List of Wizard arguments


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

201 to 250 of 260 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
NemoNoName wrote:
Unicore wrote:
Spell selection within the arcane list, goes a long way to giving the wizard identity.
That both Sorcerers and soon Witches get access to. Not to mention that it's the list with fewest unique spells.

The witch is down a spell slot and the bonded item. At level 4 casting ventrilloquism at second level and invisibility is 2 of their highest level slots. If they end up wanting to do something interesting with illusory creature, that is all their level 2 slots for the day.

It is really costly for a bard to pick up ventriloquism as a second level spell by level 4. If they have that and invisibility and illusory creature, those are all the 2nd level spells they know except one 1st level spell they take as a signature spell and casting 2 of them is pretty much their full day.

No sorcerer gets invisibility as a second level bloodline spell (unless there is a new one in the APG), which means to have Ventriloquism at 2nd level, Invisibility and Illusory creature is all your high level spells known. You have an interesting one trick, but you don't get silent spell so you are going to have to get really creative with the ventriloquism.

No spontaneous caster is going to have these three spells together. Very few will even think to take ventriloquism as a second level spell because it is costly and makes a terrible signature spell because you really only want it at level 2 once you can get it.

The illusionist doesn't even need to waste learning a new spell on getting ventriloquism as a level 2 spell, so they can take invisibility and illusory creature at level 3 and then have 2 more second level spells at level 4 even without scribing any new ones.

Any rogue can do an interesting impersonation, but not that great of one by level 4 and even at higher levels they are going to have to figure out how to get the rest of the party by while the illusionist uses invisibility sphere gets the whole party through.

A lot of players don't care about this style of play, but if you actually want to use your spells, especially spells that really benefit from having other spells cast first, the wizard is a very good character for you.

EDIT: I picked level 4 because it is the level you get silent spell as an illusionist and your build really solidifies as something unique and interesting that no other class can touch.


Cyouni wrote:
Temperans wrote:
The Bard has Illusory Creature and is both way better at Deception and Performance checks. Not to mention they can literally use Inspire Competence to give themselves a boost while performing nearby, Which makes them even better at it.

They're better at different things.

The wizard will have worse odds, but will have more spells even after doing this trick.
The bard will have better odds, but it's going to cost them more resources.

(As a side note, I'd personally argue Inspire Competence can't be used here - since it'd interfere with the skill check to "maintain a disguise" - and the Bard can't even use it on themselves anyways since you're not your own ally.)

Hmm, if bard doesn't count as his own ally sure.

But its not going to cost the bard more to try. Its just a disguise check to look like the guy, or even something as Illusory Disguise heightened to 3rd level.


Temperans wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
Temperans wrote:
The Bard has Illusory Creature and is both way better at Deception and Performance checks. Not to mention they can literally use Inspire Competence to give themselves a boost while performing nearby, Which makes them even better at it.

They're better at different things.

The wizard will have worse odds, but will have more spells even after doing this trick.
The bard will have better odds, but it's going to cost them more resources.

(As a side note, I'd personally argue Inspire Competence can't be used here - since it'd interfere with the skill check to "maintain a disguise" - and the Bard can't even use it on themselves anyways since you're not your own ally.)

Hmm, if bard doesn't count as his own ally sure.

But its not going to cost the bard more to try. Its just a disguise check to look like the guy, or even something as Illusory Disguise heightened to 3rd level.

I was pretty sure PF2 was pretty distinct in that its one game where you are not your own ally.

I could be wrong on that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Glossary wrote:
ally An ally is someone on your side. You are not counted as your own ally. 456


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:


Explain to me why this shouldn't be happening? It is my understanding that groups often have one character with an item ahead of the level based magic items. It is in fact expected and not surprising at all for a level 10 group to have one martial character with a lvl 12 magic item.

Do you have some kind of proof this is not the case?

Secondly, given how much power a martial gains from a single magic item, tell me the equivalent item for a caster? If a fighter with a greater striking weapon is doing 3 times the damage of an equivalent level wizard, what magic item allows the caster to close the gap?

I know the monk can close the gap by obtaining a similar magical item with similar striking and property runes, which is why I don't much worry about the monk. But how does a caster closer that gap?

For the first, it's quite simple - look at the magic item tables. A level 12 magic weapon is worth 2000 gp. If you create a new level 10 character and take the lump sum option, you have 2300 gp. Though the lump sum option is strictly inferior to the permanent item option, it's pretty obvious that the numbers are quite slanted.

The first time a party should be obtaining a level 12 item is during the course of level 11, and - at least according to the magic item tables - the point at which every character should have one should be level 13.

If you wanted a comparison, it'd be like getting a Major Staff of Fire or a Wand of Smoldering Fireballs while the martial is still playing with a +2 striking weapon, letting the caster drop more max-slot damage spells.

Is there a direct comparison that will send a caster soaring above what their level should be doing? Not as much, because they're heavily bound by the spell level they can cast. In the above two examples, it'll give them more sustained fire, but it won't increase it above what they can already cast.

So he got it 1 level earlier. And you think it is impossible or improbable for a lvl 10 character to obtain a Greater Striking weapon? They should only get it at lvl 11. If a party pools their resources to buy a Greater Striking Weapon at lvl 10, they are somehow breaking the game?

And we've seen a Major Staff of Fire in action. Let's you cast up to 1 5th level fireballs (or 2 if you expend a spell slot) which become increasingly weaker as you level past the staff. That Greater Striking Rune remains good to lvl 16 or 18?

One greater striking rune should not have a martial doing 3 times the damage of a caster who is only slightly behind the level of the fighter. It's pretty absurd when a fighter does 357 damage to a group of 3 targets compared to 77 for the wizard and 121 for the monk. We'll see if the monk can at least close the divide after he gets a Great Striking Weapon and maybe the wizard if we get more AoE opportunities with some critical save fails.

I will record more damage numbers because I want to further see how this plays out. If the fighter maintains a 200% plus damage advantage over the wizard and monk, that will be pretty sad.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:

Illusory creature says you have to make a check to imitate a specific creature. It does not reveal the illusion, it reveals that something is trying to pass as their boss.

Then speaking to the guards to tell them some thing false, means you are lying hence a deception check to lie. Which again does not reveal the illusion, but that something is trying to pass as their boss.

So you have 2 deception checks to fool the guards on top of any disbelief check because you are using Illusory Creature.

Just out of curiosity, do you also require the same two deception checks if someone tried to use a disguise instead of a spell?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
Temperans wrote:
The Bard has Illusory Creature and is both way better at Deception and Performance checks. Not to mention they can literally use Inspire Competence to give themselves a boost while performing nearby, Which makes them even better at it.

They're better at different things.

The wizard will have worse odds, but will have more spells even after doing this trick.
The bard will have better odds, but it's going to cost them more resources.

(As a side note, I'd personally argue Inspire Competence can't be used here - since it'd interfere with the skill check to "maintain a disguise" - and the Bard can't even use it on themselves anyways since you're not your own ally.)

I keep hearing this more spells. More spells.

More spells better than the bard composition cantrips? I spend a great deal of time harmonizing while casting Inspire Defense and Inspire Courage. This gives the entire party the following:

1. +1 status to attack, damage,and fear saves.

2. +1 status to AC, saves, and half-spell level physical damage reduction to all physical attacks.

Don't you think being able to do this continuously as a single action saves me using a lot of spells? Is that never calculated in this "more spells" scenario? I do this every battle. With a focus point I often boost this up to +2 or +3 or cause it to linger for rounds so I can cast a spell or attack with a cantrip while boosting my party and myself.

So does having more spells outweigh the power of my cantrips to enhance the party?

As a lvl 14 bard, I rarely run out of spells, especially low level spells to use for things like illusory creature.

I usually spend the following spells over a combat:

1. 4th level invis to invis and attack or sing without getting directly I attacked. Invis is a signature spell so I can use a variety of slots to maintain it.

2. Group haste a 7th level spell.

3. I used a banishment last time which got rid of a powerful demon I had to heighten to 7th level.

4. Then dropped a 6th level Phantasmal Calamity.

5. Dropped a 4th level Phantasmal Killer.

6. Used two focus points to boost up Inspire Heroics followed by a Synesthesia 5th level slot to shift the attack probability on the main BBEG by 5, 7 if you including flanking.

Only slots I ran out of during the session were 7th level slots. The wizard would maybe have one more 7th level slot it could use to be maybe as effective as I am with my cantrips. His 7th level slot would not have been likely to provide a group buff as good as my cantrip boosted by Inspire Heroics.

Having more spells is only good if the additional spell options are as good as what the person with less spells is bringing to the table. That is often not the case with the wizard due to weak focus powers and thesis abilities.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
NemoNoName wrote:
Unicore wrote:
Spell selection within the arcane list, goes a long way to giving the wizard identity.
That both Sorcerers and soon Witches get access to. Not to mention that it's the list with fewest unique spells.

The witch is down a spell slot and the bonded item. At level 4 casting ventrilloquism at second level and invisibility is 2 of their highest level slots. If they end up wanting to do something interesting with illusory creature, that is all their level 2 slots for the day.

It is really costly for a bard to pick up ventriloquism as a second level spell by level 4. If they have that and invisibility and illusory creature, those are all the 2nd level spells they know except one 1st level spell they take as a signature spell and casting 2 of them is pretty much their full day.

No sorcerer gets invisibility as a second level bloodline spell (unless there is a new one in the APG), which means to have Ventriloquism at 2nd level, Invisibility and Illusory creature is all your high level spells known. You have an interesting one trick, but you don't get silent spell so you are going to have to get really creative with the ventriloquism.

No spontaneous caster is going to have these three spells together. Very few will even think to take ventriloquism as a second level spell because it is costly and makes a terrible signature spell because you really only want it at level 2 once you can get it.

The illusionist doesn't even need to waste learning a new spell on getting ventriloquism as a level 2 spell, so they can take invisibility and illusory creature at level 3 and then have 2 more second level spells at level 4 even without scribing any new ones.

Any rogue can do an interesting impersonation, but not that great of one by level 4 and even at higher levels they are going to have to figure out how to get the rest of the party by while the illusionist uses invisibility sphere gets the whole party through.

A lot of players don't care about this...

Unless you take Esoteric Polymath for that ever touted preparing in advance the wizard is lauded for. The Esoteric Polymath bard if given time can add different spells for use during an adventure. Not as fast as Spell Substitution, but give a bard a day and they can change out a spell like ventriliquism they for some reason want to use that tactic. An entirely unnecessary tactic that for some reason is being discussed on here like it is the gold standard for casters.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

So what have we learned? Wait for it...

Some people like playing wizards and others don't.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:

So he got it 1 level earlier. And you think it is impossible or improbable for a lvl...

Mathematically, if a level 10 fighter is doing 357 to 3 enemies, something is very wrong. I just did a quick calculation, and assuming impossible numbers and weapon power levels (d12 agile weapon, 3 attacks/turn), that's 3 straight turns of attacks from a level 14 fighter against level 11 enemies.

A single level 5 fireball against the same level 11 enemies (moderate Ref) averages ~67.5 damage in a turn. Against level 7 enemies (moderate Ref), it averages 110.25 damage.

I think you should be able to see my point, aka something is 100% weird about the numbers you're showing. Unless your fighter is level 14, with a greater striking weapon, taking 3 turns for the wizard's 1, against level 11 enemies, the disparity should not be in any way that big.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thanks Draco that clears that up.

*****************

Animated Paper if someone tried to do a disguise instead of the spell they would have: A deception check for imitating the person (and a new one every time they make change behavior), and a single deception check for lying. Both with their respective bonuses and penalties.

Illusory Creature doesn't add or remove any deception checks.


Just double checking. If you're consistent across both, that's one thing, requiring more checks of the magical solution would be another. It sounds like Krispy interprets things differently in such a way that fewer checks are required across the board.

I would actually tend to agree with them; while Lie and Impersonate are discreet actions, I would simply consider lying to be part of the impersonation. But I can at least see your logic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
AnimatedPaper wrote:

Just double checking. If you're consistent across both, that's one thing, requiring more checks of the magical solution would be another. It sounds like Krispy interprets things differently in such a way that fewer checks are required across the board.

I would actually tend to agree with them; while Lie and Impersonate are discreet actions, I would simply consider lying to be part of the impersonation. But I can at least see your logic.

Illusory Creature provides the circumstances to make more elaborate or dramatic impersonations, without the significant prep time associated with a disguise setup.

If you follow the guidance presented consistently throughout the APs and other rules, a powerful and appropriate spell is also generally worth a +4 status bonus - though thats up to the GM if they want to extend that beyond the numerous examples that occur throughout Age of Ashes that say, "if the character uses and appropriate spell, they gain a +4 status bonus" - also supported by the spell, Illusory Disguise.

Age of Ashes Spoiler:
Not relevant for when I ran this, since Age of Ashes includes a Ring of Lies which does that anyway via Glibness.

It also allows for the illusory NPC to delegate to the PCs, which isnt quite as easy if one of the PCs has to "be" the NPC...

But you are correct - its the same number of checks regardless of using the illusion or not.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
I don't really rely on anecdotal evidence. I specifically tracked damage from a martial versus a caster using the spells you listed and the martials were doing 2 to 3 times the damage on average the caster was dealing with rare exception up to about lvl 10. In fact the only time the caster matched the martials was AoE opportunities with unlucky saves.

This is actually not exactly reliable data, because you're recording variance, not expected outcomes.

Single target spell damage is in a rough spot. AoE damage is fine, certainly from level 5+ on. The caveat being spells are designed to be good when you use their qualities, and not amazing when you just use them in general.

Spells also scale in damage well, so they look better at level 10+ for sure.

Electric Arc does about what an archer (before lots of class feats, etc) does AS LONG AS you have two targets, etc.

Your beliefs that spells are only impressive in damage in AoEs, and spellcasting is much more powerful at high level are almost certainly correct. But recording data from just your games isn't a silver bullet of evidence.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
mrspaghetti wrote:

So what have we learned? Wait for it...

Some people like playing wizards and others don't.

Since this an emotional statement, I can agree with it.

I like playing wizards, but I hate being mathematically weaker than other party members in near perpetuity.

The wizard is empirically weaker than other classes. It offers nearly nothing to a group that can't be done better by other classes. It empirically deals far less damage against all creatures save for a handful of AoE situations.

Equity in combat is a very important factor when picking a class that isn't made to be a support, healing, or defensive class. That means numbers need to be much closer in range than what I'm seeing across multiple campaigns.


Cyouni wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:

So he got it 1 level earlier. And you think it is impossible or improbable for a lvl...

Mathematically, if a level 10 fighter is doing 357 to 3 enemies, something is very wrong. I just did a quick calculation, and assuming impossible numbers and weapon power levels (d12 agile weapon, 3 attacks/turn), that's 3 straight turns of attacks from a level 14 fighter against level 11 enemies.

A single level 5 fireball against the same level 11 enemies (moderate Ref) averages ~67.5 damage in a turn. Against level 7 enemies (moderate Ref), it averages 110.25 damage.

I think you should be able to see my point, aka something is 100% weird about the numbers you're showing. Unless your fighter is level 14, with a greater striking weapon, taking 3 turns for the wizard's 1, against level 11 enemies, the disparity should not be in any way that big.

The fighter did get lucky with 3 crits during the 5 rounds of combat. Two of those were Power Attack crits which averaged 80 plus points per crit. Then one regular crit which was 50 points or so.

They were not set up for an easy AoE opportunity. I always picture these number crunchers playing with DMs neatly setting up your enemies for full AoE attacks for "reasons." Yet as a DM of 30 plus years, it rarely works out that well across any edition I've played. Monsters aren't stupid enough to attack in a good formation for AoE damage. My casters used to take feats to allow them to AoE once the party was engaged because doing so at other times rarely lead to a good AoE opportunity.

The main thing that likely skewed the numbers was bad and good rolling. Then again it was consistent across three fights with the 357 being the largest number generated. The other fights had lower numbers,but the same division with the fighter doing the most damage each time. The +2 accuracy is a huge boon to damage.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
vagrant-poet wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
I don't really rely on anecdotal evidence. I specifically tracked damage from a martial versus a caster using the spells you listed and the martials were doing 2 to 3 times the damage on average the caster was dealing with rare exception up to about lvl 10. In fact the only time the caster matched the martials was AoE opportunities with unlucky saves.

This is actually not exactly reliable data, because you're recording variance, not expected outcomes.

Single target spell damage is in a rough spot. AoE damage is fine, certainly from level 5+ on. The caveat being spells are designed to be good when you use their qualities, and not amazing when you just use them in general.

Spells also scale in damage well, so they look better at level 10+ for sure.

Electric Arc does about what an archer (before lots of class feats, etc) does AS LONG AS you have two targets, etc.

Your beliefs that spells are only impressive in damage in AoEs, and spellcasting is much more powerful at high level are almost certainly correct. But recording data from just your games isn't a silver bullet of evidence.

Recorded data in real play circumstances is a far better measure of effectiveness than the white room math we see on here, which is why I record it to begin with.

I believe if we had a massive amount of recorded data, we would see the same patterns save in rare circumstances for a variety of reasons. Not only has PF2 made martial damage vastly superior to caster damage, they have also made it so that martials benefit more from the ability to set up their attacks with flanking while gaining circumstance bonuses to attack and damage.

We see this in recorded data where the fighter and martials can set up the battlefield for flanking as well as increased accuracy hits far easier than a caster who must cast spells against saves that aren't often reduced with no real ability to set up the battlefield in a favorable fashion for casting.

So not only is casting weaker in general, but the caster ability to benefit from good battlefield set up or buffing is also weaker further weakening their ability to deal competitive damage.

It's the multi-whammy:

1. No benefit from flanking for casters.

2. Mostly two action spells that benefit one time a round from status and circumstance bonuses, whereas a martial attacks multiple times benefiting each single action from bonuses to attacks and penalties on the creature.

3. Danger of getting whacked when casting in melee circumstances.

4. Very little control over ability to set up the battlefield to make for good AoE. Two martials can set up a flank quite easily. How does a caster ensure the monsters are in good position for AoE?


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
I like playing wizards, but I hate being mathematically weaker than other party members in near perpetuity.

I don't want my Ranger to be permanently inferior to the Wizard at flying, teleporting, and moving the party to another plane.Unless your idea is that a Wizard should have a whole range of abilities that a Ranger/<enter other non-caster here> can't ever get AND should be as good as them at anything they can do, then that's an issue you might want to address.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

It is incredibly difficult to quantify the combat value of battlefield control, because it rests on getting the enemy to make tactically inferior choices, while helping your allies make tactically superior ones. It includes everything from enemies spreading out and leaving gaps in their front line to avoid Area of Effect spells, controlling movement, and misutilizing their resources. There is no class in the game better at it then the wizard, because it requires flexibility and intelligence to work.

Now the game doesn’t require intelligent characters for intelligent players to vastly outperform their character’s tactical ability, whereas a physically strong player is much more limited in transferring their strength into the game. So the low intelligence fighter character gets a massive boost in power from intelligence being something that is nearly impossible to quantify in game mechanics. I don’t even want to get started debating whether players should base their capacity for tactical play on character attributes. Some will, some wont, policing that is a fools quest that is certain to increase hostility at the table.

What PF2 does is make tactical decision making equal to the value of long term strategic decision making (what you do with your three actions every turn is as important as your character build). Really maximizing that does require the foresight and flexibility to do so. All characters can make choices to improve their ability to know what challenges they will face and be prepared to face them, but the wizard is more than the equivalent of a +2 ahead of everyone else in this category.

However, the wizard is probably the most GM dependent class in the game, exactly because creativity and intelligence are so difficult to balance mechanically. PF2 has made it a lot easier for GMs to say no to players of wizards accustom to saying “I get to change reality at will.” Of course that was always going to lead to some hard feelings. Playing a wizard at a table requires a good relationship between player and GM, it makes sense player experience is so wildly diverse in this regard.

Shadow Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Pf2 reminds me of that age of conan mmo. They developed interesting new mechanics for melee, with directional attacks, blocking, and combos, and casters got the generic press your button wait for cool down that was in ever other mmo.

It's like, you tried something new and different with martials, and it's interesting, but spellcasting is basically the same as it's been since 1st edition d&d. The revamped martial experience really highlights how stale spellcasting is to me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:


I keep hearing this more spells. More spells.

More spells better than the bard composition cantrips? I spend a great deal of time harmonizing while casting Inspire Defense and Inspire Courage. This gives the entire party the following:

1. +1 status to attack, damage,and fear saves.

2. +1 status to AC, saves, and half-spell level physical damage reduction to all physical attacks.

Don't you think being able to do this continuously as a single action saves me using a lot of spells? Is that never calculated in this "more spells" scenario? I do this every battle. With a focus point I often boost this up to +2 or +3 or cause it to linger for rounds so I can cast a spell or attack with a cantrip while boosting my party and myself.

Wait, what ?

Harmonize takes an action to use. THEN you have to use your first composition. THEN you have to use your second one. So now you've used your whole round to get those two cantrips afloat. I'm not saying it's bad, it can actually be worthwile, but it's nowhere near "doing this continuously as a single action".

Also, you cannot use Lingering Composition on the Harmonized one, so it loses a lot of value there.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluenose wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
I like playing wizards, but I hate being mathematically weaker than other party members in near perpetuity.
I don't want my Ranger to be permanently inferior to the Wizard at flying, teleporting, and moving the party to another plane.Unless your idea is that a Wizard should have a whole range of abilities that a Ranger/<enter other non-caster here> can't ever get AND should be as good as them at anything they can do, then that's an issue you might want to address.

Do you not know how to build a ranger for this? You can do the superior ranger martial damage, while picking up a ton of the wizard's best defensive and transportation abilities.

Take multiclass wizard, sorcerer, or bard. Get up to Expert casting which will give you up to 6th level spells. This will get you invis and flying, which you can use to great effect because invis flat-foots anyone you shoot with your bow. Flying is a 4th level spell. You can also toss on a heroism. You get to all this for a 3 feat cost and an investment in a skill like Arcana or Occultism.

Then you can purchase fairly cheap scrolls of 4th level invis and fly to use it a lot more of than your spell slots allow. Or get a couple of 4th level wand.

You just illustrated that it is easier for a martial to take some of the best abilities of a caster, but a caster can't do the same. Whereas a martial can max his spellcasting training to Master, the best a caster can do is get their weapon training to expert.

And you get 10 hit points, better armor training, better weapon training, better damage, and with 3 feats you can access some of the best cherry-picked combat enhancing spells and increase the number of casts per day with fairly cheap scrolls and wands.

Teleport really isn't that great any more except for role-playing. Did you notice it's a 10 minute casting time now rather than quick cast get out of trouble card it was in PF1. Same with Plane shift. So for those few times you need it. you can buy it on a scroll or something with your wizard multi-class feats.

All of this why using your superior martial weapon damage with your hunter's edge.

Thanks for letting me bring up how it is much easier for martials to take highly effective caster options and not at all easy for casters to take the best martial abilities.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Blue_frog wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:


I keep hearing this more spells. More spells.

More spells better than the bard composition cantrips? I spend a great deal of time harmonizing while casting Inspire Defense and Inspire Courage. This gives the entire party the following:

1. +1 status to attack, damage,and fear saves.

2. +1 status to AC, saves, and half-spell level physical damage reduction to all physical attacks.

Don't you think being able to do this continuously as a single action saves me using a lot of spells? Is that never calculated in this "more spells" scenario? I do this every battle. With a focus point I often boost this up to +2 or +3 or cause it to linger for rounds so I can cast a spell or attack with a cantrip while boosting my party and myself.

Wait, what ?

Harmonize takes an action to use. THEN you have to use your first composition. THEN you have to use your second one. So now you've used your whole round to get those two cantrips afloat. I'm not saying it's bad, it can actually be worthwile, but it's nowhere near "doing this continuously as a single action".

Also, you cannot use Lingering Composition on the Harmonized one, so it loses a lot of value there.

I used Lingering Composition when I want to cast some attack spells or do something else. Then I need one action to cast the other cantrip while I use attack cantrips or attack spells. Another thing the wizard and sorcerer can't do. Maintain doing something extremely useful while casting attack and/or control spells. Lingering Composition is a better focus spell than any of the wizard focus spells for utility purposes and action economy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:

I used Lingering Composition when I want to cast some attack spells or do something else. Then I need one action to cast the other cantrip while I use attack cantrips or attack spells. Another thing the wizard and sorcerer can't do. Maintain doing something extremely useful while casting attack and/or control spells. Lingering Composition is a better focus spell than any of the wizard focus spells for utility purposes and action economy.

That's my point, it doesn't work this way.

If you use lingering composition, you cannot use another composition or it will stop the previous one.


Blue_frog wrote:
If you use lingering composition, you cannot use another composition or it will stop the previous one.

Mind providing a rules-quote on that? Nothing I see in Lingering Composition feat or focus spell (or the Composition general rules) says anything like that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Draco18s wrote:
Blue_frog wrote:
If you use lingering composition, you cannot use another composition or it will stop the previous one.
Mind providing a rules-quote on that? Nothing I see in Lingering Composition feat or focus spell (or the Composition general rules) says anything like that.

The composition general rules do specify that all existing compositions end if you cast a composition. There is no exemption for a lingering one. Check the glossary or the bard inset box.

Edit:

https://2e.aonprd.com/Traits.aspx?ID=31


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Bluenose wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
I like playing wizards, but I hate being mathematically weaker than other party members in near perpetuity.
I don't want my Ranger to be permanently inferior to the Wizard at flying, teleporting, and moving the party to another plane.Unless your idea is that a Wizard should have a whole range of abilities that a Ranger/<enter other non-caster here> can't ever get AND should be as good as them at anything they can do, then that's an issue you might want to address.

Do you not know how to build a ranger for this? You can do the superior ranger martial damage, while picking up a ton of the wizard's best defensive and transportation abilities.

Take multiclass wizard, sorcerer, or bard. Get up to Expert casting which will give you up to 6th level spells. This will get you invis and flying, which you can use to great effect because invis flat-foots anyone you shoot with your bow. Flying is a 4th level spell. You can also toss on a heroism. You get to all this for a 3 feat cost and an investment in a skill like Arcana or Occultism.

Then you can purchase fairly cheap scrolls of 4th level invis and fly to use it a lot more of than your spell slots allow. Or get a couple of 4th level wand.

You just illustrated that it is easier for a martial to take some of the best abilities of a caster, but a caster can't do the same. Whereas a martial can max his spellcasting training to Master, the best a caster can do is get their weapon training to expert.

And you get 10 hit points, better armor training, better weapon training, better damage, and with 3 feats you can access some of the best cherry-picked combat enhancing spells and increase the number of casts per day with fairly cheap scrolls and wands.

Teleport really isn't that great any more except for role-playing. Did you notice it's a 10 minute casting time now rather than quick cast get out of trouble card it was in PF1. Same with Plane shift. So for those few times you need it. you...

For fly, level 7 and level 12 are very far apart, and you only have 1 slot to the wizard's 3. Same thing with invis, except wizard gets 3 slots at level 3 to your 1 at level 6. Ooh, how about multitarget haste, the martial can do great with that one cast at level 18...to the wizard's 13 and 3 casts. And a martial can max their spellcasting to master...vs the wizard's legendary, which is shockingly the same difference as the wizard's expert weapons to the martial's master.

So yes, a martial character who invests a lot of their money and archetypes can roleplay as a wizard a few levels below them.


Xenocrat wrote:

Check the glossary or the bard inset box.

Edit:
https://2e.aonprd.com/Traits.aspx?ID=31

Ah, its buried in the trait definition, that's why.

I was pretty sure that the statement was true, I just was having trouble finding the rule.

Sovereign Court

Bluenose wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
I like playing wizards, but I hate being mathematically weaker than other party members in near perpetuity.
I don't want my Ranger to be permanently inferior to the Wizard at flying, teleporting, and moving the party to another plane.Unless your idea is that a Wizard should have a whole range of abilities that a Ranger/<enter other non-caster here> can't ever get AND should be as good as them at anything they can do, then that's an issue you might want to address.

In all my years of gaming, I've learned that the character that just charges off alone typically gets captured or killed... hence the meme of "Never split the party."

A Wizard usually has to provide teleportation or flight for the whole party, or else have some other way to not just ditch the other players, unless he is just acting as a party scout and he then returns to the others with knowledge and they proceed then together. But I have seen Rogues and Rangers in similar scouting rolls, especially when magic is not required to moved ahead.

But it's not just Teleportation and Flight, it can also be Water Breathing for the whole party, or Plane Shift. If 1 character is able to provide it for the whole party, that character is mostly just a Dias Ex Machina, an excuse to get to and move forward in the adventure for everyone. Without the party Wizard, it would just be a magic gate, or conveniently found potions, or something similar.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It is kinda true though, 1e wizard was better scout than classes with supposed abilities suited for scouting :p

I'm kinda annoyed about the caster arguments since I don't think I've seen much of play experience about high level casters yet, at low levels wizards were weak in 1e too except for being able to min max dcs to be really high and having couple save or die spells that with bad enemy rolls disabled encounters instantly. But in longer adventuring days they were stuck to acid splash because not every campaign is three encounters per day


Cyouni wrote:
For fly, level 7 and level 12 are very far apart, and you only have 1 slot to the wizard's 3...

The new Ranger Focus spell Animal Feature lets them fly for a minute at 7th level and you can cast it as a 1 action.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:
I'm kinda annoyed about the caster arguments since I don't think I've seen much of play experience about high level casters yet, at low levels wizards were weak in 1e too...

That's one of my big problems with pf2 magic, low level play has always been bad, but Pf2 fixed low level play for martials. So why were casters left in the dark ages?

At the very least they tried to fix martials, they tried something different even if people want to argue if it worked or not. They stuck to the same old with the spellcasters.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

That much I can agree with yeah, they did boost cantrips but it still feels bit underwhelming to just spam them when you run out of other options. That said its definitely much better than 1e cantrips


4 people marked this as a favorite.

It's weird, from my point of view, to call PF2 casters at low levels "left in the dark ages" when PF2 casters are, even at low levels, the best they've ever been (if counting "I can cast one spell and end an entire encounter, reliably" as a bad thing).

They are less "squishy," more skilled, and more capable at handling longer adventuring days well in comparison to their prior edition counterparts. And even though 2 aspects of their spell casting - the ending a whole encounter in one go thing, and the eventually layering on so many buffs at once that challenges fall into the categories of "trivial" and "against a caster" - have been trimmed away, all the other aspects of spell casting have been made more potent.

No more "don't bother healing unless it's to prevent imminent death" or "I did 1d6 damage with my only attack spell, and I had to get into melee for it," and buffs and debuffs mater even if you can just get 1 going at a time.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

At my table, I made a custom "mage" class. Basically, a pf2 wizard with arcanist/5e casting, 2 thesises, one extra spell slot for their school and no arcane bond. LINK

Despite all these buffs (which effectively boil down to flexibility), it seems very balanced with the party martials (a monk and a ranger) and the mage player is having fun.

If there is something about the game that doesn't work for you, PF2 is very modular so you can pretty easily change it. Just talk to your players, figure out where the ruleset falls short and make adjustments.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thenobledrake wrote:

It's weird, from my point of view, to call PF2 casters at low levels "left in the dark ages" when PF2 casters are, even at low levels, the best they've ever been (if counting "I can cast one spell and end an entire encounter, reliably" as a bad thing).

They are less "squishy," more skilled, and more capable at handling longer adventuring days well in comparison to their prior edition counterparts. And even though 2 aspects of their spell casting - the ending a whole encounter in one go thing, and the eventually layering on so many buffs at once that challenges fall into the categories of "trivial" and "against a caster" - have been trimmed away, all the other aspects of spell casting have been made more potent.

No more "don't bother healing unless it's to prevent imminent death" or "I did 1d6 damage with my only attack spell, and I had to get into melee for it," and buffs and debuffs mater even if you can just get 1 going at a time.

I do agree with that, but on otherhand level 1 divine sorcerer doesn't really have much stuff do at first level besides heals, couple buffs/debuffs and cantrips. So you don't really get to FEEL cool before higher levels


The problem our table found was flexibility. With arcanist casting (for prepped casters) and more spells known/prepped at lower levels, the casters feel more like casters despite the reduction of spell slots, the loss of auto heighten and the general reduction in spell power.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:
I do agree with that, but on otherhand level 1 divine sorcerer doesn't really have much stuff do at first level besides heals, couple buffs/debuffs and cantrips. So you don't really get to FEEL cool before higher levels

...noting the irony in such a lengthy "nothing to do but..." list, I'm just going to respond with this:

Whether or not a character gets to "FEEL cool" is almost entirely dependent on the player.

You're lil list of stuff feels cool to some players. A well timed command or a well-placed 3-action harm feels cool to some players. And to some players, absolutely none of what a level 1 character is capable of feels cool.

That's why I find it easier to stick to things which can actually be objectively measured when I am assessing details like "have these elements been improved compared to prior versions?" and let the subjective parts like feeling cool come later, since the only power I actually have over that aspect is to encourage players to approach the game trying to have a good time.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I mean, you call it lengthy list but its still just 3 spells. When I created my demonic sorcerer I was like "okay one of those three spells is fear from bloodline and... Umm. I guess heal and bless". And in longer adventuring day those will run out really fast.

Like, for context here: I actually think 2e casting is perfectly fine. I do however agree that it has same problem as 1e did in that on first few levels you feel really ineffective(though in 1e you can cheese it with stuff like color spray as long you don't fight something immune to your cheese spell :p)

Whether that can be fixed without radically changing casting?*shrugs* Dunno, I don't actually mind the casting, I just acknowledge that its indeed the same problem. And you do realize that I don't actually really find it much of a problem myself, but that doesn't mean others don't find it a big problem.


CorvusMask wrote:
I mean, you call it lengthy list but its still just 3 spells.

No, I was just meaning that usually when a sentence is phrased like that there aren't so many items on the list given.

You listed 1) heals, 2) buffs, 3) debuffs, and 4) cantrips.

That's ironic, much like how it'd be ironic if someone were to say "I don't have much to eat in the house except..." and then list 4 entirely different meals.

I wasn't trying to call the 3 slot-using spells a sorcerer starts with a lengthy list of spells.


Deriven Firelion wrote:
Bluenose wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
I like playing wizards, but I hate being mathematically weaker than other party members in near perpetuity.
I don't want my Ranger to be permanently inferior to the Wizard at flying, teleporting, and moving the party to another plane.Unless your idea is that a Wizard should have a whole range of abilities that a Ranger/<enter other non-caster here> can't ever get AND should be as good as them at anything they can do, then that's an issue you might want to address.

Do you not know how to build a ranger for this? You can do the superior ranger martial damage, while picking up a ton of the wizard's best defensive and transportation abilities.

Take multiclass wizard, sorcerer, or bard. Get up to Expert casting which will give you up to 6th level spells. This will get you invis and flying, which you can use to great effect because invis flat-foots anyone you shoot with your bow. Flying is a 4th level spell. You can also toss on a heroism. You get to all this for a 3 feat cost and an investment in a skill like Arcana or Occultism.

Then you can purchase fairly cheap scrolls of 4th level invis and fly to use it a lot more of than your spell slots allow. Or get a couple of 4th level wand.

So basically:

The Wizard defaults to being good at casting and mathematically inferior at combat.
The ranger defaults to being good at combat and can spend significant resources to be mathematically inferior at casting.

And you consider this situation unfair to the Wizard.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Blue_frog wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:

I used Lingering Composition when I want to cast some attack spells or do something else. Then I need one action to cast the other cantrip while I use attack cantrips or attack spells. Another thing the wizard and sorcerer can't do. Maintain doing something extremely useful while casting attack and/or control spells. Lingering Composition is a better focus spell than any of the wizard focus spells for utility purposes and action economy.

That's my point, it doesn't work this way.

If you use lingering composition, you cannot use another composition or it will stop the previous one.

It's irrelevant. Lingering Composition lasts a maximum of 4 rounds with no sustain action.

I still can let a Lingering Inspire courage stay active, while I do other things like move and cast while still gaining the benefits of my composition. It is still a superior option to anything offered by the wizard.

When I think about it, I don't use Lingering Composition very often. Usually when I want to move and cast a spell at the same time. I don't mind ending the Lingering Composition once I reposition or cast a few spells while moving or doing something else. I view Lingering Composition as an improvement in action economy in certain circumstances. One of the many tools bards have that wizards and other casters do not.

Normally my focus points are reserved for Inspire Heroics.


Xenocrat wrote:
Draco18s wrote:
Blue_frog wrote:
If you use lingering composition, you cannot use another composition or it will stop the previous one.
Mind providing a rules-quote on that? Nothing I see in Lingering Composition feat or focus spell (or the Composition general rules) says anything like that.

The composition general rules do specify that all existing compositions end if you cast a composition. There is no exemption for a lingering one. Check the glossary or the bard inset box.

Edit:

https://2e.aonprd.com/Traits.aspx?ID=31

Not until lvl 20. At level 20 you can put up as many compositions as you want including Lingering Compositions. But that is a top tier ability, so not surprising.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Bluenose wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
I like playing wizards, but I hate being mathematically weaker than other party members in near perpetuity.
I don't want my Ranger to be permanently inferior to the Wizard at flying, teleporting, and moving the party to another plane.Unless your idea is that a Wizard should have a whole range of abilities that a Ranger/<enter other non-caster here> can't ever get AND should be as good as them at anything they can do, then that's an issue you might want to address.

Do you not know how to build a ranger for this? You can do the superior ranger martial damage, while picking up a ton of the wizard's best defensive and transportation abilities.

Take multiclass wizard, sorcerer, or bard. Get up to Expert casting which will give you up to 6th level spells. This will get you invis and flying, which you can use to great effect because invis flat-foots anyone you shoot with your bow. Flying is a 4th level spell. You can also toss on a heroism. You get to all this for a 3 feat cost and an investment in a skill like Arcana or Occultism.

Then you can purchase fairly cheap scrolls of 4th level invis and fly to use it a lot more of than your spell slots allow. Or get a couple of 4th level wand.

You just illustrated that it is easier for a martial to take some of the best abilities of a caster, but a caster can't do the same. Whereas a martial can max his spellcasting training to Master, the best a caster can do is get their weapon training to expert.

And you get 10 hit points, better armor training, better weapon training, better damage, and with 3 feats you can access some of the best cherry-picked combat enhancing spells and increase the number of casts per day with fairly cheap scrolls and wands.

Teleport really isn't that great any more except for role-playing. Did you notice it's a 10 minute casting time now rather than quick cast get out of trouble card it was in PF1. Same with Plane shift. So

...

Compared to a caster who can't come close to the advantages a martial has spending the same money or feats.

I found out this when my buddy kept taking caster archetypes for his martials because so few creatures have invisibility counter now. So it provides flat-footed with a pretty nice level of consistency. He doesn't focus on attack spells much at all, just filling his slots with quality utility spells. Then buying cheap scrolls as he gets higher level to expand his uses. A 4th level invisibility is super nice and cheap for a lvl 10 plus character.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:

It is kinda true though, 1e wizard was better scout than classes with supposed abilities suited for scouting :p

I'm kinda annoyed about the caster arguments since I don't think I've seen much of play experience about high level casters yet, at low levels wizards were weak in 1e too except for being able to min max dcs to be really high and having couple save or die spells that with bad enemy rolls disabled encounters instantly. But in longer adventuring days they were stuck to acid splash because not every campaign is three encounters per day

It needs to be made clear that this is not a general casters problem. This is a wizard and sorcerer problem.

The wizard and sorcerer don't stand out as having much of a role in the current paradigm that can't be better provided by other casters with more versatile abilities and more effective focus powers.

For some reason when the design team was making sure that wizards and sorcerers weren't going to be gods any more, they forgot to make them at least interesting and worthwhile to play compared to other classes.

Wizards and sorcerers get lower hit points and worse weapon options, but they also seem to have worse focus spells and worse class options as well. This used to be offset by extremely powerful casting options, especially at later level. But now that isn't the case. Druids and bards have extremely powerful casting options, while also having amazing focus powers, more hit points, better weapon options, and generally better feat options.

And the cleric at least has the best healing power.

At least the APG added some generic options that should help wizards and sorcerers like Beastmaster and Archer. Let the casters spend a few feats on some useful abilities that will put them on par somewhat with druids and bards.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluenose wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Bluenose wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
I like playing wizards, but I hate being mathematically weaker than other party members in near perpetuity.
I don't want my Ranger to be permanently inferior to the Wizard at flying, teleporting, and moving the party to another plane.Unless your idea is that a Wizard should have a whole range of abilities that a Ranger/<enter other non-caster here> can't ever get AND should be as good as them at anything they can do, then that's an issue you might want to address.

Do you not know how to build a ranger for this? You can do the superior ranger martial damage, while picking up a ton of the wizard's best defensive and transportation abilities.

Take multiclass wizard, sorcerer, or bard. Get up to Expert casting which will give you up to 6th level spells. This will get you invis and flying, which you can use to great effect because invis flat-foots anyone you shoot with your bow. Flying is a 4th level spell. You can also toss on a heroism. You get to all this for a 3 feat cost and an investment in a skill like Arcana or Occultism.

Then you can purchase fairly cheap scrolls of 4th level invis and fly to use it a lot more of than your spell slots allow. Or get a couple of 4th level wand.

So basically:

The Wizard defaults to being good at casting and mathematically inferior at combat.
The ranger defaults to being good at combat and can spend significant resources to be mathematically inferior at casting.

And you consider this situation unfair to the Wizard.

Unfair? Math isn't fair or unfair. Math is what it is. I consider the wizard to be unable to gain the same mathematical benefit from investing resources in martial abilities, while the martial classes can invest resources into casting abilities to gain highly useful, mathematically powerful gains to their martial abilities.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:

Compared to a caster who can't come close to the advantages a martial has spending the same money or feats.

I found out this when my buddy kept taking caster archetypes for his martials because so few creatures have invisibility counter now. So it provides flat-footed with a pretty nice level of consistency. He doesn't focus on attack spells much at all, just filling his slots with quality utility spells. Then buying cheap scrolls as he gets higher level to expand his uses. A 4th level invisibility is super nice and cheap for a lvl 10 plus character.

Your 10th-level buddy buys a 7th-level consumable and casts it every combat? I'm actually amazed, given people have constantly complained about how near-level consumables aren't worth the price. Sure, if he's willing to waste that many actions - he has to burn his entire first turn, and have the scroll in hand at all times.

...or he could just flank the target. That's also a consistent flat-footed that doesn't use your entire turn and a consumable each fight to use. And it can have issues versus other senses creatures might have.

And even then a wizard/sorcerer will still be far better at it. He's playing a wizard that doesn't use most of their slots. And you're saying that he's doing great.


NemoNoName wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:
Everyone knows what I meant, if they're discussing in good faith.
I'm sorry, but given your repeated proclamations among numerous threads that "wizards are fine TM if you play them this one specific way", I've lost confidence you are arguing in good faith.

Just a question because I may not be understanding the rules but how are your fireballs bigger than PF1 fireballs? In order to get a 10 dice fireball in PF1 you needed to be 10th level. In PF2 you can't get that many dice with a 5th level spell slot.


Arrow17 wrote:
NemoNoName wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:
Everyone knows what I meant, if they're discussing in good faith.
I'm sorry, but given your repeated proclamations among numerous threads that "wizards are fine TM if you play them this one specific way", I've lost confidence you are arguing in good faith.
Just a question because I may not be understanding the rules but how are your fireballs bigger than PF1 fireballs? In order to get a 10 dice fireball in PF1 you needed to be 10th level. In PF2 you can't get that many dice with a 5th level spell slot.

In PF1 there were plently of bloodlines that would give you extra damage. Also it was possible to use meta magic - at no cost in some cases- to get your level higher. example or this

In PF2 we just have Dangerous Sorcery. But anything you can use to lower their save or increase your spell DC will help even more with the damage because of criticals.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A PF2 Wizard casting Fireball using a 5th level slot can deal 10d6.

However, a PF1 Wizard casting a Fireball using a 3rd level slot deals 10d6. He can then use Empowered to cast deal 15d6 with the 5th level slot.

PF1 had at least 6 ways to increase spell damage. PF2 has 2, and 1 of them is class locked.

********************

I am not saying that having that big an increase in PF2 would be good.

But the fact we went from many ways to interact with spell damage, to effectively none its very disheartening.

A 10th level PF1 wizard could cast 5+ 3rd level Fireballs and each would have dealt 10d6 (50d6 +). A 10th level PF2 wizard is casting 4 3rd level Fireballs for 6d6 (24d6).

201 to 250 of 260 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / List of Wizard arguments All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.