| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We houserule exactly that, including the attack cantrips, with the Flourish trait added to them. It's hella liberating, and our martials are not even close to being outdone with respect to damage. Everyone should at least try it for one session at their table. I can virtually guarantee you're group won't go back once they've had a taste of freedom. The 2 action cantrip idea should have never seen print, IMO.
Just as an example, I think it be a lot more fun if some of the utility cantrips/spells were 1 action instead of 2.
So a player can just caster fireball+telekenitic projectile? That is way too powerful and basically makes caster never have any reason for demoralize/recall knowledge etc... because every round they can just cast a spell and nuke.
Some people like to be overpowered though, I mean just look at dual class/free archetype games. I admit I dont mind how overpowered casters are in PF1 but I love that in PF2 so far no class really seems kind a hinderance.
Also can casters just use telekinetic projectile/electric arc every turn? I wouldn't be surprised if that combo doesnt beat ranged martials damage by itself not even counting spell slots.
PF1 Quickened increased the spell slot used which yes limited what could be used. But you could use it multiple times a day, which meant it was a lot more useful. Also PF1 martials were interesting if you look anywhere outside of Core. The core book had the worst balance because it had all the broken spells.
In any case, PF2 was sold as being more flexible than PF1 thanks to its 3 action system. But the actual game only martials get that benefit. Caster need to wait until level 10 to get a 1/day quicken. Martials get their action economy boosters at level 2, with no daily limit.
Everything looks fine from the martial perspective, but its an uphill battle from the caster perspetive. All because every single book that has been released has given more and more bonuses to martials.
Even APG that included 2 new casters had 90% of the stuff be about martials. It introduced a single caster archetype (Eldritch Archer), and casters cant even use it until level 14 because it requires expert proficiency.
Casters still gained a little though, at a basic level they at a minimum have the same options. In PF1/5e you can still do the basic cast a spell+ (recall knowledge/move/metamagic but have more options like using the third action to demoralize/bon mot/battle medicine etc...). So they definitely gained some versatility. Trip+Cast spell is quite good.
Also I am wondering why do you say Martials get their boosters at level 2? I am pretty sure every martials get their boosters at level 1.
So casters go a little bit more versatility while martials got A LOT. Also you are counting a caster as casting a spell EVERY round there are plenty of rounds where they dont need to in the early levels. I have played a Bard/Witch/Sorcerer and can say I never felt like I wasn't using the action economy. Bard with Inspire/Demoralize/Command animal is quite potent.
The APG added a lot things for both casters/martials. Pretty much every archetype they added was for both martials/casters. I actually might even say the weapon archetypes were more for making casters anyway since pretty much martials had the skills anyway.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
With all respect, read Tavaro Evanis's post more closely before erupting into reactions. They specifically say that they add the Flourish trait to 1-action attack cantrips, which would prevent more than one such cantrip from being used in a round. As for Fireball+cantrip, my guess is that they probably add the Flourish trait (and possibly action reduction) to all 2- and 3- action spells, not just cantrips, so there's more action economy play but not more direct spellcasting potential.
From what I've seen, it's not a rare houserule to try condensing all 2- or 3-action spells by an action, giving any such condensed spells Flourish to prevent more than one being used. Theoretically this would allow two 1-action spells and a Flourish spell, which normally isn't possible, but most 1-action spells have other notable restrictions or the GM could only allow one more 1-action spell after a Flourish spell. For the most part, this would have the effect of opening up casters to take other actions more often — I'm interested in it, myself, though since someone else will GM in our group before I will, experiments like that will have to wait.
With all respect, read Tavaro Evanis's post more closely before erupting into reactions. They specifically say that they add the Flourish trait to 1-action attack cantrips, which would prevent more than one such cantrip from being used in a round. As for Fireball+cantrip, my guess is that they probably add the Flourish trait (and possibly action reduction) to all 2- and 3- action spells, not just cantrips, so there's more action economy play but not more direct spellcasting potential.
From what I've seen, it's not a rare houserule to try condensing all 2- or 3-action spells by an action, giving any such condensed spells Flourish to prevent more than one being used. Theoretically this would allow two 1-action spells and a Flourish spell, which normally isn't possible, but most 1-action spells have other notable restrictions or the GM could only allow one more 1-action spell after a Flourish spell. For the most part, this would have the effect of opening up casters to take other actions more often — I'm interested in it, myself, though since someone else will GM in our group before I will, experiments like that will have to wait.
His statement clearly says utility cantrips + attack cantrips have the flourish trait. Logical an attack cantrip is one with the attack trait otherwise it would have just said all cantrips have flourish. If electric arc was given the flourish trait my statement it would be even more game breaking. Maybe he explained it more in a different comment? I was just going off of what I quoted.
Your specific example makes spellcasting crazy powerful. Only way it would be somewhat balanced is if you could only cast one spell a round which still would be a little better, but still quite powerful.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know what would be really cool? If casters could cast spells that had a duration and then they use an action the next several rounds to sustain that spell. Heck, if that were a thing, that would make a caster's action economy interesting. Then they could even sustain 1 spell, cast another, and then sustain both spells in the following turn and have a 3rd action for other things. Actually, if a caster had an ability that allowed them to sustain as a free action (with some resource expenditure at least) they could cast 3 such spells over the course of 3 turns and then spend the rest of combat sustaining those spells. That would be a pretty neat thing for casters to be able to do and would be very interesting for caster action economy. Even more so if there existed a spell that increased a character's actions per turn.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
...Ooh! Ya'know...now that I think about it...
Since most spells use 2 actions to cast, it'd be really cool if a caster could pick up a bow or other ranged weapon and use that in their off action. Maybe they could even become decent at such an auxilary option. I mean...a melee option could be a thing but likely not ideal, not like a bow or something. If a caster had the option to dabble in some of the things that other classes could do that would really be interesting with action economy. Like devise stratagem or something.
Ya' know I think I'll propose these ideas as homebrew things in my next home game. I bet I could play a really interesting character that could do some of these things.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see how requiring actions dedicated to keeping up an investment makes their economy more interesting. It's...the exact opposite, that's slot economy at the expense of action economy. I don't see how Haste factors when the Stride element applies equally to all characters and the Strike element is of variable value, nor how a Lv 16 feat that applies to certain spells is supposed to be relevant to the general experience of playing casters. And I definitely don't see the game crumpling into pieces when you can already cast 2 or 3 spells in a turn by using 1-action options, and applying Flourish to all of the big ones just gets you an extra action to move or recall knowledge or use a skill action or whatever, like martials do. Yes, it's a little more power, but it's also probably more fun. Big ¯\_('v')_/¯s from me on these arguments.
(Also, no, "attack cantrips" means cantrips you use to hurt people. If the Attack trait was relevant to the design of that general cantrip homebrew, that would have been specified — assuming the trait is quite a specific reading of a pretty colloquial post. It's not all cantrips that have the Flourish trait because you can already mix 1-action cantrips like Shield or Guidance with 2-action offensive cantrips without the game exploding :v )
(Also, no, "attack cantrips" means cantrips you use to hurt people. If the Attack trait was relevant to the design of that general cantrip homebrew, that would have been specified — assuming the trait is quite a specific reading of a pretty colloquial post. It's not all cantrips that have the Flourish trait because you can already mix 1-action cantrips like Shield or Guidance with 2-action offensive cantrips without the game exploding :v )
He said they apply the 1-action flourish to the utility cantrips...but including the attack cantrips.
Just as an example, I think it be a lot more fun if some of the utility cantrips/spells were 1 action instead of 2.We houserule exactly that, including the attack cantrips, with the Flourish trait added to them.
(Also, no, "attack cantrips" means cantrips you use to hurt people. If the Attack trait was relevant to the design of that general cantrip homebrew, that would have been specified — assuming the trait is quite a specific reading of a pretty colloquial post. It's not all cantrips that have the Flourish trait because you can already mix 1-action cantrips like Shield or Guidance with 2-action offensive cantrips without the game exploding :v )He said they apply the 1-action flourish to the utility cantrips...but including the attack cantrips.
Just as an example, I think it be a lot more fun if some of the utility cantrips/spells were 1 action instead of 2.We houserule exactly that, including the attack cantrips, with the Flourish trait added to them.
I don't have access to the poster's head, but I assumed that Flourish was added to the cantrips that weren't 1 action in the first place, leaving the original 1 action cantrips alone. (Again, I'm also assuming that "attack cantrips" refers to cantrips you use to...attack. Which includes the few save-based ones.) Maybe I'm wrong, I don't know.
But, to be clear, the version I've heard of elsewhere and the one I'm interested in is as follows. All spells that are 2 or 3 actions (which includes cantrips and focus spells) have their action cost permanently reduced by 1. All of the spells permanently gain the Flourish trait, meaning that only one from the entire pool can be cast in a turn, in keeping with the original limitation. Spells that were originally 1 action, a free action or a reaction don't gain the Flourish trait and can be cast alongside spells with the Flourish trait as they originally could.
|
|
I don't see how requiring actions dedicated to keeping up an investment makes their economy more interesting. It's...the exact opposite, that's slot economy at the expense of action economy.
Wait so...for clarity, you want to be able to cast a 1 action spell that does two actions worth of damage and then be able to do other things with the other 2 actions...like attack again? or use a recall knowledge? or move?
Or is this a 1 action spell that does 1 action worth of damage and then maybe a two action spell that does 2 actions worth of damage?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
With all respect, read Tavaro Evanis's post more closely before erupting into reactions. They specifically say that they add the Flourish trait to 1-action attack cantrips, which would prevent more than one such cantrip from being used in a round.
We discussed applying this houserule to both cantrips and spells. For now, it applies only to cantrips, and it's a resounding success. The increased utility was our rationale for its inclusion, not nuking. Telekinetic Projectile with a 30' range and damage equal to 1d6+ability modifier is hardly a "nuke". That has the Flourish trait under the houserule, so a two or three-round burst would not be permitted. Our GM routinely overtunes our combat encounters, even before we instituted the cantrip houserule. We have a highly tactical and integrated bunch of players. We wanted more combat fluidity, not more pew-pew.
I don't see how requiring actions dedicated to keeping up an investment makes their economy more interesting. It's...the exact opposite, that's slot economy at the expense of action economy.Wait so...for clarity, you want to be able to cast a 1 action spell that does two actions worth of damage and then be able to do other things with the other 2 actions...like attack again? or use a recall knowledge? or move?
Or is this a 1 action spell that does 1 action worth of damage and then maybe a two action spell that does 2 actions worth of damage?
Saashaa, I said I wanted to experiment. See how it goes. See how the casters like it and how balanced it seems. If by "attack again" you mean use another Flourish spell, no, we've gone over that. If by "attack again" you mean use a physical attack (which are decent with some investment but have a fair amount of things going against them, math-wise), a 1-action spell (which are usually focus spells), or some combination, sure, whatever. I don't think it would be much more than you can already do with a little more difficulty and a little less variation in turns, and I don't even think "attack again" is the potential problem as much as "use a skill action or metamagic you wouldn't be able to as a standard caster" could be, power-wise.
Obviously, what I'm thinking of is much more drastic than what Tavaro Evanis suggested their table uses, but I don't think magic is "bad" nor do I suspect such a change would directly improve it much, I'm just curious to see how such a change would impact caster experiences since concerns of a comparatively stale action economy have been common since the playtest. Spells are a resource expenditure already, so I'm not as concerned as I could be about overall power increase.
Oh, and I wouldn't come out of the gate with drastic experimental homebrew rules like this, either. It's a moot point since our group is being introduced with mostly vanilla AoA via another GM (who I corrupted into considering free archetype later >w> ), but I'd start with at most a series of patches for holes and upgrades to weak points like Deadmanwalking's rules, saving experiments for things like one-shots. Just so y'all know.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...Ooh! Ya'know...now that I think about it...
Since most spells use 2 actions to cast, it'd be really cool if a caster could pick up a bow or other ranged weapon and use that in their off action. Maybe they could even become decent at such an auxilary option. I mean...a melee option could be a thing but likely not ideal, not like a bow or something. If a caster had the option to dabble in some of the things that other classes could do that would really be interesting with action economy. Like devise stratagem or something.
Ya' know I think I'll propose these ideas as homebrew things in my next home game. I bet I could play a really interesting character that could do some of these things.
For some reason players seem to hate that its viable and helpful to use weapons as a spellcaster. Everything has to be spells all the time. It's like the game has to be world of warcraft or something.
I love using a xbow as my third action
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Obviously, what I'm thinking of is much more drastic than what Tavaro Evanis suggested their table uses, but I don't think magic is "bad", I'm just curious to see how such a change would impact caster experiences. Spells are a resource expenditure already, so I'm not as concerned as I could be.
I play a warpriest/fighter but my primary role is the party healer. I invest heavily into feats which support healing and all my spells are support focused. My only sources of damage are cantrips and weapons. For me, the game is substantially more dynamic with the tweak applied only to cantrips. It took me from being a mostly rooted-in-place healbot, to a highly mobile battle medic.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Crossbow as a wizard's side-gig" is a pretty specific D&D thing; in any other fantasy setting I've seen if a wizard has a crossbow then magically enchanting their crossbow bolts is a pretty big part of their Deal, it isn't just an extra thing you do
The expansion on cantrip viability was supposed to replace the level 1-5 wizard crossbow, to my understanding. IMO magic characters should be focused on doing magic, it annoys me for the same reason it annoys me for my Maul barbarian to be forced into using a longsword.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Crossbow as a wizard's side-gig" is a pretty specific D&D thing; in any other fantasy setting I've seen if a wizard has a crossbow then magically enchanting their crossbow bolts is a pretty big part of their Deal, it isn't just an extra thing you do
The expansion on cantrip viability was supposed to replace the level 1-5 wizard crossbow, to my understanding. IMO magic characters should be focused on doing magic, it annoys me for the same reason it annoys me for my Maul barbarian to be forced into using a longsword.
Mages using weapons flavor wise is as old as Tolkien though.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mages using weapons flavor wise is as old as Tolkien though.
Yeah but, as Arachnofiend pointed out, usually when that happens it's a fairly meaningful thing.
When Gandalf used Glamdring, it wasn't just as some throwaway investment he missed with half the time but it gave him something to do during his third action so whatever.
I had a sorcerer in one game try to do that. He saw focus powers like Claws of the Dragon and Glutton's Jaws and the way proficiency worked as an invitation to build a more martial character and unfortunately he ended up really disappointed, since in practice he could only really get any mileage out of his sword in fights that didn't matter, no matter how hard he tried to invest in getting better at swordplay.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mages using weapons flavor wise is as old as Tolkien though.Yeah but, as Arachnofiend pointed out, usually when that happens it's a fairly meaningful thing.
When Gandalf used Glamdring, it wasn't just as some throwaway investment he missed with half the time but it gave him something to do during his third action so whatever.
I had a sorcerer in one game try to do that. He saw focus powers like Claws of the Dragon and Glutton's Jaws and the way proficiency worked as an invitation to build a more martial character and unfortunately he ended up really disappointed, since in practice he could only really get any mileage out of his sword in fights that didn't matter, no matter how hard he tried to invest in getting better at swordplay.
I am confused by this, your sorcerer saw focus powers that relied on melee attacks, so you decided to invest in getting a sword? What was your bloodline? Did you do this through an archetype? What level did you play up to?
A caster can pretty easily be only -1 behind most martials at levels 1-4, but then pick up magic weapon to be caught up until 3 or 4, but still ahead on striking rune, without investing any of their wealth into it. Then at 5, they can boost their STR, but fall behind proficiency wise, but only to -2, but by level 5, depending upon your magic tradition, you have numerous ways to either buff yourself or debuff your enemy with spells to even that back out, to the point that you are pretty much equal with accuracy as a martial character.
Most martials don't boost to Master proficiency until level 13, and the sorcerer will have gotten expert proficiency by level 11, so there really is no reason that the difference in accuracy would ever be more than 2. That compares very favorably to PF1, where a full caster is going to be at -2 by level 4 and never get anywhere close to a martial in accuracy again.
My cloistered cleric is at level 7 and hit with a longbow with 2 out of 3 shots taken against a level +2 solo monster even without being able to make the enemy flat-footed. Those were 3rd action shots while I used spells to silence an ally who then shut down the enemies casting and then keep up the cleric's essential role of healing the champion that was getting smacked to pieces by the monster. I have found taking two shots with the bow to almost always be more effective in combat than ever casting a divine attack cantrip, and my bow gets pretty nasty when it crits, which I usually manage about once every other combat. Keep in mind, I have sunk 0 resources into getting better with my bow, beyond deity selection, which I picked for the darkness domain, not for the weapon choice.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do we have any example that is not Gandalf of a Wizard using weapons?
Because one is an exception rather than a rule.
Rand Al'Thor (WoT).
Richard Cypher (Sword of Truth).The temple of the Thirty (Gemmell).
Also Abercrombie, Guy Gavriel Kay, Sanderson, Erikson and basically 90% of the Fantasy best-sellers.
With all respect, read Tavaro Evanis's post more closely before erupting into reactions. They specifically say that they add the Flourish trait to 1-action attack cantrips, which would prevent more than one such cantrip from being used in a round.We discussed applying this houserule to both cantrips and spells. For now, it applies only to cantrips, and it's a resounding success. The increased utility was our rationale for its inclusion, not nuking. Telekinetic Projectile with a 30' range and damage equal to 1d6+ability modifier is hardly a "nuke". That has the Flourish trait under the houserule, so a two or three-round burst would not be permitted. Our GM routinely overtunes our combat encounters, even before we instituted the cantrip houserule. We have a highly tactical and integrated bunch of players. We wanted more combat fluidity, not more pew-pew.
Out of curiosity, what do the casters in your games typically do with their extra two actions when they cast a cantrip? The casters in my games often don't know what to do with their spare third action as is (usually shield cantrip or an actual shield).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, all of those builds and characters are examples where the magic and martial halves are both important to the identity. Odin isn't Odin without his spear. The archetypical D&D wizard is definitely still a wizard without his crossbow, because the crossbow is something he doesn't do because he wants to, it's something he does because he can't use that action to cast.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
...Ooh! Ya'know...now that I think about it...
Since most spells use 2 actions to cast, it'd be really cool if a caster could pick up a bow or other ranged weapon and use that in their off action. Maybe they could even become decent at such an auxilary option. I mean...a melee option could be a thing but likely not ideal, not like a bow or something. If a caster had the option to dabble in some of the things that other classes could do that would really be interesting with action economy. Like devise stratagem or something.
Ya' know I think I'll propose these ideas as homebrew things in my next home game. I bet I could play a really interesting character that could do some of these things.
For some reason players seem to hate that its viable and helpful to use weapons as a spellcaster. Everything has to be spells all the time. It's like the game has to be world of warcraft or something.
I love using a xbow as my third action
I wouldn't mind using a weapon as a spellcaster. But there are other major problems at hand with this.
For starters your weapon proficiencies are garbage. Anything that is a simple weapon sucks, and doesn't do jack for damage. The best you're getting is a D8 reach weapon that puts you right into the thick of things, not good for a spellcaster, or a D8 ranged weapon which requires you wasting actions to reload after each shot.
Furthermore, what proficiencies you do get, do not scale, nor does your damage. Oh wow, I'm 12th level and my +1 Striking Crossbow does 2D8+2 damage, with a very meager chance of hitting, and I can only realistically do that maybe every other round since I have to reload it? To heck with that, even Force Bolt is just as reliable, and I'm doing 3D4+3 with it, since it is almost always never affected by resistances, and 30 feet is about as safe a distance as 80 feet if you're placed smart enough.
It might be acceptable to do starting out, but past 5th level or so, you don't need it anymore. Hell, depending on your spell choices, you don't need it period!
|
|
Furthermore, what proficiencies you do get, do not scale, nor does your damage...
...what?..
I can get expert proficiency in any non-advanced weapon by level 13. So, around a -2 behind most martials. So factually, it can scale. As for non-scaling damage, that was a very silly statement. Casters are just as able to buy weapons and fundamental runes the same as martials.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Crossbow as a wizard's side-gig" is a pretty specific D&D thing; in any other fantasy setting I've seen if a wizard has a crossbow then magically enchanting their crossbow bolts is a pretty big part of their Deal, it isn't just an extra thing you do
The expansion on cantrip viability was supposed to replace the level 1-5 wizard crossbow, to my understanding. IMO magic characters should be focused on doing magic, it annoys me for the same reason it annoys me for my Maul barbarian to be forced into using a longsword.
Quite right. That was what I looked forward to about the Magus, a wizard-like class whose main class abilities combined casting and striking in interesting ways, not just something to do with your 3rd action.
And why people that said "oh just multiclass" were missing the entire point. It didn't matter to me if I had the proficiency to hit with my crossbow, there was nothing particularly interesting about firing it every other round (at best), and to me nothing fun about it. The playtest version of the Magus was at least trying to deliver something different.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A Medieval space odyssey?
A Medieval space odyssey?
lol. No, just a more relevant post than most in this thread.
lol. No, just a more relevant post than most in this thread.A Medieval space odyssey?
Darn... I thought something interesting happened. :(
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is the root of most of the disagreements. Some don't like the current options. A few then extend their dislikes as faults in the system.
Just because one does not like the options they have does not automatically make the options bad.
It does make them bad in the sense that "they do not deliver the game I want to be playing." That is, something can be subjectively bad without taking away that it is simultaneously subjectively good for someone else.
The rules are all made up, and have no feelings to be hurt. We're all here to discuss the game, but the text doesn't really need to be defended.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Any character in the game can have expert proficiency, even in advanced bows, by level 11 for the cost of 2 feats. A wizard who wants to cast spells through their cross bow is probably going the eldritch archer archetype. It takes some feats to do, but the game definitely supports it.
Expert proficiency is not bad. There are lots of ways to build up additional damage with weapons, but they take feats, and usually 2 action activities. This supports the buff caster into delivering single powerful weapon attack gish.
EDIT: But if the regular game mechanic doesn't fit the character build idea you have, and the whole table wants more of a super hero feel, The dual class variant option will cover any gish character concept pretty well.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Out of curiosity, what do the casters in your games typically do with their extra two actions when they cast a cantrip? The casters in my games often don't know what to do with their spare third action as is (usually shield cantrip or an actual shield).
The most popular third actions among the casters in my group are Shield, Reach and actions with the Move trait, especially Stride. Caster combat definitely feels more snappy, which was the missing "secret sauce" from my perspective.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Any character in the game can have expert proficiency, even in advanced bows, by level 11 for the cost of 2 feats. A wizard who wants to cast spells through their cross bow is probably going the eldritch archer archetype. It takes some feats to do, but the game definitely supports it.
Expert proficiency is not bad. There are lots of ways to build up additional damage with weapons, but they take feats, and usually 2 action activities. This supports the buff caster into delivering single powerful weapon attack gish.
EDIT: But if the regular game mechanic doesn't fit the character build idea you have, and the whole table wants more of a super hero feel, The dual class variant option will cover any gish character concept pretty well.
If this was directed towards me, as I said upthread, proficiency doesn't help my enjoyment, nor do options that exist outside the class itself like archetypes or dual-classing.
You can rest assured I am aware of the available array of options, including simply homebrewing my own. If I am still explaining that I have some problem or another with the game as it currently exists, you can take it as a given that I have considered those options and find them lacking.
Any character in the game can have expert proficiency, even in advanced bows, by level 11 for the cost of 2 feats. A wizard who wants to cast spells through their cross bow is probably going the eldritch archer archetype. It takes some feats to do, but the game definitely supports it.
Expert proficiency is not bad. There are lots of ways to build up additional damage with weapons, but they take feats, and usually 2 action activities. This supports the buff caster into delivering single powerful weapon attack gish.
EDIT: But if the regular game mechanic doesn't fit the character build idea you have, and the whole table wants more of a super hero feel, The dual class variant option will cover any gish character concept pretty well.
If this was directed towards me, as I said upthread, proficiency doesn't help my enjoyment, nor do options that exist outside the class itself like archetypes or dual-classing.
You can rest assured I am aware of the available array of options, including simply homebrewing my own. If I am still explaining that I have some problem or another with the game as it currently exists, you can take it as a given that I have considered those options and find them lacking.
I just don't understand how the base line expectation could be that you would expect the wizard class to provide the feat options for using weapons and not look to an archetype for that. It would be an absolute mess if every casting class and every martial class had to have its own feat support for being an eldritch archer, for example.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean eldritch archer should not had gotten an "expert in weapons" requirement.
It just doesn't make sense in the context of PF2.
TBF Eldritch Archer's mechanics are pretty specifically geared towards martial-first characters. Eldritch Shot is just... really bad for casters, whereas it makes a ton of sense for Fighters that do magic.
The real travesty is being barred from taking multi-class dedications or else delay your entry to EA.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If we're counting Gandalf, we're already stretching the concept pretty far outside the DnD concept of wizard.
Go ahead and name them them; I'm always interested in diving into a literary rabbit hole.
There are, in fact, a ton of wizards in fiction that use weapons... That is not and has never been my issue. I'll be damned if you can point to any wizards that use a weapon at the start of the series, grow more powerful, and say "welp, don't need this anymore!" and toss their weapon and replace it entirely with spellcasting.
|
There are, in fact, a ton of wizards in fiction that use weapons... That is not and has never been my issue. I'll be damned if you can point to any wizards that use a weapon at the start of the series, grow more powerful, and say "welp, don't need this anymore!" and toss their weapon and replace it entirely with spellcasting.
I believe a character that would cast aside Glamdring or Gungnir as not powerful enough cannot be created in PF2. I fervently hope it will never be possible.
|
|
How do you define a "wizard" in fiction? Because I can absolutely think of various spellcasters in older fiction who also used weapons, but if its going to turn into No True Wizard its pointless to mention them.Do we have any example that is not Gandalf of a Wizard using weapons?
Because one is an exception rather than a rule.
I am very interested too. I asked because people always use the Gandalf example. Learning about other characters broadens my horizons.
And I agree that the counter of the "they are not a true Wizard" argument is a possibility. Which is also interesting because maybe some characters are better built as MC or Magus.
I used Wizard because that is always the class mentioned when people use the Gandalf example.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's an odd one.
The traditional appearance of a Wizard takes after the Gandalf / Merlin style. Yet both of these characters were also sword wielders and have physically manhandled fools that got in their way.
Odin is also an ur-Wizard in many senses, and he uses weapons. Other Norse spellcasters, like Loki, also favoured weapon use.
Magic users in my native Celtic traditions all used weapons as well as magic.
Väinämöinen is definitely the ur-Bard in many respects, but looked like a Wizard. He has a sword and I'm pretty beat someone with an oar once.
The Jedi, space Wizards if ever there were some, go hand in hand with their lightsabers.
Most urban fantasy, like the Dresden Files, the Spellslinger series, the Powdermage series, all have the Wizard archetype mixed with weapon use.