| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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).
Keep in mind that in PF1 that 3rd level spell was probably saved against almost every time, whereas now, its a lot less certain.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I finally got a chance to look at the wizard feats added in the APG and they did exactly what people asked for, in terms of giving new feats that really help a specialist feel like a specialist.
There are a lot of metamagic feats out there now, so that metamagic thesis just got a lot stronger and I doubt we've seen the end of it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I finally got a chance to look at the wizard feats added in the APG and they did exactly what people asked for, in terms of giving new feats that really help a specialist feel like a specialist.
There are a lot of metamagic feats out there now, so that metamagic thesis just got a lot stronger and I doubt we've seen the end of it.
On first glance, sure, but let's double check in details:
Makes you faster at learning spells. I mean, sure, if you're really into it, but was that really a thing that was the problem? Also, not related to specialisation.
0/10
Mainly Evocationer thing. Gives you a bit of resistance to damage you just did. It's okay. Fairly situational. Main problem is that it takes up your action to gain minimum resistance to something.
4/10 for being an action.
Cool feat if you're into it. I give it 8/10, even though it's an action. Mainly for Evokers but okay.
Bring back your Bonded Item. I mean, this can be cool for some character concepts. 8/10 for giving flavour but mechanically on the weak side.
Not related to any Specialists.
NOW we have an amazing feat. Gives you something to do with Reaction (something which Wizards have problem using), ties into the school, flavourfull. Mechanically very strong. 13/10
Only problem is, Illusionists were already top of the heap for Wizard specialists.
Mechanically amazing. Another top notch feat, although this one is not specialist-related. 13/10. You lose nothing while using it.
Personally I don't like it, but only because I feel any mechanic that allows Wizard spell flexibility is just a way to make them Sorcerers.
Who wrote this? Seriously, who even bothered spending the 1 minute writing this feat?
First of all, mechanically it's utter garbage. Idea is you get longer Battle Form. Except you have to sacrifice on spell level, meaning Batle Form is no longer good in combat. Sure, you say, why then not use it for exploration?
Well, first, it's only 10 minutes. Second, why? Any exploration benefit available through Battle Form is readily available through other spells, all of which last as long or longer and are readily available on lower levels than slots you'd have to use for this. Bonus: those spells don't nerf your stats and prevent you from casting spells.
Compare it to:
* Druids Form Control, which gives you a full hour and lowers your Focus spell level - meaning you are not wasting high level slots and you can do decide to use it on the fly.
* Imperial Sorcerers Extend Spell which is a Focus spell - meaning useable on the fly, repeatable, and available for any 1 min spell not just Battle Forms. Sure, you can't use it with your highest level spells, but Form Retention cannot be used with your two highest level Battle Forms.This feat is one of the worst feats I've seen in 2nd edition so far.
Oh, bonus points: whoever wrote this spell obviously didn't bother learning even basics of Wizard mechanics:
* example uses Animal Form, which Wizards don't have access to
* Feat is level 8, meaning 4th level spells available, but that's the earlier spell level Arcane spelllist has access to a Battle Form, meaning Wizards can't actually use this Feat before they are level 11So even if you wanted to use this, which you shouldn't, you actually can't use this until you are much higher level.
(yes, I know Arcane list MIGHT get Battle Form on lower levels EVENTUALLY, but hey, we're talking what is available now)
This is a decent feat, except... At level 12? It really isn't worthwhile this high of a slot. And it competes in that slot with another Divination feat, which sure, isn't a huge deal but hey.5/10, maybeish.
Another Feat for Evoker/blaster Wizards primarily, this one is pretty good, especially if you can combo with your party.10/10, decent flavour, decent mechanics.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mainly Evocationer thing. Gives you a bit of resistance to damage you just did. It's okay. Fairly situational. Main problem is that it takes up your action to gain minimum resistance to something.
4/10 for being an action.
Not to mention you have to be in a fight where BOTH using a [Fire] spell is useful and getting [Fire] resistance is useful.
That almost never happens. Things that deal fire damage typically are immune or resistant to it.
Also yeah the resistance provided is weak. It could have been double-spell level and still wouldn't get me to rate it better than 4/10.
(Agreed on all other points)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the diviner one is pretty flavorful and cool. In a campaign against other casters, this is pretty much the return of the "diviner always goes first" ability from PF1. It just so happens to be the case that going first is not quite the automatic win that it was for wizards in PF1 so it is not at the PF1 level of God wizard power.
Still, it is a better than average feat.
My first read on Energy Ablation is that it is more of an alternative direction for abjurer's that don't really want to focus on counter spelling, it allows the caster to have some resistance to their own spells if they are forward in the battle, which the abjurer tends to be.
Nemo, have you considered starting a thread specifically called, "I can't understand the design theory behind the Transmuter wizard," trying to put together your specific thoughts about what a transmuter is supposed to be able to do and then point out the specific reasons why the PF2 one isn't there yet? It might be more productive to focus on that one specifically rather than have it get wrapped up in longer threads about wizards generally. It does seem like the developers read the threads, and have been responding to some concerns people have. Maybe drawing attention to specific wizard types that are struggling in their own threads will help keep conversations more focused and more useful ideas generated?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the diviner one is pretty flavorful and cool. In a campaign against other casters, this is pretty much the return of the "diviner always goes first" ability from PF1. It just so happens to be the case that going first is not quite the automatic win that it was for wizards in PF1 so it is not at the PF1 level of God wizard power.
Still, it is a better than average feat.
If it was Feat 6, I'd agree. As Feat 12, it's... Okayish.
Nemo, have you considered starting a thread specifically called, "I can't understand the design theory behind the Transmuter wizard," trying to put together your specific thoughts about what a transmuter is supposed to be able to do and then point out the specific reasons why the PF2 one isn't there yet? It might be more productive to focus on that one specifically rather than have it get wrapped up in longer threads about wizards generally. It does seem like the developers read the threads, and have been responding to some concerns people have. Maybe drawing attention to specific wizard types that are struggling in their own threads will help keep conversations more focused and more useful ideas generated?It's not a bad idea
But who knows if they'll answer
Maybe I'm the only one who cares
Probably too annoying anyways
Just to be clear, I appreciate the suggestion and don't mean any offense to you. :) it just seems no-one cares enough. XD I'll try and make another thread later one, one that will be less... Sarcastic about it, but yeah.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Why do you keep applying unnecessary requirements. He no more needs to cast it every battle than a wizard needs to cast his spells every battle. He casts it for key battles. Many battles you can steam roll with very little casting.
It is within the framework of a group game that the wizard is unnecessary and weak where many competing abilities work together to maximize damage or abilities against a number of enemies and contests. The wizard's additional spellcasting is not better than other classes skills or abilities.
Another effect of magic nerfing and skill enhancing is that you don't need magic to do things that used to be possibly by only magic. Thus further eroding the need to rely on a wizard for very much.
So far I haven't played in a single game where the wizard was in any way needed. Anecdotally speaking, I asked one of my players if even recalled anything extraordinary done by few two wizards players attempted, he remembered nothing. In fact, his impression is they were fairly useless. He much prefers bards and clerics who help his character do better.
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).Keep in mind that in PF1 that 3rd level spell was probably saved against almost every time, whereas now, its a lot less certain.
Not true. Saves were very divided if you recall, by 6 points at the highest level for many creatures. Attacking a weak save in PF1 meant something. There were a ton of ways to increase spellcaster DC.
Attacking weak saves in PF2 not as much in my experience, especially at low levels where your spellcasting advances very slowly compared to saves.