| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The PF2 wizard model works really well for the merlin/gandalf model, in that just by being incredibly high level, they are capable of fighting effectively in combat against all but the most powerful foes. Gandalf was clearly levels ahead of the party he was traveling with. With a strong weapon, his expert proficiency, probably picked up through some kind of modified lore master, know everything, including combat skills, archetype, means he can wipe the floor with your average goblin or orc, but was never going to be facing down a Balrog with martial skill alone.
Alternatively, since swords in particular occupy a place of high mythological significance in middle earth (being representative of the cross, Tolkien focused on the sword as the ultimate weapon in the world) it would make sense that Gandalf would have ancestral access to sword proficiencies.
As far as Eldritch archers, the decision to require expert weapon proficiency and not spell casting does make it lean into a martial first archetype. But needing 3 archetype feats before choosing it as a wizard, or sorcerer is not that big a deal, since they won't have the proficiency before 11th level anyway. The real problem with Eldritch Archer is that primary benefit, Eldritch shot, is three actions and generally a worse way of delivering a spell than just casting it for anyone who has starting spell casting proficiencies. I think we are all waiting on seeing what the MC magus archetype offers as far as being the better MC path for casters first.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the broadest sense, I don't think there is a comparison that makes sense.
The D&D wizard is largely its own being, drawing heavy inspiration from Tolkien and Vance, but existing in its own space, as has been pointed out.
That archetype of the robe wearing wizard who's entirely focused around their magic has largely leeched into a lot of fantasy RPG design, but the D&D wizard even doesn't really compare to them anymore, because video game wizards (and etc.) tend to have room to be much more specialized and much more consistent than their tabletop counterpart.
In that respect, the D&D Wizard isn't really good at representing anything other than itself, which means all comparisons to other fiction tend to rapidly fall apart.
I've never had a whole lot of trouble reconciling the fantasy of a low-level wizard with using a crossbow or something similar. Magic is precious, and having a more consistent, if crude weapon for defending oneself in an emergency always seemed pretty reasonable to me. To me, it's kind of bled into the fantasy niche of TTRPG wizards and I find it kind of endearing.
Regardless, this conversation may be steering towards offtopic.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, the topic is spellcasters and their problems. Having a conflict between the mechanics and our individual vision/narrative of the class seems appropriate.
Edit: For my mileage, I'd like wizards to be purer casters. I'm hopeful we'll get something in Secrets of Magic like variable and single action cantrips that can be their third action (shield is good, don't get me wrong, but more options for that would be better). I'm reminded of some of the early feedback in Starfinder that people disliked having to use a gun instead of relying solely on magic, so it's not like this is new or soley a criticism of Pathfinder 2.
Failing that, something that makes weapons more interesting to cast, like an Eldritch Archer but favoring casters instead of martials. As I'm not sure how that will work out with Magi moving into the same narrative space, I see this as the lesser likely option.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i see it in a totally different way...
Wizard have scalable cantrips.
they have a cantrip of fire, lighting, cold and physical so no resistance EVER.
they stand back and shoot.the game also dont give attack of opportunity to most monsters and attack wont stop a spell any how.
they have good AC without armor (15 at lvl 1 pre shield spell) and scalable DC that is all right. (17 lvl 1).
Fair points about the cantrips. However, do note that cantrip damage is
usually less than that of a normal strike, a standard complaint of cantrips. As well as, most cantrips require attack rolls, which leads to the complaint that spellcasters to-hit on attack rolls is too low.Attacks of opportunity are less common at low levels. At high levels, it is more common for enemies to have attacks of opportunity.
Lastly, at 1st level, the highest standard AC to be had is 19 (+2 more with a shield. That discrepency of 4-5 stays and makes a big difference in getting hit and getting crit. Objectively, wizards (and sorcerers) have the lowest ACs (when trying and not gaining armor proficiencies)