in my group can find a reason to play one other than as a multiclass. I like to hear about real experience versus theoretical or low level.
I played one from level 1 to level 6 (had to switch to the GM chair afterwards). Was a half-elf universalist with spell sub. My spell list was as follows:
Cantrips - All of them except Daze and Acid Splash (I bought them at level 5ish because they were cheap).
Focus Spell - Hand of the Apprentice (DM ruled that potency runes affected the attack roll for this, as it is a spell attack using the weapon).
1st - Magic Weapon, Fear, Fleet Step, True Strike, Magic Missile, Summon Animal, Lock, Grim Tendrils (in hindsight, Grim Tendrils was a mistake, but I wanted a Fort save AoE)
2nd - Darkness (I had Darkvision from ancestry), Flaming Sphere, Hideous Laughter, Enlarge (in hindsight, also a mistake, too many dungeons where it was literally uncastable).
3rd - Fireball, Slow, Haste, Glyph of Warding.
I actually used Summon Animal quite a bit, it's a fairly good spell.
What is your experience with the following:
1. Incapacitation Trait: This affects every fight against any challenge that is even 1 level above the group. It affects how you must align your spell slots since even minion level mobs at high level are usually equal or a few levels lower in major encounters.
Never learnt nor prepared any spells with the incapacitation trait, but that's more me being a greedy person than those spells actually being bad. I didn't want to have to waste the (trivial) amount of gold to learn another spell so I didn't effectively have 3 spells learnt at that level instead of 4 once the incap spell became no longer worth upcasting.
2. Domination/Charm: What is your experience with domination and charm in PF2? Both have the incapacitation trait. Have you been able to effectively use these to acquire a servant creature that is effective against the enemies you fight at your level?
Wasn't at the level to learn dominate, didn't learn charm because they get +4 on the save if they're hostile. In AoA, most combats started hostile so it seemed pointless.
3. Summons: Have the summons you have access to at your highest level been effective fighting enemies you fight at max level? Are they worth using?
Summons have been very effective. I was able to summon them into flanking, then use them to waste enemy actions by grabbing/tripping a lot. The damage is nothing spectacular, but the battlefield control is amazing. Think of it as a moveable wall with abilities.
Summon Construct is a fair bit worse than summon animal, simply due to the lack of options.
4. Shapechanging: Have your shapechange spells been effective? Can a wizard use a shapechange spell and be effective? Have you found wizard builds that allow you to make Shapechange effective like multicassing with monk for flurry?
Despite people telling me to learn+prepare Pest Form, I never quite understood why. The argument seemed to hinge on "Your DM wouldn't make the monsters attack a random cat, so it's a good scouting spell". If that was true, a familiar would also be a good scout. I don't play with that assumption because it only works once or twice before the DM invents a reason why the monsters are going to attack you. You don't want to be a wizard separated from the party getting attacked.
Other shapechanges I didn't use. We were already overloaded on melee. Was pointless. I picked wizard to debuff and AoE, not do single target damage.
5. What spells are most effective as you level?
From 1st level, I got a fair bit of mileage from True Strike (until I got a Staff of Divination), Fleet Step, Lock (underrated spell IMO) and Fear as I levelled. Summon Animal is great if you upcast it to your highest level slot.
From 2nd level, I didn't upcast any of those spells. I think 2nd level spells are kind of suck honestly. A wizard player in my Extinction Curse game has been getting pretty decent mileage out of Sudden Bolt though, even one-shotting a solo encounter that crit failed the save on the first round.
From 3rd level, Glyph of Warding requires GM ruling but it scales extremely well. It's effectively INT mod extra spells of your second highest level that need to be used in a janky way. Never got to 7th level so I can't comment on the efficacy of upcasting the rest of those spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. Incapacitation Trait: This affects every fight against any challenge that is even 1 level above the group. It affects how you must align your spell slots since even minion level mobs at high level are usually equal or a few levels lower in major encounters.
For example, if you're level 12 you will fight some minions that are level 8 to 10 requiring 4th and 5th level slots to affect with incapacitation spells. And these lower level minions often are easily killed, less of a threat, and often not worth using incapacitation spells against.
In my opinion, you make a great deal of the Incapacitation trait. It works on everything but solo bosses. As soon as you have 2 enemies you can land Incapacitation spells.
My experience with it (Calm Emotions) is that it works as intended. It's very powerful and can end a fight in one round. But it's situational and you will in general prefer damaging spells over control ones. But I think you can build a controller who uses mostly Incapacitation spells, as long as you have a few spells for solo bosses.2. Domination/Charm: What is your experience with domination and charm in PF2? Both have the incapacitation trait. Have you been able to effectively use these to acquire a servant creature that is effective against the enemies you fight at your level?
I've seen Charm used in combat and it was vastly underwhelming (the enemies carried on, attacking the other party members but the caster). In my opinion, it should be kept for out of combat situations.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. Incapacitation Trait: This affects every fight against any challenge that is even 1 level above the group. It affects how you must align your spell slots since even minion level mobs at high level are usually equal or a few levels lower in major encounters.
For example, if you're level 12 you will fight some minions that are level 8 to 10 requiring 4th and 5th level slots to affect with incapacitation spells. And these lower level minions often are easily killed, less of a threat, and often not worth using incapacitation spells against.
In my opinion, you make a great deal of the Incapacitation trait. It works on everything but solo bosses. As soon as you have 2 enemies you can land Incapacitation spells.
My experience with it (Calm Emotions) is that it works as intended. It's very powerful and can end a fight in one round. But it's situational and you will in general prefer damaging spells over control ones. But I think you can build a controller who uses mostly Incapacitation spells, as long as you have a few spells for solo bosses.
This is not my experience. It applies on almost every solo creature from bosses in groups to solo creatures that you randomly fight. Even now in AoA campaign I'm in even the guards are level 12 which requires a 6th level slot for incapacitation to work. It often feels like your lower level spells barely work for any great effect other than damage.
I've seen Charm used in combat and it was vastly underwhelming (the enemies carried on, attacking the other party members but the caster). In my opinion, it should be kept for out of combat situations.
Depends on how you set it up. The best way to use charm for is have the caster charm an enemy first, take out its friends, then offer it an option of survival if it goes along with your group aiding you against other enemies. It is your friend now, just like the other party members. Friends like to travel together for gold and the like. Most evil creatures are power hungry.
Charm can be effective out of combat, though difficult to slot a 6th level charm just to interrogate a guard. Better to rely on skills for that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Had a Illusionist Wizard in FoP, they were often the player that make the most difference in a fight.
Color Spray in the first encounter, managed to get a fail from the Caustic Wolf and another Mangy Wolf.
Against Hallod, Warped Terrain in the middle of the room and and then the Wizard and Ranger hammered it with ranged attacks, Hallod only got close at the 4th round just to die (he usually waits for the party to come to him).
Fight in the old tree, Grease + Warped Terrain in the entrance with the Fighter blocking the way, the poor beasts couldn't pass the Fighter.
Was the one that did the cleaning against the Ferocity of orcs with Electric Arc.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
1-2 - As a GM, the incapacitation trait is one of the best additions to the game both for the GM and the players. For players, you need to build around it and keep in mind that Charm is not just a 1st level spell. Its whatever level you're capable of casting- and yeah, some monsters its going to be less effective on than before.
Do not that charm lost its strict targeting limitations in going to PF2.
3 - I've not used summons, but I've read some discussions on them and looked at their actual statblocks. What I found was that because of how attack bonuses for NPCs scale vs players, they're not as far behind as you'd think and are still useful.
4 - Druid shapechangung works fine in combat. The spells are tightly tuned to provide you with viable attack, damage and defensive numbers that are functional relative to Martial Progression of your level, with a good variety of traits and utility.
5 - the most important things to keep in mind when looking at spells is that four degrees of success is more relevant to casters than anyone. Spells that still have effects on a successful save are amazing - especially anything that steals an action. Slowed and stunned are obvious, but forcing the target to stride or something is essentially equivalent.
Its important to keep in mind that due to how creatures are designed in PF2, losing an action for a creature is more crippling than it appears.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is not my experience. It applies on almost every solo creature from bosses in groups to solo creatures that you randomly fight. Even now in AoA campaign I'm in even the guards are level 12 which requires a 6th level slot for incapacitation to work. It often feels like your lower level spells barely work for any great effect other than damage.
Lower level spells should not generally be Incapacitate spells...but there are lots pf options besides that and damage. There are obviously lots of utility spells, but also several good debuff control spells (for example, Slow) do not have the Incapacitate trait. 3rd level Slow is a great spell to keep around vs. high level solo boss monsters for precisely that reason, and that's just one example.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
For example, if you're level 12 you will fight some minions that are level 8 to 10 requiring 4th and 5th level slots to affect with incapacitation spells. And these lower level minions often are easily killed, less of a threat, and often not worth using incapacitation spells against.
Just use Chain Lightning on them and deal 383 damage in a single spell (3 crit fails and one fail) like my Wizard friend did. Lower level enemies have a really high chance of failing and a good chance of a critical failure, if there's someone intimidating them as well (AOE stuff like Terrifying Howl or Dragon's Roar) then this gets even worse for them. You throw an AOE in them and you're going to "incapacitate" them much better than using single target incapacitation spells, they exists mainly so that you have to use your best slots against higher level enemies (which you're prone to do anyway).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just use Chain Lightning on them and deal 383 damage in a single spell (3 crit fails and one fail) like my Wizard friend did. Lower level enemies have a really high chance of failing and a good chance of a critical failure, if there's someone intimidating them as well (AOE stuff like Terrifying Howl or Dragon's Roar) then this gets even worse for them. You throw an AOE in them and you're going to "incapacitate" them much better than using single target incapacitation spells, they exists mainly so that you have to use your best slots against higher level enemies (which you're prone to do anyway).
For example, if you're level 12 you will fight some minions that are level 8 to 10 requiring 4th and 5th level slots to affect with incapacitation spells. And these lower level minions often are easily killed, less of a threat, and often not worth using incapacitation spells against.
Chain Lightning, Fireball, Phantasmal Calamity... they're all amazing.
The way saves progress and the addition of critical failures on spells saves interacts in a way that really has to be experienced to be understood - it has given AOE blasts a niche for dealing with groups of enemies that feels a lot better than it has before.
This is not my experience. It applies on almost every solo creature from bosses in groups to solo creatures that you randomly fight. Even now in AoA campaign I'm in even the guards are level 12 which requires a 6th level slot for incapacitation to work. It often feels like your lower level spells barely work for any great effect other than damage.
This is true for most spells, they are useful only on your 2 higher spell slots. There are some spells that keep value on lower spell slots (Slow has been given as an example) but they are rare and in general there are higher spells with better effect (Fear is worse than Slow that is worse than Synesthesia, even if Fear and Slow keeps their effect against high level opponents).
Depends on how you set it up. The best way to use charm for is have the caster charm an enemy first, take out its friends, then offer it an option of survival if it goes along with your group aiding you against other enemies. It is your friend now, just like the other party members. Friends like to travel together for gold and the like....
It's only your friend on a critical failure, otherwise he's just friendly. And if you do it in combat, with the -4, you are hoping for a natural 1. Expecting a natural 1 on one of your highest spell slots is a waste of a spell slot for me.
Also, chances are high that he won't help you if you take out his friends. If one of my friends start killing my other friends, he won't stay my friend for a long time. Magic clouds his mind, but he's not stupid, you need a dominate spell to completely shut down his ability to act by himself.| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
So far we've played up til level 8 and yep, the Wizard is a failed class - considerably less effective than any martial.
This is legitimately hilarious to me to read. Actually funny.
Wizards are almost certainly the best casting class after bard due to versatility, raw spell slots, and access to the Best Spell List.
And my experience with an Arcane Sorcerer tells me all of your specific spell based complaints are laughable. All of these are way more impactful than you imply, and complaining that dealing 80 damage 'feels bad' because it doesn't feel impactful is straight up ignoring a legitimate contribution so that you don't have acknowledge the inherent power of dealing that much damage.
Arcane casters are amazing, make amazing contributions to their party, devastate encounters, and generally carry the party on their back if they're allowed to do so.
Spellcasters in general end encounters with one spell less than they did before... though, lets not pretend its impossible. I've seen fireballs and chain lightnings take an encounter instantly to trivial when they wipe out half the mooks in the opposition, and I've personally won an encounter on the first action with a Calm Emotions.
I can't actually count the number of obstacles and encounters overcome simply by casting Invisibility Sphere, Dispel Magic, or Clairvoyance.
Spellcasters in general remain amazingly powerful when used correctly, and Wizards are by the numbers almost certainly the best - Bards only win out in my estimation by completely breaking the math of the game for the low low cost of one action a turn (sometimes, lingering composition exists).
Addendum - Stubbornly refusing to acknowledge the value of the class and its contributions does not erase them. Wizards (and spellcasters) are objectively awesome. If you can't have fun playing one, the problem is not the class.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
With conceal spell and silent spell, the wizard is the only caster that is going to casting spells illusions and charms from stealth. The bard can do it in social situations were they can perform, but it still involves being the center of attention.
The abjurer’s 1st level focus spell is one of the best in the game. My player who is an abjure gets a whole lot of use out of shattering gem, and was basically able to keep a level 2 party alive against what turned into a 330 xp encounter when the whole dungeon rushed them.
My 4th level party had a certain level 7 monster critically fail against a 1st level sleep spell. We ended up blowing it trying to slap manacles on it instead of sneak past, but it is pretty awesome even to have the chance for something like that rather than 1e level limits on spells. Invisibility is still a second level spell.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The whole idea of "well, a well placed Fireball lets you do more damage than a Fighter offsets the weakness otherwise" just. Does. Not. Work.
In the AP we're playing (Extinction Cure) there just never is any combat encounter where Fireball (etc) makes a difference. Sure, dealing ~21 damage to four monsters (two of which will make their saves and take half damage) nets you 60 damage, which, yes, that is more than any martial of comparable level can pull off in two actions.
But dealing 20 damage to a monster with 80-130 hp just isn't decisive. A martial dealing 30 or 50 points to a monster of his choice is just better; especially given a fighter's considerably stronger survivability.
Area damage spells seems to be about the only combat option Paizo didn't nerf into oblivion.
I agree with Krispy and thenobledrake so I won't just reiterate their points, but these two statements seem to be at odds with each other.
|
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
This isn’t the first wizard discussion thread I’ve seen on this forum and I’ve noticed that many of the criticisms most often leveled against the class - Incapacitation rules, cantrips being underwhelming, debuffing not being personally satisfying - are true of all spellcasting classes in 2E.
But I’ve never seen comments claiming druids, for example, are a “failed class” because their “cantrips are a joke”, or that bards are like accountants because they focus on buffing and debuffing. Those who dislike the nerf to spellcasters always single out wizards. If I had to guess why, I’d say most detractors are familiar with 1E and wizard class’ widely-acknowledged status as God-tier OP. They notice the 2E change but don’t understand the why and how of the wizard nerf.
As for the OP’s question, my 6th-level wizard focuses on debuffing and direct damage spell in combat. Outside of combat, the Spell Substitution thesis makes him an excellent utility caster. I dislike the incapacitation rules and I don’t use domination, charm or summons. I prepare damage spells in my highest-level spell and cantrip slots and prepare debuff spells in lower-level ones.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
But I’ve never seen comments claiming druids, for example, are a “failed class” because their “cantrips are a joke”, or that bards are like accountants because they focus on buffing and debuffing. Those who dislike the nerf to spellcasters always single out wizards. If I had to guess why, I’d say most detractors are familiar with 1E and wizard class’ widely-acknowledged status as God-tier OP. They notice the 2E change but don’t understand the why and how of the wizard nerf.
To be honest, I think Wizards are the ones that feel the spellcasting nerfs the strongest, even without directly comparing the class to the PF1 version. That is, because the other casters all have more unique things to define them. Bards have their Compositions, Druids can have Wildshape or Animal Companion, and even the ones who don't still have medium armor and can use shields, Clerics have their domains, Divine Font, Warpriest can have a bit of martial ability, etc. Wizards just... cast things.
They sacrifice having any other significant features to just "cast good", while also being a 6 HP class with the worst proficiencies in the game. Even their feats, at least most of the good ones, generally give you... more spellcasting. When 90% of your power budget is spellcasting, spellcasting being nerfed feels bad. This is also why I think Wizards in this edition are, while not necessarily bad, utterly boring. The class has been defined as just having a better spell list for so long that now that they don't have that anymore they're just... kinda there.
(Just to be clear, I do agree with spellcasting being nerfed, and I also agree that Wizards shouldn't just have a better spell list by essentially nerfing everyone else's. The issue, for me, is that they didn't manage to give the class an interesting identity after taking those things away).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But I’ve never seen comments claiming druids, for
They sacrifice having any other significant features to just "cast good",
Arcane thesis and school specialisations aren't significant features?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I imagine my post will be replied to by plenty of people running to Paizo's defense; telling you to use Incapacitation spells on mooks, but I don't play a Wizard to heroically put down a mook with my limited spell slots.
I'll reply only on this. If an equal-level enemy is a mook, you are a mook too.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why do our discussions have to be acrimonious? The opinions of your fellow gamers are just opinions. They're not wrong and you're not right, regardless of which side you take.
It is possible to completely disagree with someone without trying to make them feel like jerks. We share a hobby that gives us something in common. Why not make the exact same arguments in a respectful and helpful way, so as to raise up the hobby instead of denigrate it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The class has been defined as just having a better spell list for so long that now that they don't have that anymore they're just... kinda there.
I'll reiterate this because it may have been lost in other statements - Arcane is still the 'best' spell list. It has elements of everything, along with sharing some of the best effects in the game on other spell lists.
All Arcane doesn't have, really, is healing.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Those who dislike the nerf to spellcasters always single out wizards. If I had to guess why, I’d say most detractors are familiar with 1E and wizard class’ widely-acknowledged status as God-tier OP. They notice the 2E change but don’t understand the why and how of the wizard nerf.
That seems weirdly dismissive and I think ignores the obvious pattern here when it comes to people talking about spellcasters:
The various three slot casters all tend to have much more robust chassis, especially at low levels, compared to the four slot casters. They generally just get more stuff and more interesting stuff too. And then, probably not coincidentally, the three slot casters are all generally considered pretty good and the four slot casters get complained about a lot.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Playing a Hellknight Wizard [Transmutation] in Pathfinder Society. Got to mid level 5 (Armiger feat). Had to be Human to collect enough General Feats for Armour Proficiency.
Overall, very unimpressive from spellcasting point of view.
Transmutation Focus is half useless - DMs only allow it for instantaneous actions, and mind you. Take into account my Str is maxed (16 until recently, now 18) and so is my Athletics (Expert now), I frequently Trip/Grab opponents, and it still isn't worth the words on the (electronic) paper.
Never used any Incapacitation or Charm spells - not my shtick anyway, so I won't comment.
Fear is okayish. Mostly Magic Missile these days. Magic Weapon quickly becomes unusable because everyone gets +1 Weapon and then you can't cast it to give them Striking anymore (weapon has to be non-magical).
What you mostly do as Wizard is cast Electric Arc. Over and over and over again.
Recently, True Strike + Acid Arrow has also seen use.
One surprise spell has been Jump, I really love that one. It's almost teleport; really came in handy for some non-combat challenges, but given that I'm a muscle Wizard, it's also nice for getting me in range to trip or smash opponents.
I'm looking forward to using Jump on 3rd level now, as well as Vampiric Touch, they fit my build nicely. And of course, Haste is a must.
Wizards are utterly bland. My spell thesis (Metamagic Mastery) might not even exist, all of the choices that make me different from Wizards are from the fact I'm building towards Order of the Scourge Hellknight. And mind you, I'm not going to Signifer but normal Hellknight - Signifer gives nothing worthwhile to Wizards, and Hellknight will at least give me Expert Proficiency with weapons of my Order. I had to join Order of the Gate (that's the only order Wizards can join due to Weapon Prof requirements), then on 5th level get weapon prof via Ancestry Feat and retrain into Order of the Scourge.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Arcane thesis and school specialisations aren't significant features?
Nope. School Specialisation is garbage outside giving you extra spell slots (there's maybe one good Focus spell and one half-decent), and Arcane Thesis is, like, what. Mechanically you go for Familiar, if DM is easy on timings maybe you take Spell Substitution.
I'll reiterate this because it may have been lost in other statements - Arcane is still the 'best' spell list. It has elements of everything, along with sharing some of the best effects in the game on other spell lists.
All Arcane doesn't have, really, is healing.
As with many things, being Jack of all Trades means being master of none. Arcane does nothing special, it's slightly more versatile in terms of damage types and utterly bland and forgettable in total.
It also means that Wizards, that are supposed to be the best spellcasters, aren't. They get nothing from their class bonuses, and they get nothing from their spell list.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, let's not forget that while in theory Arcane is the "biggest" spell list, Wizards have to learn their spells in downtime compared to other prepared spellcasters, which means their long-term spell versatility is actually much weaker unless they spend significant personal wealth on just filling spellbooks "just in case".
On the other hand, they still have to play the "prepare game" unlike spontaneous spellcasters.
|
|
But I’ve never seen comments claiming druids, for example, are a “failed class” because their “cantrips are a joke”, or that bards are like accountants because they focus on buffing and debuffing. Those who dislike the nerf to spellcasters always single out wizards. If I had to guess why, I’d say most detractors are familiar with 1E and wizard class’ widely-acknowledged status as God-tier OP. They notice the 2E change but don’t understand the why and how of the wizard nerf.To be honest, I think Wizards are the ones that feel the spellcasting nerfs the strongest, even without directly comparing the class to the PF1 version. That is, because the other casters all have more unique things to define them. Bards have their Compositions, Druids can have Wildshape or Animal Companion, and even the ones who don't still have medium armor and can use shields, Clerics have their domains, Divine Font, Warpriest can have a bit of martial ability, etc. Wizards just... cast things.
They sacrifice having any other significant features to just "cast good", while also being a 6 HP class with the worst proficiencies in the game. Even their feats, at least most of the good ones, generally give you... more spellcasting. When 90% of your power budget is spellcasting, spellcasting being nerfed feels bad. This is also why I think Wizards in this edition are, while not necessarily bad, utterly boring. The class has been defined as just having a better spell list for so long that now that they don't have that anymore they're just... kinda there.
(Just to be clear, I do agree with spellcasting being nerfed, and I also agree that Wizards shouldn't just have a better spell list by essentially nerfing everyone else's. The issue, for me, is that they didn't manage to give the class an interesting identity after taking those things away).
I agree that wizards' bad proficiencies are a problem and they should have more of a USP besides an extra daily spell (which still only puts them on-level with Sorcerers). Those are genuine shortcomings of the wizard class. General martial/caster disparities, the efficacy of AoE spells, cantrips and should not be labeled wizard class weaknesses, because even if they were true, they are not unique to wizards.
Wizards definitely have their own niche as offense casters (even with the upcoming Witch) and I know from personal experience they are effective if their player knows what they're doing. Calling them a "failed class" is just silly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, let's not forget that while in theory Arcane is the "biggest" spell list, Wizards have to learn their spells in downtime compared to other prepared spellcasters, which means their long-term spell versatility is actually much weaker unless they spend significant personal wealth on just filling spellbooks "just in case".
On the other hand, they still have to play the "prepare game" unlike spontaneous spellcasters.
You play with 'personal' wealth? Thats not helpful. Wizards shouldn't have to foot the bill of filling their books with all the great utility they can pack in there.
Also, I've never heard of the spellbook referred to as a drawback before... its generally considered a very significant asset.
Yes the complain about Wizards is that having the "best spell list" is meaningless if the class itself is super boring.
Before Arcana Schools gave interesting abilities,1 extra spell, and had a significant impact on how you leveled up because of opposition schools. Now its just 1 extra spells and maybe 1 good focus spell if you pick the right school.
Before they got Discoveries which changed the way your spells worked. Now that is gone.
Before you had the benefit of preparing a spell with a metamagic feat, so you could cast a spell and move. Now you are stuck casting a spell if you ever want to use a metamagic feat.
All the things that helped make Wizards interesting were removed. But hey they have "the best spell list", just ignore the fact that all other prepared casters (except for soon the Witch) know all their spells immediately and with no pre-reqs, downtime, or gold expenditure.
Can you clarify the fourth paragraph? What are you “stuck” doing? I am confused at what you are trying to say about metamagic
|
|
Those who dislike the nerf to spellcasters always single out wizards. If I had to guess why, I’d say most detractors are familiar with 1E and wizard class’ widely-acknowledged status as God-tier OP. They notice the 2E change but don’t understand the why and how of the wizard nerf.That seems weirdly dismissive and I think ignores the obvious pattern here when it comes to people talking about spellcasters:
The various three slot casters all tend to have much more robust chassis, especially at low levels, compared to the four slot casters. They generally just get more stuff and more interesting stuff too. And then, probably not coincidentally, the three slot casters are all generally considered pretty good and the four slot casters get complained about a lot.
If it seems weird to you, then it's because you cut out most of what I actually said when you quoted me.
Here's my thesis in this argument:
"Zapp's claim that "the Wizard is a failed class - considerably less effective than any martial" is ludicrous. His argument is that the Incapacitation rules, cantrips, and AoE spells are bad, but that's true of all casters, not just wizards. I did not understand why he singled out wizards and speculated as to why."
Wizards do have a weaker chassis, and I've complained about it on other threads. But that's unchanged since 1E, so that can't really be called a nerf (it's more of an all-caster buff the wizards didn't receive for some reason). What *has* changed since 1E is wizards losing the scroll advantage, losing the spell-advancement they had over most other classes, and other spell lists getting good stuff from Arcane, as well as other changes I'm forgetting.
I do think wizards' proficiencies should be better and they should have more "interesting stuff". But again, the wizard is not a failed class.
But I’ve never seen comments claiming druids, for example, are a “failed class” because their “cantrips are a joke”, or that bards are like accountants because they focus on buffing and debuffing. Those who dislike the nerf to spellcasters always single out wizards. If I had to guess why, I’d say most detractors are familiar with 1E and wizard class’ widely-acknowledged status as God-tier OP. They notice the 2E change but don’t understand the why and how of the wizard nerf.To be honest, I think Wizards are the ones that feel the spellcasting nerfs the strongest, even without directly comparing the class to the PF1 version. That is, because the other casters all have more unique things to define them. Bards have their Compositions, Druids can have Wildshape or Animal Companion, and even the ones who don't still have medium armor and can use shields, Clerics have their domains, Divine Font, Warpriest can have a bit of martial ability, etc. Wizards just... cast things.
They sacrifice having any other significant features to just "cast good", while also being a 6 HP class with the worst proficiencies in the game. Even their feats, at least most of the good ones, generally give you... more spellcasting. When 90% of your power budget is spellcasting, spellcasting being nerfed feels bad. This is also why I think Wizards in this edition are, while not necessarily bad, utterly boring. The class has been defined as just having a better spell list for so long that now that they don't have that anymore they're just... kinda there.
(Just to be clear, I do agree with spellcasting being nerfed, and I also agree that Wizards shouldn't just have a better spell list by essentially nerfing everyone else's. The issue, for me, is that they didn't manage to give the class an interesting identity after taking those things away).
The Wizard Thesis are pretty strong. They don't offer a lot but they are powerful. They have the best familiars, they can swap spells during the day, they can "shed" lower level spell slots for stronger ones at higher levels and they can use a lot of different metamagics (that aren't that good yet, but definitely will gain support in the future). Spells also aren't that bad because of the degrees of success, they can still use Cantrips (that AREN'T underwhelming, because they're free ranged damage that offer better utility and damage than other ranged options).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure comparing PF1 wizards and PF2 wizards really accomplishes much either way though. PF2 wizards are very clearly less capable in a lot of ways, but in a mechanical sense everyone is, because PF1 was a game with a lot of issues PF2 expressly tried to dial back. On the other hand, there are some significant QoL and longevity improvements that I don't think you can just ignore either, to the point where a system to system comparison doesn't seem helpful.
"I don't like the way metamagic bogs down the action economy" is a complaint that I think someone can make without comparing it to PF1, which just muddies the whole thing a bit. And uh, so on and so forth.