| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is entirely subjective, and can certainly be debated.
-The arcane spell list has more (and more versatile) spells
-Wizards have no anathema they are bound by
-Wizards have more spells per day at each level
-Spell Blending is pretty awesome
-So is Spell SubstitutionFor Druids
-You get an animal companion if you want one. [This doesn't really make you more versatile though, imo]
-You are trained in weapons and armorBoth classes are good to players who want to play those kinds of classes. The only class that objectively sucks is the alchemist*.
*This is a joke, I don't think they objectively suck. It is true though that, to me, the alchemist is only attractive as an archetype.
You left a whole lot off that list.
Druids are better at shapechanging.
Primal list has huge number of AoE Attack spells.
Primal list has heals and affliction removal versus illusion and teleportation spells.
Storm has a very nice list of focus spells.
Better armor and weapon choices innately allow you to spend feats on something other than weapon feats.
Druids have better summoning feats for building a summoner if that was even a good option.
The animal companion is superior to a familiar, but a druid can have an animal companion and a familiar if they feel like it.
Wisdom is a better focus stat than intel improving will saves and perception which includes initiative.
Druid can fulfill a variety of roles such as healer, magical damage dealer, overall damage dealing from multiple sources, and even defensive class with shapechanging and pet at same time.
Like I said, it's not even a debate. Druid is the most versatile class in the game. The chassis is very well constructed as are the focus abilities. A player can do a ton of with them. Any wizard would have a hard time competing in the spotlight against a druid.
Druid is a fine class if casting spells from your spell slots is a once an encounter maximum activity. Same with Bards and Clerics (outside of healing). Wizard and Sorcerer are the only classes that really have multiple spell slot spells an encounter potential if your adventuring day is going to be more than 3 encounters a day.
For a lot of people that is clearly not exciting enough to base a class around, but if you love casters for the spell slots, the wizard is a good class.
That one extra slot isn't some wide swath that can't be made up for with other abilities like focus spells as good as Tempest Surge or Invoke Disaster along with an animal companion.
Wizard's base spell slots are 3 per level plus 1 for a school or 1 use of drain focus. That amounts to 9 extra spells per day, 10 if a DM allows you to use it for a 10th level slot.
Does an animal companion or a focus spell make up for those slots? In my experience, yes, they do. Tempest surge is basically a slightly weaker damage Sudden Bolt with a better rider. Invoke Disaster is stupid levels of good. Then you can go Order Explorer for an animal companion which is like having a permanent extra moderate damage spell that can flank and do other things like Demoralize or trip.
Then toss an actual useful weapon in the mix for the occasional one action attack when you don't have something to do with one extra action and you have an extremely versatile and effective class.
I hope some kind of summon option comes out for the wizard providing them the equivalent of an animal companion. That would be nice.
It is largely comparing PF1 Wizard to PF2. I like the Wizard in PF2 and is much more balanced. This came up in 5e also. People were saying over and over the wizard and casters in general were nerfed. My opinion they needed to be rebalanced from 3rd/3.5. Also 5e seems to be doing just fine with the rebalance of casters. As indicated above very same thing was said about Pathfinder 1 versus 3.5. Wizards and casters were nerfed in PF1. I think the rebalancing in PF2 of casters and Wizards specifically was needed thing from PF1. Also there seems to be no agreement of what the issues are so very hard thing to fix.
As far as the Witch goes they gave good update in preview video's of the witch Paizo Con in the APG panel. They I think do have access to divine lists also now which was change from playtest.
I have to least give the 5E wizard done some props in that the shapechanging and summon spells are still good. My recollection is the Wizard class abilities also were very nice and something to look forward to. You actually wanted to run a wizard to high level for those abilities because they were a meaningful, interesting, and useful increase in power.
I still recall one wizard player having all kinds of fun with the Conjuration wizard abilities in 5E.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I came to this thread hoping to see a discussion between the party wizard and witch about whether or not to use dried or pickled eye of newt.
I am sorely disappointed.
|
Can it be explained by the rules being abstraction of the game world rather than a perfect reflection of how stuff works in universe? because it really bothers me when there's a new edition and the developers make some ridiculous, contrived explanation for why things changed. And I'm like, just say it's an abstraction because it is. Or are you seriously telling me you think every human can move exactly 60 feet (75 feet now, I guess.) in a six second period?
I can picture two wizards arguing over that.
I find a lot of ttrpg players fall into these two camps. One side says the rules are an abstraction, they just exist for us to play a game with. The other side says this is a fantasy world, it doesn't function like our own world, so the game rules define how this fantasy world works.
According to the first group, granny can fall off a 6 foot ladder, crack her skull, and die. According to the second group, that's impossible because granny has 4hp and falling off the ladder would only do 3. And then an argument ensues.
This may seem ridiculous to some, but this is a ridiculous fantasy world. People can turn into dragons if they get angry enough, so why should our real world logic apply? I'm not trying to say either view is correct. I waffle between the two myself, and I'd assume plenty of other people fall somewhere between those views as well.
I thought wizards get 1 spell per level from school AND 1 use of drain focus. That would mean that on odd levels for the highest spell slot, a specialist wizard would get 2 spells base, 1 spell from school, and 1 spell from drain bond vs a druid who gets 2 spells from base, right?That one extra slot isn't some wide swath that can't be made up for with other abilities like focus spells as good as Tempest Surge or Invoke Disaster along with an animal companion.
Wizard's base spell slots are 3 per level plus 1 for a school or 1 use of drain focus. That amounts to 9 extra spells per day, 10 if a DM allows you to use it for a 10th level slot.
They get 1 drain focus per day, unless they are universalists, in which case they get one per spell level per day.
So by that metric, wizards get 3 spells per spell level, +1 from specialist or +1 from drain bond.
...which I assume the wizard will use on a 3rd level spell slot, is what I meant.
Yes, but as soon as they're have 4th level spells, that drain bond use is a 4th level slot (probably) and not a 3rd level slot.
Unlike a universalist wizard who will still have a use of drain bond for both their 3rd level spells and their 4th level spells.
Hence a wizard having 4 spells per level regardless of if they specialize or not. The "oh but the specialists get +1 overall total" is irrelevant to that calculation.
That was more the argument for 3.5 or PF1 where they were much more game breaking than 5e. Martials are much closure in 5e than 3.5 or PF1. Same thing with PF2. 5e is miles ahead of 3.5 as far as balance and damage. That is different conversation though. When 5e came out there was a massive amount of conversation about how casters got nerfed compared to 3.5. Same conversation with 3.5 to PF1 where contingencies and save or die spells were not as bad in PF1. This is also same conversation now. Casters were rebalanced for PF2 and many see that as nerf. I am happy with it myself. It is not new topic conversation though. Seen it come up various additions of the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
TThis is also same conversation now. Casters were rebalanced for PF2 and many see that as nerf. I am happy with it myself. It is not new topic conversation though. Seen it come up various additions of the game.happy with it in that you primarily play wizard and you enjoy the new PF2 wizard, or happy with it in that you don’t play wizard?
I kind of feel like most of the “happy with new wizards” posts are from people that don’t actually play wizard (not intending to single you or anyone else out); and ‘the people who do play wizards in my group enjoy it’ posts kind of give off a “my wife doesn’t mind my snoring” vibe. Okay, if you say so.
Happy with it in that I play a wizard (Illusionist) and a Barbarian (Dragon Instinct) in Pathfinder Society. I find spell casters feel far more engaging to play in Second Edition. Coordination, timing, and spell selection really matter. The action economy is working against you, but managing that is a lot of fun for me. I also love how capable my wizard is at using skills.
I will say that I have never really been focused on power fantasy. My enjoyment of PF2 spell casters come from how challenging and compelling they feel to play.Also a Soulsborne super fan.
Playing a druid in Age of Ashes, I think it's pretty significant.
As a druid player, unless I'm casting low level impact spells like Fear, I only get very few casts of on-level power spells which I like to use in-combat.
That's fine, but that wasn't what the original comment said, was it?
Wizard's base spell slots are 3 per level plus 1 for a school or 1 use of drain focus.
A specialist's use of Drain Focus isn't a base spell slot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But at the end of a day, shouldn't an optimizer be concerned with how many casts of a high level spell they can use per day, as opposed to being concerned about the semantics of whether the high level spell comes from a spell slot or a drain focus? Or is the lack of spell flexibility of drain focus the point of concern?
That one extra slot isn't some wide swath that can't be made up for with other abilities like focus spells as good as Tempest Surge or Invoke Disaster along with an animal companion.
The class feature in question is specialists getting a bonus slot of every level (or the universalists getting to use Drain Bond on every spell level, which is essentially equivalent). Which is more than the 1 highest-level spell cast from Drain Bond, and Deriven's argument is that ALL of those extra slots aren't worth other class's abilities.
So saying "ah, but Drain Bond!" doesn't really make the wizard catch up all that much. Is an Animal Companion better or worse than 2 high level slots? I'd argue that the Animal Companion is better on its own than two spells and then the Druid also gets Tempest Surge or Invoke Disaster on top of that.
I'd argue that the Animal Companion is better on its own than two spells and then the Druid also gets Tempest Surge or Invoke Disaster on top of that.
I was not under the impression that Animal Companions were terribly useful, especially considering their constant action drain. What sort of contribution are you considering here?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also don't particularly understand the excitement over Tempest Surge. In my eyes, it's a single target fireball at range 30. In a multi-enemy encounter, a real AoE is preferable, and in a single-boss encounter, a caster should assume the enemy passes the save. I think Tempest Surge is slightly better than a cantrip, and is better if cast as a reaction. A druid's Tempest Surge has the output of a cantrip+ which is good for staying active a bit longer over the course of a day, but doesn't really have a niche in tough battles. In comparison, an evoker's Force Bolt has a definite niche in single target boss monsters, and is action-cheap enough to pair with another powerful highest-level spell.
Tempest Surge has relevant damage against a single target, targets a save instead of rolling an attack roll, deals damage on a successful save, and imparts a powerful debuff on a failed save.
Its exactly what you want from a Focus spell - something significantly better than a Cantrip, but not quite what you could get from a spell slot of your best level.
Tempest Surge has relevant damage against a single target, targets a save instead of rolling an attack roll, deals damage on a successful save, and imparts a powerful debuff on a failed save.
Its exactly what you want from a Focus spell - something significantly better than a Cantrip, but not quite what you could get from a spell slot of your best level.
I agree with your analysis of Tempest Surge.
Isn't the damage output of tempest surge comparable to an electric arc that hits two targets?A cantrip+ like Tempest Surge has its uses in keeping the staying power of a caster across multiple encounters which is good. But Tempest Surge imo doesn't have the action-to-output ratio to pull its weight in difficult single-enemy boss battles or difficult multi-enemy encounters.
I feel like it fits the theme of the Druid's focus spells giving it better than average endurance. If you need to keep rolling through an indeterminate number of encounters, its a Good Option.
For most adventurings days, I think the extra spell slots a specialist wizard has over a equal level druid will serve them better though.
I'd argue that the Animal Companion is better on its own than two spells and then the Druid also gets Tempest Surge or Invoke Disaster on top of that.I was not under the impression that Animal Companions were terribly useful, especially considering their constant action drain. What sort of contribution are you considering here?
Most of my opinion is coming from other people's experiences. I have little to go on myself. In this case I was restating someone else's post because the part that was objected to was objected to in a way that was inaccurate/misleading (but not intentionally so).
Either way, the way the classes are written "one spell of each level" and "animal companion" are supposed to be considered equivalent. Or maybe "drain bond" and "animal companion." And either way, the general opinion is that (despite the action economy hit) the Animal Companion is valued more highly than both "one spell of each level" and "drain bond" combined.
Its got extra HP, it can flank, it can make attacks, it may have the ability to perform maneuvers.
|
I was not under the impression that Animal Companions were terribly useful, especially considering their constant action drain. What sort of contribution are you considering here?
In my experience, Druid PCs who choose an Animal Companion are absolutely spoiled in terms of valuable 3rd Actions whereas in many cases the Wizard will be trying to decide if screwing around with extra tactical movement when they may not feel they need it, casting/raising Shield, or rummaging through their backpack for a Scroll or other Magic Item.
The Companion may not boost skills much but it represents an extra 75% HP in the form of a second creature that they can position to flank, attack, and deal damage and support melee. In effect, they trade out there "sometimes wasted" 3rd Action for two highly valuable ones.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Happy with the it (PF2 casters) from rebalancing aspect. 5e rebalanced 3.5 and PF2 rebalanced casters from PF1. Whenever caster are rebalanced these post usually come up. 3.5 being far end spectrum with damage and multiple save or die spells and contingencies. PF1 cleaned that up some. 5e took it further with rebalancing spell damage. PF2 further rebalancing. I like a more balanced system some do not.
It is largely comparing PF1 Wizard to PF2. I like the Wizard in PF2 and is much more balanced. This came up in 5e also. People were saying over and over the wizard and casters in general were nerfed. My opinion they needed to be rebalanced from 3rd/3.5. Also 5e seems to be doing just fine with the rebalance of casters. As indicated above very same thing was said about Pathfinder 1 versus 3.5. Wizards and casters were nerfed in PF1. I think the rebalancing in PF2 of casters and Wizards specifically was needed thing from PF1. Also there seems to be no agreement of what the issues are so very hard thing to fix.
As far as the Witch goes they gave good update in preview video's of the witch Paizo Con in the APG panel. They I think do have access to divine lists also now which was change from playtest.
I have to least give the 5E wizard done some props in that the shapechanging and summon spells are still good. My recollection is the Wizard class abilities also were very nice and something to look forward to. You actually wanted to run a wizard to high level for those abilities because they were a meaningful, interesting, and useful increase in power.
I still recall one wizard player having all kinds of fun with the Conjuration wizard abilities in 5E.
the 5e Wizard is fun and the arcane traditions are generally at least okay. but they generally aren't all that impactful.
That's becasue the 5e wizards power is still mostly derived from the wizard spell list. The God Wizard is still very much a thing in 5e. Its easily the most powerful/versatile class in the game.
Balance between casters and martials in 5e has been an often talked about and argued portion of the 5e game design. high level wizards are basically demi-gods in 5e, where as martials just hit stuff more often. Wizards in 5e are most definitely fun but a lot of that fun is derived from how ridiculously powerful and game breaking they can be.
I personally prefer...
I don't understand this myself. I played a wizard to lvl 16 in 5E and the martials were still severely outdamaging me. We allowed feats of course.
But a Sharpshooter Archer and a GWF Two-hander Paladin Multiclass backed up by a caster for fly or haste when needed with a bless spell pretty much made nearly every encounter a faceroll. Wizard wasn't really adding much but making sure the martials path was clear to the target.
Something really must have changed in 5E for Concentration and Legendary saves to suddenly not matter to a 5E wizard.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, I find all this discussion of animal companions a little bizarre.
I like my Animal Companion a bunch. But, for it to be worthwhile, I need to invest a bunch of class feats into it. Specifically, Druid feats at 4th, 8th, and 14th levels. Otherwise it's nowhere near able to contribute to a combat encounter. And having the Animal Companion itself is a choice at 1st level. People are also talking about Tempest Surge, which leads me to believe that they started as a Storm Druid (for the extra focus point), and got into the Animal Order with Order Explorer at 2nd level.
Okay, so we've got a druid that, by taking class feats at 2nd, 4th, 8th, and 14th levels, has this "class feature" called an Animal Companion. Guess what? With the release of the APG in a couple of days, *any character* can do this by picking up the Beastmaster archetype.
TThis is also same conversation now. Casters were rebalanced for PF2 and many see that as nerf. I am happy with it myself. It is not new topic conversation though. Seen it come up various additions of the game.happy with it in that you primarily play wizard and you enjoy the new PF2 wizard, or happy with it in that you don’t play wizard?
I kind of feel like most of the “happy with new wizards” posts are from people that don’t actually play wizard (not intending to single you or anyone else out); and ‘the people who do play wizards in my group enjoy it’ posts kind of give off a “my wife doesn’t mind my snoring” vibe. Okay, if you say so.
I tried to play a wizard and sorcerer. I really gave it an effort as those are my favorite classes.
But it's real hard to keep feeling like you're doing something when you're being out-damaged by 2 to 3 times or more by the martials. I'm not sure what Paizo did with internal testing, but they really missed by boat on the low level sorcerer and wizard. I have no idea who enjoys playing a class that is shooting a beebee gun in a party full of martials using rocker launchers, at least at low level.
I can see at higher levels how this can shift with a unlucky save. My buddy used a finger of death on a big bad that critically failed hitting them for 140 points of damage with a 7th level spell slot. But that's a max possible of 3 per day compared to an average crit from the archer or rogue of 70+ as many times per day as they can swing.
It feels terrible for the supposed magical damage dealer wizard or sorcerer to shoot those beebees when they don't get lucky with a big spell of severely limited use.
Suffice it to say the wizard and sorcerer are unnecessary to a group and aren't missed when they are gone. Most of my group much prefers a bard or cleric. Both of those classes are severely missed when they aren't in a group. But if no one ever plays a wizard or sorcerer ever again, no one will notice and it won't affect the outcome of the game at all, in fact the only thing noticed when the sorcerer and wizard are in the group is how little they bring to the table compared to every other class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd argue that the Animal Companion is better on its own than two spells and then the Druid also gets Tempest Surge or Invoke Disaster on top of that.I was not under the impression that Animal Companions were terribly useful, especially considering their constant action drain. What sort of contribution are you considering here?
I use a bird animal companion, nimble for better survivability and mobility.
They are the equivalent of a spell like illusory creature or some spell or skill that can do minor things.
What do they offer?
1. Do a small amount of damage with their single action or one of their actions.
2. Flank in three dimensions for the bird due to flying. We were attacked by gargoyles outdoors who were flying over us to get an advantage and the bird was able to flank with the martials to attack them at an angle flying over the gargoyle.
3. Scout ahead which a familiar can do as well if it has flying or stealth. Birds have stealth and Nimble companions with eventual ambusher get really good stealth.
4. Pick things up if you command them too. So you can have them fly something to someone.
5. An extra perception check to see things or detect something.
6. An additional hit point pool to absorb a hit here or there.
Animal companions are more useful than given credit for. They aren't going to tank like some hunter in World of Warcraft pet, but they can add a lot of consistent damage and can do more than a lot of spells can do with unlimited duration. And they get better as you level even if you don't expend feats.
I also don't particularly understand the excitement over Tempest Surge. In my eyes, it's a single target fireball at range 30. In a multi-enemy encounter, a real AoE is preferable, and in a single-boss encounter, a caster should assume the enemy passes the save. I think Tempest Surge is slightly better than a cantrip, and is better if cast as a reaction. A druid's Tempest Surge has the output of a cantrip+ which is good for staying active a bit longer over the course of a day, but doesn't really have a niche in tough battles. In comparison, an evoker's Force Bolt has a definite niche in single target boss monsters, and is action-cheap enough to pair with another powerful highest-level spell.
Tempest Surge has relevant damage against a single target, targets a save instead of rolling an attack roll, deals damage on a successful save, and imparts a powerful debuff on a failed save.
Its exactly what you want from a Focus spell - something significantly better than a Cantrip, but not quite what you could get from a spell slot of your best level.
Yep. The Clumsy 2 along with a good amount of damage of a type not many are resistant to is a big plus. I blast with Tempest Surge, then fire my bow or let my animal companion attack against a target with two lower AC and likely flanked. Then set up the martials for a target with 2 lower AC and life is good. I feel like have a substantial and powerful ability in a focus spell I can use once a combat normally.
So, I find all this discussion of animal companions a little bizarre.
I like my Animal Companion a bunch. But, for it to be worthwhile, I need to invest a bunch of class feats into it. Specifically, Druid feats at 4th, 8th, and 14th levels. Otherwise it's nowhere near able to contribute to a combat encounter. And having the Animal Companion itself is a choice at 1st level. People are also talking about Tempest Surge, which leads me to believe that they started as a Storm Druid (for the extra focus point), and got into the Animal Order with Order Explorer at 2nd level.
Okay, so we've got a druid that, by taking class feats at 2nd, 4th, 8th, and 14th levels, has this "class feature" called an Animal Companion. Guess what? With the release of the APG in a couple of days, *any character* can do this by picking up the Beastmaster archetype.
If Beastmaster let's anyone do it, then they get the advantages of an amazing animal companion. I will gladly take that option as a wizard over a familiar unless familiar's are greatly improved.
|
...It is largely comparing PF1 Wizard to PF2. I like the Wizard in PF2 and is much more balanced. This came up in 5e also. People were saying over and over the wizard and casters in general were nerfed. My opinion they needed to be rebalanced from 3rd/3.5. Also 5e seems to be doing just fine with the rebalance of casters. As indicated above very same thing was said about Pathfinder 1 versus 3.5. Wizards and casters were nerfed in PF1. I think the rebalancing in PF2 of casters and Wizards specifically was needed thing from PF1. Also there seems to be no agreement of what the issues are so very hard thing to fix.
As far as the Witch goes they gave good update in preview video's of the witch Paizo Con in the APG panel. They I think do have access to divine lists also now which was change from playtest.
I have to least give the 5E wizard done some props in that the shapechanging and summon spells are still good. My recollection is the Wizard class abilities also were very nice and something to look forward to. You actually wanted to run a wizard to high level for those abilities because they were a meaningful, interesting, and useful increase in power.
I still recall one wizard player having all kinds of fun with the Conjuration wizard abilities in 5E.
the 5e Wizard is fun and the arcane traditions are generally at least okay. but they generally aren't all that impactful.
That's becasue the 5e wizards power is still mostly derived from the wizard spell list. The God Wizard is still very much a thing in 5e. Its easily the most powerful/versatile class in the game.
Balance between casters and martials in 5e has been an often talked about and argued portion of the 5e game design. high level wizards are basically demi-gods in 5e, where as martials just hit stuff more often. Wizards in 5e are most definitely fun but a lot of that fun is derived from how ridiculously powerful and game breaking they can
We were playing vastly different games then. From the time our wizard got fireball and lightning bolt; he was annihilating the battlefield. And higher level spells just made them far, far more effective than any martial. In fact, there was absolutely no reason to play a martial because casters are so dominant. Thank all the pantheons that Paizo didn't go the same overpowered wizard route that is prevalent in every other game of this genre.
|
|
TThis is also same conversation now. Casters were rebalanced for PF2 and many see that as nerf. I am happy with it myself. It is not new topic conversation though. Seen it come up various additions of the game.happy with it in that you primarily play wizard and you enjoy the new PF2 wizard, or happy with it in that you don’t play wizard?
I kind of feel like most of the “happy with new wizards” posts are from people that don’t actually play wizard (not intending to single you or anyone else out); and ‘the people who do play wizards in my group enjoy it’ posts kind of give off a “my wife doesn’t mind my snoring” vibe. Okay, if you say so.
I tried to play a wizard and sorcerer. I really gave it an effort as those are my favorite classes.
But it's real hard to keep feeling like you're doing something when you're being out-damaged by 2 to 3 times or more by the martials. I'm not sure what Paizo did with internal testing, but they really missed by boat on the low level sorcerer and wizard. I have no idea who enjoys playing a class that is shooting a beebee gun in a party full of martials using rocker launchers, at least at low level.
I can see at higher levels how this can shift with a unlucky save. My buddy used a finger of death on a big bad that critically failed hitting them for 140 points of damage with a 7th level spell slot. But that's a max possible of 3 per day compared to an average crit from the archer or rogue of 70+ as many times per day as they can swing.
It feels terrible for the supposed magical damage dealer wizard or sorcerer to shoot those beebees when they don't get lucky with a big spell of severely limited use.
Suffice it to say the wizard and sorcerer are unnecessary to a group and aren't missed when they are gone. Most of my group much prefers a bard or cleric. Both of those classes are severely missed when they aren't in a group. But if no one ever plays a wizard or sorcerer ever again, no one will...
I have also played wizard and sorcerer at low levels. Never did it feel like I was shooting beebees. In fact, because I like dealing damage instead of debuffing/buffing, I was always on the attack landing comparable damage to the martial characters. And my cantrips always have an array of damage types to capitalize on weaknesses if they present themselves. At level one, up against a warg, a +1 boss, I killed it in one shot, something only achievable by a raging barbarian. At 4, I used grim tendrils the +3 boss greater barghest, dealing continuous damage that was vital in taking the beast down. Lightning bolt at 6, downed three enemies that would have at least downed my other party members had I not been there. And at every level, whether conserving slots or finding them the most useful at the moment, cantrips pulled through with damage: telekinetic projectile (at a -1 compared to martials before 5th level) against undead or with a physical weakness, Ray of Frost at a far range, electric arc against two targets, and daze against low will targets. And this is not to mention when I did AOE damage with burning hands. Even while I only did damage, my party members still thought I was an invaluable asset.
I'd argue that the Animal Companion is better on its own than two spells and then the Druid also gets Tempest Surge or Invoke Disaster on top of that.I was not under the impression that Animal Companions were terribly useful, especially considering their constant action drain. What sort of contribution are you considering here?They are the equivalent of a spell like illusory creature or some spell or skill that can do minor things.
This is specifically the comparison I was making in my head.
Looking at Animal Companions, there's nothing there I'd take over access to even an un-heightened Illusory Creature (and a lot of the rest, like scouting, can be supplemented by Divination and other Illusions).
Illusory Creature is just so versatile due to being able to have it look like whatever you want, being 100% expendable, its ability to trigger elemental and other weaknesses on demand, and its explicit synergy with Deception or Performance.
Sure it has its own limitations - but its versatility is beyond huge.
Illusory Creature is sustained, so you can only have it active for 10 minutes in one go.
Illusory Creature is sustained, so you can only have it active for 10 minutes in one go.
That is... less of a limitation than it sounds like, generally.
Illusory Creature, because it is customized on casting dodges or distracts or overcomes entire encounters.
The Illusionary Badguy boss tells his henchman, "Have you met Player McCharacter? He is my superior in our nefarious organization and you will treat his orders as if they were my own. I will be in my bunk napping - and I am not to be disturbed!"
Alternatively, things with multiple stackable weaknesses hate Illusory Creatures...
Also, any encounter susceptible to being led on a wild goose chase while the rest of the party "sneaks" past their position while theyre gone.
Or any encounter with anything that particularly fears/respects/is in awe of another type of creature.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Illusionary Badguy boss tells his henchman, "Have you met Player McCharacter? He is my superior in our nefarious organization and you will treat his orders as if they were my own. I will be in my bunk napping - and I am not to be disturbed!"
Wow, is your GM being a pushover.
Also, how is caster seeing and hearing what the creature is doing while not being seen concentrating on a spell by the minion???Alternatively, things with multiple stackable weaknesses hate Illusory Creatures...
Well you still need to hit. And honestly, it sounds like your GM is allowing all of this veeeery broadly.
Not to mention not following through on repeated Perception checks. Either that, or you are using it on some very weak creatures.
Also, any encounter susceptible to being led on a wild goose chase while the rest of the party "sneaks" past their position while theyre gone.
Again, sure, it may be done, but often this can be achieved by simpler means. Not to mention that this should mess you over when the guards return and catch you from behind.
Or any encounter with anything that particularly fears/respects/is in awe of another type of creature.
I mean, sure, kinda the point of Illusion magic. But you don't need a Wizard for this. In fact, you don't want one, since both Bard and Sorcerer can have this spell easy AND max out Deception/Performance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Illusionary Badguy boss tells his henchman, "Have you met Player McCharacter? He is my superior in our nefarious organization and you will treat his orders as if they were my own. I will be in my bunk napping - and I am not to be disturbed!"Wow, is your GM being a pushover.
Also, how is caster seeing and hearing what the creature is doing while not being seen concentrating on a spell by the minion???
Alternatively, things with multiple stackable weaknesses hate Illusory Creatures...Well you still need to hit. And honestly, it sounds like your GM is allowing all of this veeeery broadly.
Not to mention not following through on repeated Perception checks. Either that, or you are using it on some very weak creatures.
Also, any encounter susceptible to being led on a wild goose chase while the rest of the party "sneaks" past their position while theyre gone.Again, sure, it may be done, but often this can be achieved by simpler means. Not to mention that this should mess you over when the guards return and catch you from behind.
Or any encounter with anything that particularly fears/respects/is in awe of another type of creature.I mean, sure, kinda the point of Illusion magic. But you don't need a Wizard for this. In fact, you don't want one, since both Bard and Sorcerer can have this spell easy AND max out Deception/Performance.
First, playing the game "rules as written" is not "being a pushover". Theres absolutely nothing ambiguous about using the spell like that, or using Deception like that. That's literally their basic purpose and effect.
A GM not allowing this is being obtuse for no reason.
I'm not clear what "repeated perception checks" you are referring to - against a creature with multiple weaknesses, theres no practical difference in the damage dealt by the illusory creature and the real thing. And Illusory Creatures exploiting weaknesses is literally right in the spell.
Why would guards "catch you from behind" - theyre not going to return to their posts and spontaneously decide to rush deeper into their dungeon or complex.
Finally, the idea that a Wizard is significantly worse than a Bard or Sorcerer at social skills is fairly laughable. Theyre fully capable of being within 1 effective bonus of either for the vast majority of the characters lifespan.
First, playing the game "rules as written" is not "being a pushover". Theres absolutely nothing ambiguous about using the spell like that, or using Deception like that. That's literally their basic purpose and effect.
A GM not allowing this is being obtuse for no reason.
Sure, but as Deception skill clearly states, impersonating specific people around people who know them should result in circumstance bonuses to people you are interacting with.
And, as I noted, you need to be somewhere the caster can see (to be able to respond in meaningful manner), yet not someone the target can see the caster.
I'm not clear what "repeated perception checks" you are referring to - against a creature with multiple weaknesses, theres no practical difference in the damage dealt by the illusory creature and the real thing. And Illusory Creatures exploiting weaknesses is literally right in the spell.At Xd4+spellcasting modifier, I would argue this is unbelieveable for most creatures. Especially if you're targeting their weakness since it's, you know, their weakness.
Also, I have no idea what do you mean about stacking weaknesses.
Why would guards "catch you from behind" - theyre not going to return to their posts and spontaneously decide to rush deeper into their dungeon or complex.
Because any guards except 1st level Goblins should realise something was up when the thing they were chasing disappeared in a puff. Not to mention I'm not exactly sure how long you're able to run away with it since again, you kinda need to see where it's going. Nowhere in the spell does it mention being able to navigate stuff on its own.
Finally, the idea that a Wizard is significantly worse than a Bard or Sorcerer at social skills is fairly laughable. Theyre fully capable of being within 1 effective bonus of either for the vast majority of the characters lifespan.
Didn't say significantly worse, just that it's easier with the other two.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, but as Deception skill clearly states, impersonating specific people around people who know them should result in circumstance bonuses to people you are interacting with.And, as I noted, you need to be somewhere the caster can see (to be able to respond in meaningful manner), yet not someone the target can see the caster.
So far as I can tell, there's nothing special about Sustaining the Spell that would allow anyone to know what you are doing. Lots of mundane actions have the Concentrate trait, and the section on Identifying Spells requires you to specifically do so, and notes that spells are generally noticed based on their effects - which would mean you'd need to suspect the Illusion to even have a prayer of realizing what's going on. If you have a rules quote that indicates sustaining illusions is obvious, please provide. Even if it is obvious... Deception Specialists.
And to a skill specialist, even Very Hard checks (+5 DC) are manageable.
If the damage doesn't correspond to the image of the monster—for example, if an illusory Large dragon deals only 5 damage—the GM might allow the target to attempt a Perception check to disbelieve the spell as a free action.
At Xd4+spellcasting modifier, I would argue this is unbelieveable for most creatures.Especially if you're targeting their weakness since it's, you know, their weakness.
Also, I have no idea what do you mean about stacking weaknesses.
How much damage does a Vrock take from an attack that is both Cold Iron and Good? At that point, the fact that the base damage was a d4+4 is the least relevant part of the damage its suffering.
Because any guards except 1st level Goblins should realise something was up when the thing they were chasing disappeared in a puff. Not to mention I'm not exactly sure how long you're able to run away with it since again, you kinda need to see where it's going. Nowhere in the spell does it mention being able to navigate stuff on its own.
Most guards aren't elite special forces either, and most should see the quarry in this case disappear around a corner and go investigate, etc. If your GM isn't running creatures like they're people and instead running them as hyper-optimal-special forces-robots, a lot of things stop working.
This sort of situation is also well handled by adding a Deception check to determine how effective the ruse is.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't a lot of enchantments and illusions have built in rules that prevent them from being obvious to the casual observer?
It not being so would make them rather self-defeating, would it not?
So far as I can tell, there's nothing special about Sustaining the Spell that would allow anyone to know what you are doing. Lots of mundane actions have the Concentrate trait, and the section on Identifying Spells requires you to specifically do so, and notes that spells are generally noticed based on their effects - which would mean you'd need to suspect the Illusion to even have a prayer of realizing what's going on. If you have a rules quote that indicates sustaining illusions is obvious, please provide. Even if it is obvious... Deception Specialists.
I don't see why it wouldn't be obvious you are sustaining a spell (even if they can't tell WHICH spell). Which would immediately heighten their suspicions.
And to a skill specialist, even Very Hard checks (+5 DC) are manageable.
It's rolling dice. I'll agree it's a valid tactic, but not something doable all the time.
How much damage does a Vrock take from an attack that is both Cold Iron and Good? At that point, the fact that the base damage was a d4+4 is the least relevant part of the damage its suffering.
For one, you'd have to explain to me how Vrock would know it should be taking Cold Iron and Good damage? Is there something obvious about Cold Iron items that a Vrock will notice it immediately on a creature? Or Good? Do you create an angel? Why then don't Vrock hit it and dispel it immediately?
Also, while xd4 might be low, that's the point. Target must be consciously recognizing it's being hit by weakness progs, and thus should be able to distinguish that aside from hitting their weak spot, it really didn't hit that strong.
Most guards aren't elite special forces either, and most should see the quarry in this case disappear around a corner and go investigate, etc. If your GM isn't running creatures like they're people and instead running them as hyper-optimal-special forces-robots, a lot of things stop working.
This isn't elite special forces training either. You have to do something first to make the guards want to pursue the creature. And then the creature simply disappears? These guards must be from Metal Gear Solid. In which case, why not simply use wooden crates?
Given how much power you assign to this (2nd level) spell, I'd like to point you to a different rule:
If one version is too good to be true, it probably is.
Don't a lot of enchantments and illusions have built in rules that prevent them from being obvious to the casual observer?
It not being so would make them rather self-defeating, would it not?
I haven't seen any preventative rules like that, no. In fact, that's why they added Conceal Spell and Silent Spell, presumably. But overall, they nerfed magic severely, so it makes no sense to leave Illusion out of it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see why it wouldn't be obvious you are sustaining a spell (even if they can't tell WHICH spell). Which would immediately heighten their suspicions.
So you acknowledge there is nothing you're aware of in the rules that indicates any character can determine a character is sustaining a spell?
Because its an action with the Concentrate trait, and nothing about it would distinguish it from any other action with the same.
For one, you'd have to explain to me how Vrock would know it should be taking Cold Iron and Good damage? Is there something obvious about Cold Iron items that a Vrock will notice it immediately on a creature? Or Good? Do you create an angel? Why then don't Vrock hit it and dispel it immediately?
"Taste Cold Iron!" The Angel cries, as it strikes with its weapon that glows with holy light.
Also, GM call here but nothing limits illusory creatures to melee strikes. Illusory Archers are fully supported by RAW.
This isn't elite special forces training either. You have to do something first to make the guards want to pursue the creature. And then the creature simply disappears? These guards must be from Metal Gear Solid. In which case, why not simply use wooden crates?
Have you met real people, watched movies or read books?
Real people tend to not question providence, like being mistaken about having "thought" they saw an intruder but there having been no one there when they checked.
In movies, no one wants to be the guy who has to tell Darth Vader that a potential intruder got away - it was probably Just the Wind.
The "If its too good to be true..." rule applies in cases of unclarity or lack of ambiguity. These situations are neither.
But overall, they nerfed magic severely, so it makes no sense to leave Illusion out of it.
It sounds to me like you're nerfing magic in this case - not the game designers.