Spellcasters and their problems ...


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

501 to 550 of 1,256 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

7 people marked this as a favorite.
ArchSage20 wrote:
the degree to which some people are willing to go to deny the wizard class needs improvement is both hilarious and saddening

The degree to which you have been insisting that Wizards should be AAA+ S-tier gods is both hilarious and saddening.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Themetricsystem wrote:
ArchSage20 wrote:
the degree to which some people are willing to go to deny the wizard class needs improvement is both hilarious and saddening
The degree to which you have been insisting that Wizards should be AAA+ S-tier gods is both hilarious and saddening.

Not to mention, theres no one saying it wouldn't be nice if Wizards got good stuff. I absolutely would like to see some changes to some of the not-working focus spells (augment summoning) and a good transmutation cantrip.

But the base chassis is perfectly functional, and I assume a lot of people (like myself) feel that the best way to help Wizard is curated and balanced new content, and not a massive boost to the base chassis.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

If nothing else, I feel that all casters should get saves and perception on par with bards, clerics, and druids.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
KrispyXIV wrote:
But the base chassis is perfectly functional, and I assume a lot of people (like myself) feel that the best way to help Wizard is curated and balanced new content, and not a massive boost to the base chassis.

The thing is that regardsless of class this does not work for people that limit themselves to the holy trinity of CRB, GMG and MM. So unless the CRB gets a reprint or we get an update like 3.0 => 3.5 classes that currently struggle will continue to struggle.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ubertron_X wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:
But the base chassis is perfectly functional, and I assume a lot of people (like myself) feel that the best way to help Wizard is curated and balanced new content, and not a massive boost to the base chassis.
The thing is that regardsless of class this does not work for people that limit themselves to the holy trinity of CRB, GMG and MM. So unless the CRB gets a reprint or we get an update like 3.0 => 3.5 classes that currently struggle will continue to struggle.

But I mean, if someone has a problem with Core but doesn't want to use stuff outside Core, isn't that sort of a self-made problem?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Ubertron_X wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:
But the base chassis is perfectly functional, and I assume a lot of people (like myself) feel that the best way to help Wizard is curated and balanced new content, and not a massive boost to the base chassis.
The thing is that regardsless of class this does not work for people that limit themselves to the holy trinity of CRB, GMG and MM. So unless the CRB gets a reprint or we get an update like 3.0 => 3.5 classes that currently struggle will continue to struggle.
But I mean, if someone has a problem with Core but doesn't want to use stuff outside Core, isn't that sort of a self-made problem?

I think he meant like play at tables with certain kinds of GMs, etc. If I'm not mistaken.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
But I mean, if someone has a problem with Core but doesn't want to use stuff outside Core, isn't that sort of a self-made problem?

Maybe.

But as a customer and consumer I neither agree to or support a "yeah we know Wizards don't cut it in Core, but we have prepard this brand new set of specialist focus spells in Mysteries of Magic volume 7" kind of shenanigans even if balance would be restored by such an addition.

If something is broken in Core (which I neither confirmed nor denied by the way) then fix it in Core!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, I get that there are “Core-only” adherents, and much as I’m wary of new products being sold on the basis of fixing the basic game, given the availability of online resources like Errata documents or Archives of Nethys, even if it (new rules/fixes) were contained in a new product the “repair/fix” content would and should be made available for free. To do otherwise would bloody-minded.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
ArchSage20 wrote:
the degree to which some people are willing to go to deny the wizard class needs improvement is both hilarious and saddening

I think wizard casting is in a good place.

But boy, the school abilities and overall mechanics of being a specialist in a given school of magic need some work. In 5E wizard schools felt pretty good. In PF2 they feel like shrug.

Wizard feats barring a few are overall pretty lame. If you're supposed to be this master of magic in a given school, it takes a lot more to feel that way than 1 extra spell slot and some weak focus abilities.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:

I think wizard casting is in a good place.

But boy, the school abilities and overall mechanics of being a specialist in a given school of magic need some work. In 5E wizard schools felt pretty good. In PF2 they feel like shrug.

Now, THIS is a take I can get behind for sure. Really though all it would take is one or two "Feat Chains" for each of the specializations that can really help dig deeper into the specialization for the Arcane School choice.

Heck, if they felt like even making it just a single feat that any Specialist can take and they gain a listed Focus Spell + a minor bonus they could still get that out with minimal space on a page should that be the primary concern.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
ArchSage20 wrote:
the degree to which some people are willing to go to deny the wizard class needs improvement is both hilarious and saddening

I never said this. In fact, my House Rules document (found here if anyone cares) directly improves Wizard more than any Class but Alchemist (to the tune of an extra Class Feat or so, but it's still relevant), because there are issues with PC Wizards and PCs are what we care about.

But that's very different from the argument I'm making, which has to do with how the world of Golarion, rather than the game, works.


Deriven Firelion wrote:
ArchSage20 wrote:
the degree to which some people are willing to go to deny the wizard class needs improvement is both hilarious and saddening

I think wizard casting is in a good place.

But boy, the school abilities and overall mechanics of being a specialist in a given school of magic need some work. In 5E wizard schools felt pretty good. In PF2 they feel like shrug.

Wizard feats barring a few are overall pretty lame. If you're supposed to be this master of magic in a given school, it takes a lot more to feel that way than 1 extra spell slot and some weak focus abilities.

I can agree with this, particularly when it comes to the school abilities. Specialist wizards have never really appealed to me, but in PF2 Universalist feels like a given for me. I think if the focus spells were overall improved and wizards got some feats expanding on their school/thesis (as far as I'm aware, wizards are the only class with subclasses that get no feat support for them) wizards would be in a perfect spot.

Dataphiles

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Wizard only needs a few minor fixes in my opinion

- 1) Simple Weapon proficiency (I’d also give Rogues and Bards martial proficiency with the same patch) to ease up archetyping and not make HotA jump through a few hoops to work.

-2) Better focus spells - slight buffs to most of the wizard initial focuses. Augment summoning should be a free action or reaction, Call of the grave should be 1 action or do some negative damage, etc.

-3) Better feats - though I imagine these will come with time.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Because you dont think that it needs improvement does not mean that others can't think that they do.

And given the constant threads of Wizards need improvements many of which go on for many pages, clearly people do see that they need improvement. Despite your constant denial of said people view on the subject.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's where I stand. Both Wizards and Sorcerers could do with some tuning, particularly in the crucial 1-5 level band. I think it was probably not the best choice to give away some of the best Wizard spells to Druids and Bards. I also think some low level spells should be tuned up in damage.

I do not believe there are systemic issues that need addressing. I generally like the game moving away from being primarily about attrition. I generally like martial classes being better within their specialties and spell casters having more breadth. I do not want to return to the days of fighters being less relevant than wizards in boss encounters.

There are tuning issues at low levels, but the game is structurally sound in my opinion. I also think this is a case of judging PF2 more harshly than we do other games. Over all balance is pretty tight - a little too tight in certain areas.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't understand why people say sorcerers have crappy focus spells. Sure, some of them are weak, but others are actually quite potent, even on par with tempest surge who's supposed to be the end-all be-all of damage focus spells.

Draconic sorcerer has Dragon Breath, which is basically a free heightened fireball every single fight. Depending on your dragon, you can deal damage in a line or a cone. It's about the same damage as tempest surge on a single target (but without the clumsy rider, I agree) and provided you get two or more targets, it outperforms it by a wide margin. Oh, and you can also sprout wings should you need flight.

Angelic sorcerer has Angelic Halo. Granted, it's niche, but it's the best damn healing mechanism in the whole game. Also, flight later.

Nymph has blinding beauty which can blind everyone in a 30-foot cone for a round (and even on a save, they're dazzled). What's that you say ? Not "everyone" ? Ah, right, only opponents. Hell yeah, it's a FRIENDLY AOE BLIND.

Genie has Heart Desire, which is a guaranteed stupefied 2 unless the opponent crit saves. Or wish-twisted form, a guaranteed hefty debuff, not quite synesthesia but almost as powerful in its own way. Every. Single. Fight. Would you rather give someone clumsy 2, or give him weakness 5 to everything, -10 speed and -1 saving throw... even on a success ? And if the target fails the save, it'll last the whole damn fight. If that isn't broken, I don't know what is.

Hag has horrific visage which is awesome when heightened. But wait, there's more. You can get You're Mine - opponent is stunned even on a save, and on a fail you can control him. And starting at level 7, it becomes ridiculously powerful, even with the incapacitation tag.

Shadow has Steal Shadow (3d4 damage and enfeebled 1 as long as you sustain the spell).

Fey has a free 2-rounds Greater Invisibility with Fey Disappearance starting at heightening 5.

Sure, some options are weak. But a lot of those focus spells, from my perspective, are much better than the much-vaunted Tempest Surge.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Blue_frog wrote:
...

The problem with sorcerer is that it has no consistency. Some are good some are bad, and the overall impression (looking at both good and bad) the Sorcerer comes out as meh.

Which is why I had Sorcerers above Wizards. Even as Sorcerer is overall meh because of those bad focus spells, Wizard mostly just has bad focus spells. Even the "good" Wizard focus spells are generally just not the worst.


12 people marked this as a favorite.

@Blue_Frog
I'm pretty sure most of the bloodlines have at least one good focus spell, but I think it's fair to say that there's a lot of disparity between the ones available at level one. Which contributes to sorcerers not feeling great at low levels.


Temperans wrote:
Blue_frog wrote:
...

The problem with sorcerer is that it has no consistency. Some are good some are bad, and the overall impression (looking at both good and bad) the Sorcerer comes out as meh.

That is a very odd view point. I don't think any d20 game has come close to meeting that sort of criteria. Yes half the sorceror options are not great.

Use the other half, like everyone else does.
Half the options being good is as good as a game is likely to get.

Looking at all the first level focus spells in the game, only the Druid class mets the criteria of all their initial focus spells being good or better.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Temperans wrote:

Because you dont think that it needs improvement does not mean that others can't think that they do.

And given the constant threads of Wizards need improvements many of which go on for many pages, clearly people do see that they need improvement. Despite your constant denial of said people view on the subject.

"Need" is an extremely high standard, and one that requires some sort of proof of non-functioning in order to establish.

Wizards are perfectly functional. You can build multiple varieties of wizards who are strong contributions to their party. Arcane spells are reasonably strong, and Wizards gets more of them than anyone else.

They could use some tweaks to Arcane School to make the lesser focus powers therein closer to the better ones, but they do not need massive buffs to be a valid class.

Classes do not "Need" buffs just because theyre less powerful than other classes - someone is always going to end up at the bottom tier, so long as you're comparing classes to each other instead of to the requirements of the game itself.

And if you start buffing whomever is on the bottom, you end up with a power creep situation because you'll always be buffing someone...


7 people marked this as a favorite.

In my opinion, the real issue of the Wizard is that not all options have been made equal. 2 low level feats don't make a thesis, especially considering that Wizard feats are not crazy important.
So, either you play the best Wizard options and you have a character comparable to no other (and at an acceptable power level), or you start choosing weaker options and you quickly go down to weak.

It's true that compared to a Fighter, who can be decent whatever options you choose, it makes Wizard feel lackluster.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

Wizards and Sorcerers issue is not that they’re weak. The two classes are actually quite strong past when they get their 3rd level spells, especially when you get level 4 spells. Their problem is their choices don’t feel exciting. Bloodlines are inconsistent and the Wizard schools feel undertuned and low power. The classes themselves are strong because even with spells being weaker having a ton of them is actually quite powerful.

It’s just that outside of that when you level up one the class feat options don’t seem too exciting (I mean one of the best wizard ones is the spell pen that removes the +1 that over half of higher level monsters get, this the feat often does nothing). School powers don’t seem great, school feats less so and so on. It leads to a very meh feeling about the leveling concept because you’re rarely super excited about any level up to get new class features other than new ranks of spells.

I think if paizo gave them some more exciting class features that brought out the power of traditions/bloodlines it would make the class feel a lot better even if they didn’t make them a lot more powerful.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arakasius wrote:

Wizards and Sorcerers issue is not that they’re weak. The two classes are actually quite strong past when they get their 3rd level spells, especially when you get level 4 spells. Their problem is their choices don’t feel exciting. Bloodlines are inconsistent and the Wizard schools feel undertuned and low power. The classes themselves are strong because even with spells being weaker having a ton of them is actually quite powerful.

It’s just that outside of that when you level up one the class feat options don’t seem too exciting (I mean one of the best wizard ones is the spell pen that removes the +1 that over half of higher level monsters get, this the feat often does nothing). School powers don’t seem great, school feats less so and so on. It leads to a very meh feeling about the leveling concept because you’re rarely super excited about any level up to get new class features other than new ranks of spells.

I think if paizo gave them some more exciting class features that brought out the power of traditions/bloodlines it would make the class feel a lot better even if they didn’t make them a lot more powerful.

Well, I'm only speaking for sorcerer here since I never played a wizard, but I really thought every level had really powerful, impactful and meaningful feats.

Level 1 has dangerous sorcery. Nothing fancy, but interesting enough that a lot of other classes try to poach it.

Level 4 has Arcane/Divine/Primal/Occult evolution, which is so incredibly good I wish I could take it more than once.

Level 6 gives you your advanced bloodline focus power, which really changes the way you'll play every encounter from now on, provided you chose a meaningful bloodline (Draconic or Nymph, for instance).

Level 8 gives you one of the best feat of the whole game, period, with crossblooded evolution.

Level 10 has more choices, like a third focus spell or signature expansion. In both cases, it's very powerful.

I could go on and on, but the class feat options of a sorcerer are actually among the most exciting of the spellcasters. Who wouldn't like to get a spell from just about any tradition, or more flexibility in your casting ? I, for one, find this way more exciting than druid ones (my pet gets stronger, yay) or bard ones (apart from dirge of doom, most won't change the way you play), let alone oracle or witch ones.

I agree that wizard feats seem really lackluster. But sorcerer ones are so damn good they suffer from the opposite problem: they're pretty much feat taxes.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Blue Frog. Bards gets spells from other traditions as well. They in fact have multiple feats based around that.

If its about Occult Sorcer vs Occult Bard when trying to get other traditions. I would 100% use the Bard.

Sorcerers have a few good feats, but again the overall class is meh.


Bards can't do it until level 18 though, unless I'm mistaken.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Blue_frog wrote:
Arakasius wrote:

Wizards and Sorcerers issue is not that they’re weak. The two classes are actually quite strong past when they get their 3rd level spells, especially when you get level 4 spells. Their problem is their choices don’t feel exciting. Bloodlines are inconsistent and the Wizard schools feel undertuned and low power. The classes themselves are strong because even with spells being weaker having a ton of them is actually quite powerful.

It’s just that outside of that when you level up one the class feat options don’t seem too exciting (I mean one of the best wizard ones is the spell pen that removes the +1 that over half of higher level monsters get, this the feat often does nothing). School powers don’t seem great, school feats less so and so on. It leads to a very meh feeling about the leveling concept because you’re rarely super excited about any level up to get new class features other than new ranks of spells.

I think if paizo gave them some more exciting class features that brought out the power of traditions/bloodlines it would make the class feel a lot better even if they didn’t make them a lot more powerful.

Well, I'm only speaking for sorcerer here since I never played a wizard, but I really thought every level had really powerful, impactful and meaningful feats.

Level 1 has dangerous sorcery. Nothing fancy, but interesting enough that a lot of other classes try to poach it.

Level 4 has Arcane/Divine/Primal/Occult evolution, which is so incredibly good I wish I could take it more than once.

Level 6 gives you your advanced bloodline focus power, which really changes the way you'll play every encounter from now on, provided you chose a meaningful bloodline (Draconic or Nymph, for instance).

Level 8 gives you one of the best feat of the whole game, period, with crossblooded evolution.

Level 10 has more choices, like a third focus spell or signature expansion. In both cases, it's very powerful.

I could go on and on, but the class feat options of a...

My wife plays a sorcerer in the game I DM and I don’t necessarily agree with you. There are some fine feats there but I don’t think the evolution powers are that strong. She plays arcane sorcerer and it basically comes down to those feats just give you more uses of powers or more spells known. Spells known is valuable but cross blooded is basically a feat to get one spell. I don’t find that exciting. I like things like interweave dispel or scintillating spell and feel those are worth it. Dangerous Sorcery I agree is just a feat tax. But I’m not a huge fan of the evolution or focus power feat lines. Sure getting more spells makes you act a bit more like a wizard, but I don’t think they’re terribly necessary since 3 spells plus bloodline is usually enough. When she took the greater evolution feat and got one spell for each level there wasn’t that many great options that she had to get. Now as Paizo adds more spells that will get more exciting but for right now it doesn’t seem that great.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

I see two problems with wizards compared to other casters:

1. Their feats are a little meh. Theses and specializations don't have the same kind of oomph as sub-classes do on other classes. Perhaps part of the issue is that they have two selections, so neither can get enough fun stuff to be interesting. Personally, I would rather have nixed schools — they were a bad thing to put mechanical weight on back in AD&D 2e, and they have remained so ever since, but here we are. As a related point, many of the focus spells from schools are bad as focus spells - a focus spell should be something you want to use once per encounter.

2. Their secondary stuff is bad. Wizards have the worst weapon selection, the least number of skills before Int, bad armor, bad hp, and bad Perception. It's like at one stage, designers said "Wizards have great magic, so they have to be bad at everything else", and then said "Wait, their magic is too strong, we need to bring it back down a bit" without bringing the secondary stuff back up.

Sorcerers get a little of that too, but at least their bloodlines have a little more meat to them, and they don't get hit on skills.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:

Blue Frog. Bards gets spells from other traditions as well. They in fact have multiple feats based around that.

If its about Occult Sorcer vs Occult Bard when trying to get other traditions. I would 100% use the Bard.

Sorcerers have a few good feats, but again the overall class is meh.

You can indeed... at level 18. I didn't see any other feat allowing you to get spells from other traditions before.

Also, expanding your repertoire usually needs the polymath muse while most will first choose Maestro, which means you'll have to take yet another feat to circumvent this.

I'm not saying bard isn't strong, it is, it really is. But I really don't understand how you could say that you would go with bard to get other traditions:

A bard has Impossible Polymath: You can get spells from other traditions, but you can have ONE AND ONLY ONE prepped every day. At level 18.

A sorcerer has Crossblooded evolution - so one spell from another tradition prepped every day. At level 8. And Greater Crossblooded evolution, three spells from other traditions, at level 18.

So, yeah.

Arakasius wrote:
My wife plays a sorcerer in the game I DM and I don’t necessarily agree with you. There are some fine feats there but I don’t think the evolution powers are that strong. She plays arcane sorcerer and it basically comes down to those feats just give you more uses of powers or more spells known. Spells known is valuable but cross blooded is basically a feat to get one spell. I don’t find that exciting. I like things like interweave dispel or scintillating spell and feel those are worth it. Dangerous Sorcery I agree is just a feat tax. But I’m not a huge fan of the evolution or focus power feat lines. Sure getting more spells makes you act a bit more like a wizard, but I don’t think they’re terribly necessary since 3 spells plus bloodline is usually enough. When she took the greater evolution feat and got one spell for each level there wasn’t that many great options that she had to get. Now as Paizo adds more spells that will get more exciting but for right now it doesn’t seem that great.

I for one found it awesome, playing an arcane sorcerer. I got heal at level 8, which gave me a nice backup option that I didn't have as an arcane caster. Sure, this wasn't probably the best choice, but it fit our group and made me that much more flexible.

If you're lacking a healer, breath of life could be useful as well.
If not, Synesthesia's pretty cool ^^


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Arakasius wrote:

Wizards and Sorcerers issue is not that they’re weak. The two classes are actually quite strong past when they get their 3rd level spells, especially when you get level 4 spells. Their problem is their choices don’t feel exciting. Bloodlines are inconsistent and the Wizard schools feel undertuned and low power. The classes themselves are strong because even with spells being weaker having a ton of them is actually quite powerful.

It’s just that outside of that when you level up one the class feat options don’t seem too exciting (I mean one of the best wizard ones is the spell pen that removes the +1 that over half of higher level monsters get, this the feat often does nothing). School powers don’t seem great, school feats less so and so on. It leads to a very meh feeling about the leveling concept because you’re rarely super excited about any level up to get new class features other than new ranks of spells.

I think if paizo gave them some more exciting class features that brought out the power of traditions/bloodlines it would make the class feel a lot better even if they didn’t make them a lot more powerful.

The only reason why Wizards are listed as being as strong as they are is because the universe calls for it, largely via tradition, because back in PF1, Wizards were the most powerful class. Or at least, one of the most powerful. Now they're not, even with 10th level spells (because their action contribution is trash) and are actually pretty damn weak, even if you're Batman, because again, action contribution is trash. Even Sorcerers outmatch them since they have better powers, spellcasting options, and feats, but even that is minimal due to going up against powerful enemy's attributes, which far outclass yours.


Yeah cross blooded is worth it. I don’t think the ones that give you more spells from your own tradition is that strong. It gives more options sure but I’d rather have more feats that give you a bit more oomph not just spells known.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I generally agree with Arakasius. Spellcasters, especially at mid or high levels, have some great tools, but their kits and flavor can feel kind of underwhelming.

The Wizard in particular has very little room to actually specialize itself, with schools not doing much on their own and there not being very many specialized feats. The game's underlying math encourages you to diversify as much as possible too by making debuffing and targeting the correct save such important features.

In practice, it means that the wizards I see in play tend to all blend together a bit after a while mechanically. Though I could say the same thing about Bards too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh I am not saying its bad.

But I would 100% go with bard because the overall package is still better for the concept. For the simple reason that Polymath Bard casting is effectively Arcanist casting with more Hoops.

Being able to add and remove spells from your repertoire and signature spells is great in my opinion. Specially when spells on a bard are just gravy.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If I were to play a wizard, I would probably abuse spell blending. He's the only class to get that option and boy does it look good on paper.

I mean, a 8 level specialist wizard could have:
2 lvl 1 spells
2 lvl 2 spells
5 lvl 3 spells
6 lvl 4 spells

How's that for staying power ? Twice as many high level slots as a bard or a druid, half as much as a sorcerer.

In a game where heightened spells are incredibly useful and low level spell tend to lose steam, being able to unload on average two big hitters per fight could be worth way more than a focus spell.

At said level 8, you're using dirge of doom and a cantrip ? Yeah, ok, I'm using hightened fear for probably better results and that's not even a top slot. You're using Tempest surge for 4d12 single target ? Well let me use enervation or heightened fireball.

I agree, it's just theorycrafting, but most people discussing the wizard seem to disregard spell blending, either dismissing thesis altogether or assuming a wizard would take spell substitution or improved familiar.

Hell no. If I were to make a wizard, I'd fling more spells than you can count, baby. And the higher level I get, the bigger an advantage it becomes ^^

Edit: however, I just looked at their feats and I totally agree on how bland they look. Bleh.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Blue_frog wrote:

If I were to play a wizard, I would probably abuse spell blending. He's the only class to get that option and boy does it look good on paper.

I mean, a 8 level specialist wizard could have:
2 lvl 1 spells
2 lvl 2 spells
5 lvl 3 spells
6 lvl 4 spells

How's that for staying power ? Twice as many high level slots as a bard or a druid, half as much as a sorcerer.

In a game where heightened spells are incredibly useful and low level spell tend to lose steam, being able to unload on average two big hitters per fight could be worth way more than a focus spell.

You're using dirge of doom and a cantrip ? Yeah, ok, I'm using hightened fear for probably better results and that's not even a top slot. You're using Tempest surge for 4d12 single target ? Well let me use enervation or heightened fireball.

I agree, it's just theorycrafting, but most people discussing the wizard seem to disregard spell blending, either dismissing thesis altogether or assuming a wizard would take spell substitution or improved familiar.

Hell no. If I were to make a wizard, I'll fling more spells than you can count, baby. And the higher level I get, the bigger an advantage it becomes ^^

Its absolutely a big deal that a Wizard could throw two spell slots (top level, or top -1) an encounter for a long (6 encounter) adventuring day, essentially going HAM nonstop, where no one else can pull that off safely.

On a normal adventuring day, thats more like a relevant spell slot every single round.

Thats absolutely a big deal, and Wizards are the only caster with the spellcasting stamina to do that with the full range of spells they can pack - a Cleric can come close, but only if half of those spells are Heal/Harm.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Which is somewhat amusing to me, I admit, as I remember asking one of the designers about the design goals for sorcerers and having more spells than other spellcasters seemed high on that list.

Of course, priorities shift and this was years ago during the playtest, but I still can't help but chuckle. Wizards still ended up with more, even though that was considered to have been one of the problems with the 1st edition wizard/sorcerer paradigm.


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

I will still maintain that wizard feats are far less of a mechanical problem that a perception issue. Wizards have many, incredibly powerful feats starting at level 6 and onwards. The problem is that, unless you see conceal spell and silent spell as incredible wizard only abilities that let them be the only true deception casters in the game, then you likely Multi-class or take an archetype and don't realize how much the wizard feats from 6 on stack into giving you incredibly powerful options for what you do with your spell slots.

There are some major gaps in coverage of feats and focus powers, with certain schools, like transmutation and summoning, having been given options that don't really work in practice the way it seems like they were supposed to, but evocation and illusion in particular are solidly supported.

Shadow Lodge

10 people marked this as a favorite.

Numerous threads at 10+ pages of responses says to me that pf2 did something wrong with spellcasting.


People will argue about anything.
I don't see it as fundamentally broken.

But to be fair I did have a player abandon his level 8 wizard evocationist this week as he just did not feel it worked.

I think there is need for improvement in that space. High level wizards are fine. But the mid level wizards could do with a bit of help.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

My biggest complaint about PF2 spell casting is that the spells are too insular in a system designed for modularity*. The traits work very well as a modular component, but everything from targeting to the way that saves work and the effects spells can have is so unique to the spell that every change to spell casting pretty much has to come in the form of entirely new spells, rather than in allowing you to do interesting and different things with spells.

There are exceptions to this, the wizard gets many of them, and the Magus is attempting to explore how to do it as a base class option, but it makes it an incredibly narrow needle to thread, and receives intense criticism when it veers off in either direction.

* Basically, you have to read the spells very closely to understand what they do, and don't do, and it is easy to miss things like Polar ray not doubling damage on a crit, or having it feel somewhat arbitrary which spells get basic saves and which spells have more complicated saving throw components/rely on multiple saves. That and the loss of Touch AC leading to a bunch of touch spells becoming saving throw spells but still having some vestigial spell attack roll spells, despite spell attack rolls really being bad for the game overall (hence why powerful ones don't multiple damage on a crit). As someone usually roped into "Pro" PF2 spell casting camp, I think that a 3rd edition will eventually have a lot to learn from the mistakes that were made from trying to reform the ruleset in the middle of an ongoing playtest, and how careful you have to be with little changes that massively effect other aspects of the game that you don't have time to go back to the drawing board.

All that said, I think the PF2 version of spell casting is much better off than the problems spell casting had in PF1 and if you read the spells and feats of casters very carefully, you can find many incredible, powerful and imaginative options that make the game a lot of fun, even if some spells end up getting in their own way and become mostly NPC/narrative spells.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
gnoams wrote:
Numerous threads at 10+ pages of responses says to me that pf2 did something wrong with spellcasting.

No offense, but there were also numerous threads at 10+ pages of responses arguing that wizards were perfectly fine and completely balanced in PF1.

So I'll take that standard of measurement with a bucketload of salt.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also I went away for four months here and when I came back it’s the same dozen or so posters making points that were made back then. It really doesn’t mean much because this community of people who post in this forum is so small. The poor horse is long dead but the debates continue.

I think casters will be fine in the long run anyway. Casters always scale better going deeper into a games release than martials. Every new spell or metamagic feat just applies more universally than a weapon or martial feat. Especially the spells. Give it a couple years and I think casters will be relatively stronger than they are today, and at level 10+ they are already the strongest anyway. It won’t get back to PF1 imbalance but I expect when things settle in 2-3 years casters will return to the pf1 balance where levels 1-5/6 martials are stronger and casters are stronger afterwards. Just the delta won’t be as big.

501 to 550 of 1,256 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Spellcasters and their problems ... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.