| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Eschew Materials is a garbage fire and I hate it. I've expressed before that I specifically don't like feats like that which do next to nothing but give off the impression of doing something. If there was one thing where I want Wizards to get actual power level errata (not just new feats and options), it would be Eschew Materials.
Because a new page started gonna restate 92
slotted spells in the core rulebook use material components. Including some of the best spells in the arcane and occult list. Most are arcane and occult. Every summoning spell uses a material component. So does all the prismatic and chromatic spells. Other notable ones I've noticed are web, black tentacles, antimagic field, reverse gravity and wall of force. Some of my favorite spells
Legit? Hold up checking now
**Edit**
Just checked a the non-focus spells in the core rulebook, 92 require material components. Most are arcane, notably all the prismatic and chromatic spells as well as every summoning spell and a lot of the best arcane and occult spells. So actually it's a lot
Uh.
PRISMATIC SPHERE SPELL 9
ABJURATION LIGHT
Traditions arcane, occult
Cast[two‑actions] somatic, verbalPRISMATIC SPRAY SPELL 7
EVOCATION LIGHT
Traditions arcane, occult
Cast[two‑actions] somatic, verbal
Anyway, rechecked. I was remembering the two action spells that require material components (of which there are eight, thirteen including focus).
Of the three-action spells there are 39 (41 including focus).
There is a single one-action focus spell that uses a material component.
(Note: I'm only searching the actual core book, as I happen to have ready access to it).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The number of them doesn't really matter for the purposes of Eschew Materials... since you still need a free hand.
Legit? Hold up checking now
**Edit**
Just checked a the non-focus spells in the core rulebook, 92 require material components. Most are arcane, notably all the prismatic and chromatic spells as well as every summoning spell and a lot of the best arcane and occult spells. So actually it's a lotUh.
PRISMATIC SPHERE SPELL 9
ABJURATION LIGHT
Traditions arcane, occult
Cast[two‑actions] somatic, verbalPRISMATIC SPRAY SPELL 7
EVOCATION LIGHT
Traditions arcane, occult
Cast[two‑actions] somatic, verbalAnyway, rechecked. I was remembering the two action spells that require material components (of which there are eight, thirteen including focus).
Of the three-action spells there are 39 (41 including focus).
There is a single one-action focus spell that uses a material component.
(Note: I'm only searching the actual core book, as I happen to have ready access to it).
Ahh my brain wasn't working. I was just flipping through the book and just counting each time a spell had a material component and then the fact the one above the prismatic ones and the prismatic wall spell had material components my brain just thought it saw all of them like that. However I did count correctly. However the number of actions doesn't matter. If eschew materials didn't require a freehand you'd still have to burn an action without it putting away your weapon or drawing it, or whatever. So yeah eschew materials is useless since it requires a free hand still
If eschew materials didn't require a freehand you'd still have to burn an action without it putting away your weapon or drawing it, or whatever. So yeah eschew materials is useless since it requires a free hand still
If it didn't require a free hand, it wouldn't be such hot garbage. It might be situational, due to most spells using material components being 3 action spells, but it wouldn't be a must-have.
Though it really seems like this still isn't terribly useful for most wizards. Useful for MCD though
Yeah, that.
If eschew materials didn't require a freehand you'd still have to burn an action without it putting away your weapon or drawing it, or whatever. So yeah eschew materials is useless since it requires a free hand stillIf it didn't require a free hand, it wouldn't be such hot garbage. It might be situational, due to most spells using material components being 3 action spells, but it wouldn't be a must-have.
Though it really seems like this still isn't terribly useful for most wizards. Useful for MCD thoughYeah, that.
Ah okay, we agree then
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. Repeat after me: oneshotting the occasional higher-leveled creature is not a bug. It is why many players play Wizards.
I play a wizard exclusively in PF2 and I would definitely consider it a bug.
It is way too late to do this now, but if there was PF 2.5....
I would cut down the arcane list to be about the same size as the other lists and give wizards the ability to study magic from their schools from other traditions. When wizards level up, the new spells are arcane, but if a necromancer finds Orcus' scroll of divine animate dead, he/she can learn the spell and add it to his/her spell book after a couple of downtimes worth of study (1 downtime per level of the spell).
I'm hoping they manage to restrain themselves for Secrets of Magic, and stick to the essence idea a bit better.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unfortunately there are too many people here who are blind to the low-level caster problem.Paizo can easily choose to listen only to them and conclude "low-level Wizards are just fine".
You're saying there's a possibility Paizo might listen to people you don't agree with? That must be terrible for you.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I have done a variety of things to help Wizards (as well as other classes).Unfortunately there are too many people here who are blind to the low-level caster problem.
Paizo can easily choose to listen only to them and conclude "low-level Wizards are just fine".
Sometimes I really wish my ttrpg had the feedback loops of a crpg. For instance - as soon as Blizzard detects that an ability in WoW isn't used as much as expected, they issue a patch to fix that.
In comparison, it is not inconceivable that Paizo will NEVER fix the egregious situations w.r.t cantrips for instance, or that they will "back port" the issue by new cantrips.
What we want and need are actual errata, upgrades to existing cantrips.
(And the same to the single-digit level Wizard experience)
I still feel you should write some house rules. I implemented quite a few house rules including improving cantrips and it has had the effect I wanted:
1. Casters are more fun to play.
2. Cantrips other than electric arc are used.
3. Casters feel stronger because they can bring to bear the right tool at the right time rather than hoping they have right spell slotted.
4. There has been no reduction in the happiness of martial characters complaining casters are over-powered.
It's pretty easy to write decent house rules for PF2 even if some of it is just cleaning up the junk.
1. Repeat after me: oneshotting the occasional higher-leveled creature is not a bug. It is why many players play Wizards.I play a wizard exclusively in PF2 and I would definitely consider it a bug.Speaking of one-shotting, I think the way "game-winner" spells work is better implemented in 13th age than with PF2's incapacitation trait.
What is there to prevent a fighter from just running an orc through with their sword, or decapitate them with an axe? Hit points. So hit points also act as protection against game-winner spells. For example, Cause Fear is a 3rd level spell that makes a target with 75 hp or less run away for one round, and if you cast it at a higher level the hp limit is higher. Color Spray deals some damage to a few creatures, and creatures with less than X hp are also weakened (deal half damage) for a round.
One effect of this is that you can be more granular. For example, Hold Monster and Rebuke are both 3rd level spells, but Hold Monster hits a target with max 60 hp and immobilizes them for a few rounds, while Rebuke hits a target with max 100 hp and prevents them from making special attacks for one round. Another effect is that it means even strong opponents can eventually be subject to one of these, you just need to knock it around for a while first. This leads to PCs generally wanting to focus on damage-dealing for a few rounds before going for the Win buttons. This is aided by the Escalation Die mechanic (basically giving PCs +1 to hit for every round after the first).
Problem with that approach is that enemy HP is hidden knowledge. If implemented on PF, casters would probably end up memorizing the monster design guidelines and keeping track of every hit done just to land their big spell.
Humbly,
Yawar
I think it can be done (without memorizing the monster guidelines and HP tracking), but as presented and with Pathfinder as-is, no, it wouldn't work well.
But as a design tool? Love it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the same functionality can be achieved on the DMs side. What if they revived the bloodied condition, which reduces your effective level for incapacitate spells?
Dm has to keep track of HP anyways; giving a trigger for spells and conditions to be more effective might change the game in interesting ways. AoE would be a much more powerful tactic at low levels, for one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Casters in my games get 5e/arcanist casting. Spontaneous casters get a few extra class dependent perks. Spells prepped/known is basically just spell mod+level (again, some perks for varios spontaneous casters).
Wizards get 2 thesi (2 major, 2 minor). And their feats and class features are reworked a bit (basically, that whole bonded item crap is removed, there are no generalists).
With all this, casters still trail behind the raw power of melee martials but the added flexibility makes them actually great to have around. I even nerfed electric arc a bit (3 actions to hit two targets) and players didn't mind. Made other cantrips interesting enough to use on occaision.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Will saves have historically been the wizard's good save, and it makes sense, so I find it perplexing that they do not gain Master proficiency in Will saves until level 17. It's the same with Sorcerers and Witches as well.
With Dexterity and Constitution typically taking priority over Wisdom in order to build a sturdy wizard, this makes it very likely that Will becomes the wizard's worst save between levels 9 and 17. Is there any reason why the Wizard shouldn't be a Master in will saves at level 9 or 11? I get that they are supposed to be squishy but, come on.
I also find it perplexing that wizards, sorcerers and witches have some of the worst will saves in the game. Being equal with a fighter and ranger for most of their career (15/20 levels).
Should definitely move it to 9th or 11th.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, 9th is probably a bit early, IMO, but 17th is definitely later than Resolve should be. I think the problem is that, Proficiency-wise, they gain something, often multiple somethings, at every odd level between 9th and 15th, making it difficult to slot things in. They manage it on Bard, Druid, and Cleric by giving them other Proficiencies earlier.
But yeah. Having had that pointed out, I'll probably add some Proficiency changes to Wizard and Sorcerer in there. I'll have to think about how I organize that.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
lower the level proficiencies so that they match Clerics/Druids?
There is no reason why Wizard should have saves later then them.
Thematically, at least Clerics are reasonably stronger willed. So I just dropped them both to getting Resolve at 11th, then dropped Alertness to 9th and Magical Fortitude (for Wizards) or Lightning Reflexes (for Sorcerers) to 7th.
That was also a lot easier structurally, and close enough for me. 17th was just silly, but 11th is reasonable enough, IMO.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean I am talking overall. There really is no reason why a Wizard's save should be worse than that of a Cleric. Specially when the Wizard has so little going for them compared to the Cleric.
Well, in that case I've debatably done exactly that. Lightning Reflexes for the Cleric doesn't kick in until 11th so they hit Expert in everything else and Master in Will at the same time a Wizard or Sorcerer does with my (rather straightforward) House Rule.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that having 4 spell per level casters be a little more fragile in terms of HP and armor Proficiency is fairly reasonable. The extra spells really are pretty good, even if not as good as they once would have been.
The low Saves there's a lot less reason for, IMO.
Do people's wizards get targeted by many truly debilitating effects that often? The problem with targeting wizards with mind control effects is that you rarely know what they are specked into so issuing them commands to do effective nasty things in combat is rarely easier than mind controlling the party fighter or barbarian and pointing them at the caster. Mind control spells don't grant the caster the ability to read the character sheet and treat the character like their own, as if you were playing a video game. The most you get is "do something bad to character x," and hope the caster has something bad enough to be worth it. Very few will targeting spells are more devastating for the party targeted at the wizard than a front line martial, and it was kind of a problem how easy it was to target front line martials with mind control effects.
Additionally, I don't know what it is like at other tables, but our wizard is usually far enough away from the rest of the party that it is difficult to target them with many will targeting effects, or at least good ones, and wizards get great access to counterspell options making them often a really bad target for spells generally, which really leads me to appreciate the ways wizard's protection against magic works.
I like that wizards spell selection and feats define their offensive and defensive capabilities. There are a lot of ways that wizards have to make targeting them with spells a massive waste of an enemies actions and resources. I don't really think Blaster master evoker wizard that tanked wisdom needs to be picking up resolve (and specifically the ability to treat successes as crit successes) as early as the cleric as just a free defense. The evasion-like mechanics are incredibly powerful defensive options. I can respect the fact that clerics get them because having an indomitable will really fits the whole faith theme, but for wizards, it makes a lot more sense for them to have to choose to protect themselves from powerful magical effects, rather than just innately carrying that power within themselves as a class.
lower the level proficiencies so that they match Clerics/Druids?
There is no reason why Wizard should have saves later then them.
Thematically, at least Clerics are reasonably stronger willed. So I just dropped them both to getting Resolve at 11th, then dropped Alertness to 9th and Magical Fortitude (for Wizards) or Lightning Reflexes (for Sorcerers) to 7th.
That was also a lot easier structurally, and close enough for me. 17th was just silly, but 11th is reasonable enough, IMO.
Probably want to do the same for Witches, as they have an identical proficiency map.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Probably want to do the same for Witches, as they have an identical proficiency map.
I did, in fact, realize and already do this (though after I posted the bit you quote). Though I shifted their progression slightly differently, just dropping Alertness directly to 7th as a send-up to familiars granting Alertness in PF1 (and to vary things a bit more) and slotting in Resolve at 11th.
But yeah, no reason for them to not hit maxed Proficiencies by 11th like Clerics do.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do people's wizards get targeted by many truly debilitating effects that often? The problem with targeting wizards with mind control effects is that you rarely know what they are specked into so issuing them commands to do effective nasty things in combat is rarely easier than mind controlling the party fighter or barbarian and pointing them at the caster. Mind control spells don't grant the caster the ability to read the character sheet and treat the character like their own, as if you were playing a video game. The most you get is "do something bad to character x," and hope the caster has something bad enough to be worth it. Very few will targeting spells are more devastating for the party targeted at the wizard than a front line martial, and it was kind of a problem how easy it was to target front line martials with mind control effects.
Additionally, I don't know what it is like at other tables, but our wizard is usually far enough away from the rest of the party that it is difficult to target them with many will targeting effects, or at least good ones, and wizards get great access to counterspell options making them often a really bad target for spells generally, which really leads me to appreciate the ways wizard's protection against magic works.
I like that wizards spell selection and feats define their offensive and defensive capabilities. There are a lot of ways that wizards have to make targeting them with spells a massive waste of an enemies actions and resources. I don't really think Blaster master evoker wizard that tanked wisdom needs to be picking up resolve (and specifically the ability to treat successes as crit successes) as early as the cleric as just a free defense. The evasion-like mechanics are incredibly powerful defensive options. I can respect the fact that clerics get them because having an indomitable will really fits the whole faith theme, but for wizards, it makes a lot more sense for them to have to choose to protect themselves from powerful magical effects, rather than...
At least in 5e, I love mind controlling casters as a DM. As a rule, I let my players still control their characters (make the rolls), but give them directions like "The BBEG tells you to use your most powerful magic against your allies". Mind controlling the martial is scary (especially barbarians), but a high level caster with high level slots left is scary
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do people's wizards get targeted by many truly debilitating effects that often?
A lot of GMs tend to spread enemy effects and damage around, which means inevitably you're going to get targeted and you're going to have lower odds to withstand in a lot of cases.
You can use your spells to protect yourself somewhat, but that's less that you have to go on the offensive- and you're a sorcerer or a wizard. Contributing with your spells is all you can do. Every spell spent to survive an effect on yourself is a spell that didn't help your party, but, not to be cliched- the fighter or bard or druid have decent odds to survive on their own and keep contributing all the while.
The more spells you spend just to survive too, is more spells that you didn't actually have over the Bard or Druid or what you have. Your "spell advantage" was illusionary. Buffing saves (reasonably) was the first tweak to spellcasters I made in home games, personally.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Love this! Not to deviate too far from wizards, but I think the Canny Acumen general feat could use a tweak too: lowering the master proficiency benefit from 17 to 11 or so would minimize the feat's dead levels.
That's an interesting idea. I think 11th might be too early for a General Feat. Maybe 13th? Or maybe 11th really would work...
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You could go with 13th to be safe; and/or introduce the caveat that you only reach master proficiency in the chosen save (or in perception) if you have already reached expert by some other means, such as natural class progression.
The latter restriction is almost meaningless, by 11th level, with my House Rules for Sorcerer, Witch, and Wizard every Class has at least Expert in everything by 11th except for Oracles (who are almost there, gaining Lightning Reflexes at 13th). In fact, I'm now tempted to fix that one omission by improving Oracle Saves slightly.
But I'm definitely thinking about Canny Acumen and how it should work.
EDIT: And there, I've changed the Oracle progression a little. Still thinking on Canny Acumen.
(Carved a pumpkin, made it an UwU face. Still gotta do some work today...and block Paizo, for the second time.)
Canny Acumen's second, more useful effect is incredibly weird in its placement, because as far as I know, there's nothing that gives the ability to pick up a Lv 17 General feat. So it's either pick up the feat to no immediate effect at Lv 15 or wait until Lv 19. The closest other effect I can think of is the proficiency upgrades from multiclass archetypes, which are Lv 12 Class feats, one (Perfection's Path) having the three saves as options. I can kind of see why they set the upgrade at Lv 17, Class feats are bigger deals than General feats, 15 feels a little too close to 12 and 19 is a little too far...but again, it's effectively 19 anyway.
Though I doubt that it would break anything to set the upgrade level to 15, I think it would help things more to give the feat a more frequent reason to exist beforehand.
Choose Fortitude saves, Reflex saves, Will saves, or Perception. You become an expert in your choice. If you are already an expert or gain expert proficiency from another ability, you gain a +1 (untyped/circumstance) bonus to checks or saves with your choice. At 17th level, you lose this +1 bonus but become a master in your choice.
Something like that, maybe? It's very small and dull, but at least it keeps the feat working.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What if it was:
Choose Fortitude saves, Reflex saves, Will saves, or Perception. You become an expert in your choice. At 17th level, you become a master in your choice. If you are already an expert (or master) in your choice from another source, gain a +1 (untyped/circumstance) bonus to checks or saves with your choice.
Highly highly unlikely that anyone would take it for a save type they're going to become Master in anyway, but I don't see a reason to make the feat useless if they do.