| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
These are the changes I'm looking to make that I think will make magic and the wizard class more interesting and fun to play and build.
Spellcasting House Rules
Incapacitation: An ability with this trait can take a character completely out of the fight or even kill them, and it’s harder to use on a more powerful character. If a spell has the incapacitation trait, any creature higher than the caster’s level treats the result of their check to prevent being incapacitated by the spell as one degree of success better, or the result of any check the spellcaster made to incapacitate them as one degree of success worse. If any other effect has the incapacitation trait, a creature of higher level than the item, creature, or hazard generating the effect gains the same benefits.
Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Wizard
Weapon Specialization: You’ve learned how to inflict greater injuries with the weapons you know best. You deal an additional 2 damage with weapons, unarmed attacks, and cantrips, focus spells, or spells with the attack trait that require an attack roll to hit in which you are an expert. This damage increases to 3 if you’re a master, and 4 if you’re legendary.
Wizard
Arcane Thesis: During your studies to become a full-fledged wizard, you produced a thesis of unique magical research on one of a variety of topics. You gain a special benefit depending on the topic of your thesis research. The arcane thesis topics presented in this book are below; your specific thesis probably has a much longer and more technical title like “On the Methods of Spell Interpolation and the Genesis of a New Understanding of the Building Blocks of Magic.”
You gain the Spell Substitution Arcane Thesis for free and can choose one additional Arcane Thesis.
Arcane Focus Spells
Protective Ward Focus 1 Uncommon Abjuration Wizard
Source Core Rulebook pg. 407
Cast Single Action somatic
Range: 60 feet Targets: 1 creature
Duration sustained up to 1 minute
You place a shimmering aura of protective magic around a target. The target gains a +1 status bonus to AC and damage resistance to magical attacks equal to half the spell level. Each time you Sustain the Spell, you maintain the ward around the creature.
Heightened (+2): Increase the number of targets by 1.
Augment Summoning Focus 1 Uncommon Conjuration Wizard
Source Core Rulebook pg. 406
Cast Free Action verbal
Range 60 feet; Targets 1 creature you summoned
You augment the abilities of a summoned creature. The target gains a +1 status bonus to all checks (this also applies to the creature's DCs, including its AC and damage) for the duration of its summoning, up to 1 minute.
Heightened (+4): Increase the status bonus by +1.
Diviner's Sight Focus 1 Uncommon Concentrate Divination Fortune Wizard
Source Core Rulebook pg. 406
Cast Reaction verbal
Range 60 feet; Targets 1 willing living creature
Duration the triggering saving throw or skill check.
You glimpse into the target's future. Roll a d20; when the target attempts a non-secret saving throw or skill check, it can use the number you rolled instead of rolling, and the spell ends. Casting it again ends any active diviner's sight you have cast, as well as any active diviner's sight on the target.
Heightened (+4): Roll an additional d20 as your glimpse into the future allows you to better assess how best to influence events.
Force Bolt Focus 1 Uncommon Evocation Force Wizard
Source Core Rulebook pg. 407
Cast Single Action somatic
Range 120 feet; Targets 1 creature or object
You fire an unerring dart of force from your fingertips. It automatically hits and deals 1d6+1 force damage to the target.
Heightened (+2) The damage increases by 1d6+1.
Call of the Grave Focus 1 Uncommon Arcane Attack Necromancy Wizard
Source Core Rulebook pg. 406
Cast One Actions somatic
Range 60 feet; Targets 1 living creature
You fire a ray of sickening energy. Make a spell attack roll.
Critical Success The target becomes sickened 2 and slowed 1 as long as it's sickened.
Success The target becomes sickened 1.
Failure The target is unaffected.
Heightened (+2): 1d4 negative damage.
Physical Boost Focus 1 Uncommon Transmutation Wizard
Source Core Rulebook pg. 407
Cast Single Action verbal
Range 60 feet; Targets 1 living creature
Duration until the end of the target's next turn
You temporarily improve the target's physique. The target gains a +2 status bonus to the next Acrobatics check, Athletics check, Fortitude save, or Reflex save it attempts.
Heightened (+4): Increase the bonus by +1.
Cantrips
Acid Splash: Add the splash trait.
Chill Touch, Produce Flame, Ray of Frost, Divine Lance: Increase damage and heightened non-persistent damage to d6.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Flagged to move to homebrew forum.
Also, you decided the best way to "fix" incapacitation (not a problem) was to make spell heightening not matter for debuffs? Okay.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Flagged to move to homebrew forum.
Also, you decided the best way to "fix" incapacitation (not a problem) was to make spell heightening not matter for debuffs? Okay.
Homewbrew forum. I did not see that. Please move there.
I spent some time thinking about AP design, how casters were choosing spells, and the overall effect of incapacitation.
1. Incapacitation spells were being avoided due to their uselessness against main enemies and their having to use a high level slot even to affect mooks.
I want casters to to be able take Incapacitation spells and use them for what they are good for: taking out or eliminating mooks.
In APs even mooks are usually a level or two behind meaning a caster needs a slot just behind their highest level slots to affect them. As an example in the current AoA campaign I'm in, the mook guards are lvl 12 and lvl 11. I can cast 7th lvl spells. That means I have to use 5th and 6th level spells to incapacitate mooks.
2. Heightening has enough effects given how counteract and condition removal spells work. In the same AoA campaign, I usually have to use a 5th to 7th level slot for heightened dispel magic for countering.
Heightening also alters damage, number of targets, and other effects. This makes it so a caster can focus on max level damage spells to compete with martial damage against main BBEGs.
3. I want the majority of spell slots to be useful to a caster, not just his highest level slots. And he can try some higher level spells a few times to try to get critical fails on something like domination.
Given how spell saves are even for mooks, saving every round means spells like Domination don't last long even on mooks. Critical failures are rare even for lvl-2 mooks.
There may be a few problem spells I need to know about. Thus the feedback will help. Calm Emotions might be one of those problem spells. I want to see what problem spells come up and take a look at how to modify them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
His fix to Incapacitate was to base it off caster level instead of spell level+2.
Yes. Like other incapacitation effects.
This makes sure it still serves the purpose of not allowing main BBEGs or big single encounters to end easily, while allowing the caster to use lower level slots to eliminate mooks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*munches* did you playtest these changes?
Not yet. I'm going to wait for some feedback on possible incapacitation spell feedback. The other changes are minor and won't have much of an effect.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not yet. I'm going to wait for some feedback on possible incapacitation spell feedback. The other changes are minor and won't have much of an effect.
Incap change is completely throwing out what it's supposed to be for (ensuring low-level fight-ending debuffs don't end encounters). Otherwise you get into a situation where casters pick up enough save or suck/die spells that they just cast multiple every encounter to win.
You say it only makes it better against mooks, but those mooks make up a significant amount of threat in both boss fights. A level+2 boss with 2 level-0 to 2 mooks is somewhere between a severe and extreme encounter, an incap spell can slash that down to a moderate. To do the same with a blast, you'd need to expend your highest or second highest level of slot... but debuffs? Debilitating effects don't fall off, a 3rd level blindness is as effective at 20th as it is at 5th. There needs to be some mechanism in place there.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, my actual play experience up to level 14 (I know, worthless, why play the game when you can just theorycraft?) shows that incapacitation trait changes blow up encounter balance, as the current setup walks a fine balance between allowing you to remove level-2 mooks while not making level+0 or level+1 mooks irrelevant.
The reason casters don't get additional damage to cantrips and focus spells is because they don't use a resource at all, and they're mostly ranged attacks if they deal damage at all.
I worry about this way of tweaking Incapacitation spells for a couple reasons.
This change to Incapacitation spells has the same drawback, depending dramatically on the precise level of the target in question.
The reason this is a worry is that, IMHO, it messes with PF2's spell balance. Namely, with this kind of boost, it'll be hard for the non-incapacitation debuffs of those spell levels to compete with the incapacitation debuffs. (They won't be completely useless, of course, because they'll still a better bet against high level targets. But I think low level spells will be largely overshadowed by the incapacitation spells.)
I think, is to I think if you want to uniformly weaken the Incapacitation effect spells, the easiest way to do it (without creating too much spell imbalance) is to give creatures a scaling bonus to saves if the spell's level isn't high enough. E.g., granting creatures a bonus to their saves against the spell equal to [creature's level - (2*spell level)] (minimum 0).
That would address both of the above problems, making such spells have a (diminished) chance of being useful against higher level opponents, while keeping the non-incapacitation debuffs relatively competitive.
my biggest concern about these changes is how they will play with enemy casters who are usually a level or more ahead of the PCs. 1st level spells in PF2 get auto heightening DCs so a caster villain that is a level or two ahead of the PCs is going to have all of their available spell levels for casting spells that can take PCs out of a fight, many of which are Area of Effect. PCs tend to rush casters any way so the caster can have 1st level color sprays that will be hard to resist and potentially devastating to PCs. Sure the caster could have a couple memorized in their highest level slots, but that means they get 3, maybe 4 chances at something like this, maximum, rather than 10 or 12 chances.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
my biggest concern about these changes is how they will play with enemy casters who are usually a level or more ahead of the PCs. 1st level spells in PF2 get auto heightening DCs so a caster villain that is a level or two ahead of the PCs is going to have all of their available spell levels for casting spells that can take PCs out of a fight, many of which are Area of Effect. PCs tend to rush casters any way so the caster can have 1st level color sprays that will be hard to resist and potentially devastating to PCs. Sure the caster could have a couple memorized in their highest level slots, but that means they get 3, maybe 4 chances at something like this, maximum, rather than 10 or 12 chances.
Hmm. This is true. A lich really ripped the party up with high level spells. Would I want his lower level incapacitate spells effective? Maybe not with the lich, but with a humanoid caster I might given how weak they are. The lich spells were devastating damage, but it was the lich defenses that kept him standing and his 1 action attack.
Are spell slots a sufficient limiter to incapacitation spells?
One of my other concerns is magic items. You can make some really cheap scrolls and wands later in the game. I may adjust incapacitation to not work with scrolls and perhaps wands, maybe not items period. We will see.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I worry about this way of tweaking Incapacitation spells for a couple reasons.
First, I take one of the downsides of the default treatment of Incapacitation spells is that it leads to a strange "casting blind" phenomenon. Casters often won't know what the level of their potential target is. And so casters aren't in a position to know whether casting the spell might have a reasonable chance of success, or might be a waste of time. This change to Incapacitation spells has the same drawback, depending dramatically on the precise level of the target in question.
Second (as Grankless mentioned) this approach makes the low level versions of these spells as powerful as the high level versions. E.g., why heighten your Blindness spell if your odds of success are the same regardless of what level you cast it at? (Likewise, it feels a little at odds with PF2's spell design, which now uses the spell's level, not the caster's level, to determine the effectiveness of spells.) The reason this is a worry is that, IMHO, it messes with PF2's spell balance. Namely, with this kind of boost, it'll be hard for the non-incapacitation debuffs of those spell levels to compete with the incapacitation debuffs. (They won't be completely useless, of course, because they'll still a better bet against high level targets. But I think low level spells will be largely overshadowed by the incapacitation spells.)
I think, is to I think if you want to uniformly weaken the Incapacitation effect spells, the easiest way to do it (without creating too much spell imbalance) is to give creatures a scaling bonus to saves if the spell's level isn't high enough. E.g., granting creatures a bonus to their saves against the spell equal to [creature's level - (2*spell level)] (minimum 0).
That would address both of the above problems, making such spells have a (diminished) chance of being useful against higher level opponents, while keeping the non-incapacitation debuffs relatively competitive.
I'm not so worried about having to heighten lower level spells. If the spells were so amazing that they encouraged players to heighten them, but my players didn't even bother to use those spells after the level they gained them and found other spells to place in those slots. They like memorizing and using high level spells in their high level slots, not heightening low level spells. Which suddenly makes these incapacitate spells that people liked to use undesirable due to the incapacitation trait. They fall into this weird category of not good enough to heighten and not worth taking due to incapacitation.
I shouldn't worry too much about a spell like color spray as it used to be based on hit dice and given up eventually for a similar reason. Hold person now known as paralyze was an extremely common party debuff. It is sufficient that it only targets one creature?
Will it greatly hurt a martial if a caster takes out a single creature of equal level with a 3rd level spell while he is doing crazy damage at higher level with a slightly better magic weapon he can use over and over again. My feeling is no, it won't unbalance the game.
The problem might come in though if you are suddenly faced with a bunch of monsters each capable of casting a paralyze spell at the party. That is where I see an incapacitation problem occurring.
That is why I might fix it with levels of spellcasting proficiency versus a general increase in power of the incapacitation trait.
Things that I like -
Augment Summoning change, assuming that the numbers aren't actually borked in effectiveness.
Protective Ward.
Things that concern me -
Incapacitation Change, I really recommend playing this as written. It works pretty well in practice, even though it seems annoying.
Diviner's Sight - I think this was already the best Wizard Focus power, and you've really made it way, way, way better. I feel this one is the one you don't want to change, because its already good in RAW.
Call of the Grave - This one was two actions for a reason, and that's because of how hard it is to get rid of sickened. I wouldn't recommend making it a single action. You could probably leave it at 2 actions, and make the Heightening effect (+1).
Everything Else - None of the rest of it really breaks anything, but a lot of that is because a point of damage or a point of damage per level isn't going to make or break these abilities. I don't think its needed, but it should all run fine and probably isn't going to ruin anyone elses experience.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Things that I like -
Augment Summoning change, assuming that the numbers aren't actually borked in effectiveness.
Protective Ward.
Things that concern me -
Incapacitation Change, I really recommend playing this as written. It works pretty well in practice, even though it seems annoying.
Diviner's Sight - I think this was already the best Wizard Focus power, and you've really made it way, way, way better. I feel this one is the one you don't want to change, because its already good in RAW.
Call of the Grave - This one was two actions for a reason, and that's because of how hard it is to get rid of sickened. I wouldn't recommend making it a single action. You could probably leave it at 2 actions, and make the Heightening effect (+1).
Everything Else - None of the rest of it really breaks anything, but a lot of that is because a point of damage or a point of damage per level isn't going to make or break these abilities. I don't think its needed, but it should all run fine and probably isn't going to ruin anyone elses experience.
There's a lot of little rules I didn't realize work like they do like Sickness. I was playing it like frightened. Then I read it. It seems you can only get rid of it either with its duration ending or using an action to retch. I may leave it the same, but I sort of like the ray being use to set up an attack the wizard can benefit from like other similar abilities like Dirge of Doom or Demoralize. Frighten is easier to get rid of, but both are a status bonus so they can't stack. A necromancer wizard having a slightly harder to get rid of ability is ok with me since other classes have better things about them like Dirge of Doom working without a save or Tempest Surge doing damage with a powerful effect as well.
Call of the Grave RAW being a 2-action spell and an attack roll is clunky, but the effect is really good. Sickened is honestly one of the strongest conditions in the entire game, it takes a while to get rid of and makes creatures waste their action. I think wanting to reduce the number of actions on the spell is valid (I too prefer 1-action focus spells so they can be combined with a slotted spell) - but the result her is something very, very powerful.
Personally I would recommend reducing the range to touch (and still have it be one action) if you want the spell to be really good, but not absurdly so. Necromancy has a lot of lifestealing, so having to get in there might be a good tradeoff for a very action-efficient focus spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Call of the Grave RAW being a 2-action spell and an attack roll is clunky, but the effect is really good. Sickened is honestly one of the strongest conditions in the entire game, it takes a while to get rid of and makes creatures waste their action. I think wanting to reduce the number of actions on the spell is valid (I too prefer 1-action focus spells so they can be combined with a slotted spell) - but the result her is something very, very powerful.
Personally I would recommend reducing the range to touch (and still have it be one action) if you want the spell to be really good, but not absurdly so. Necromancy has a lot of lifestealing, so having to get in there might be a good tradeoff for a very action-efficient focus spell.
I'll still give it to them. Battle casters are terrible in this edition. I gave up on my sorcerer last night. I tried to build a good damage caster. I'm thinking Paizo nerfed magic enough that it can't be done other than AOE. In the main fights of importance, your best action in PF2 is buff the martials to do damage. Hope to get lucky with some other spell.
In the course of the entire combat against an adult white dragon with a kobold sorcerer minion, I did the following:
1. Hit the kobold once with spiritual weapon for 9 points of damage.
2. Launched a fireball at the dragon he critically succeeded on with a +19 reflex save versus my DC23 multiclass wizard save.
3. Fired a searing light at the dragon with true strike rolling double 4s.
4. Launched a 2 action magic missile that killed finished off the kobold sorcerer because the martials had already downed it.
6. Got dropped once due to breath damage and a phantasmal killer cast at a higher DC than mine by the kobold sorcerer.
So while the martials swinging multiple times with their striking weapons never running out of resources did over 300 points of damage, I did 15 points of damage the entire battle.
The bard provided the martials with haste and fly/i]. The cleric healed everyone, cast [i]air walk on the fighter, and managed to get off a few equally ineffective fireballs.
I'm tired of trying to make a damage caster work. Apparently PF2 has been designed at this point in time to make casters into buff bots for martials to do damage. That's not why I play a wizard or sorcerer. I'm going to wait until the PF2 design team release more spells that take into account the much higher failure chance for casters trying to do damage in the most important fights. Right now that ratio is skewed so far into the martial's favor, it's an exercise in futility to try to build a caster to do damage.
2. Launched a fireball at the dragon he critically succeeded on with a +19 reflex save versus my DC23 multiclass wizard save.
As I don't have full context and don't feel like trying to scour your other posts:
What level is your character?
|
|
So, you want your Wizard to be single target DPS, AoE DPS, one-hit removal, buffer, debuffer, utility, dishwasher, vacuum cleaner, salad bar.
Not even PF1 Wizards were good at all of that because PF1 AoE generally sucked.
Aha.
Well, I guess there might be a game or two out there that can give you that, PF2 isn't one of them.
To be fair, both 1E and 2E Wizards are pretty effective vacuum cleaners and dishwashers, even low level. For salad bar I prefer druid though.
You're really going to say that because you rolled a 4 on an attack, 2E spell design is bad? Newsflash, the die roll matters in this game...
Dishwashers aside, it may be better if the "Do Wizards suck" debates are kept where they belong. I know it's very difficult to divorce that topic from a thread like this (because what kind of changes/tweaks you believe are reasonable are contingent on whether you think Wizards are in a good place or no), but I don't think this discussion will become very productive if it becomes Wizards debates thread #16.
|
Here's something I cooked up in the other thread and thought I would throw out here, just to see what people think, as I'm grooving on the idea right now.
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 may 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.
Obviously it's rough and in need of tuning, but I think it's a neat little concept.
Re: Just As Planned
I'd also suggest a penalty to the target's saving throw, but only if it targets the creature's lowest save (or at least, not its highest) and have the 'cost' be a reaction or free action.
Wizards are spell casters and most spells are save-based.
The value of the bonus/penalty doesn't fit, though. At level 19 you'd be adding +9 or +10 which basically means you're rolling to "succeed or critically succeed." So might want to make the bonus equal to your TEML on whatever you're doing (always spellcasting TEML?) or a fixed value (the value can still go up, eg. "+2 that increases to +4 at 13th")
May need some wording on handling AoE spells, but I'm not entirely opposed to a wizard going, "Ah, just as planned" and Fireballing an entire group of mooks, "I knew they'd mob us all at once."
That all said I'm not sure that this makes the wizard "best at spells" but "best at planning" which--to a degree--encroaches on the Investigator and doesn't in any way help the witch, who suffers some of the same problems (though we'll have to wait and see what Paizo does about hexes).
|
|
Re: Just As Planned
I'd also suggest a penalty to the target's saving throw, but only if it targets the creature's lowest save (or at least, not its highest) and have the 'cost' be a reaction or free action.
Wizards are spell casters and most spells are save-based.
The value of the bonus/penalty doesn't fit, though. At level 19 you'd be adding +9 or +10 which basically means you're rolling to "succeed or critically succeed." So might want to make the bonus equal to your TEML on whatever you're doing (always spellcasting TEML?) or a fixed value (the value can still go up, eg. "+2 that increases to +4 at 13th")
May need some wording on handling AoE spells, but I'm not entirely opposed to a wizard going, "Ah, just as planned" and Fireballing an entire group of mooks, "I knew they'd mob us all at once."
That all said I'm not sure that this makes the wizard "best at spells" but "best at planning" which--to a degree--encroaches on the Investigator and doesn't in any way help the witch, who suffers some of the same problems (though we'll have to wait and see what Paizo does about hexes).
Good points!
A fixed scaling bonus is much more fair than my original numbers, I didn't think those values through. Maybe +2 to start, then +3 at expert casting, +4 at master and +5 and legendary. So still pretty strong by end-game, but less stompy.
I specifically wasn't going apply a save penalty because, by and large, I think Saves are in an okay-ish place overall.
I would actually change what can be affected to include: AC, a single Save per use, skill checks, attack or damage rolls.
To keep it in line with things like this, it would probably only be able to effect 1 target out of an AoE, but that's a balance take I'm happy with.
By and large I wasn't pressing the "best at casting" aspect of Wizards, I was more thinking of them and their preparedness. As I said in the other thread, I want to push the idea of them leveraging their knowledge for advantage.
A fixed scaling bonus is much more fair than my original numbers, I didn't think those values through. Maybe +2 to start, then +3 at expert casting, +4 at master and +5 and legendary. So still pretty strong by end-game, but less stompy.
Oh I'm fully conscious of how arbitrary my values were. :)
By and large I wasn't pressing the "best at casting" aspect of Wizards, I was more thinking of them and their preparedness. As I said in the other thread, I want to push the idea of them leveraging their knowledge for advantage.
Sure, sure.