|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The essentiality of weapon runes is a mixed bag that I probably could have lived without, but with things like doubling runes, at least it is relatively easy to have them apply to many different kinds of weapons. And outside of the Fighter, martials do need to develop their tactics and strategies as well, or else they end up feeling like they are spinning their wheels without going anywhere...
...It is much, much better for casters that the base accuracy of their spells is not dependent upon items for accuracy. I can appreciate feeling like the overall accuracy feels low to some players, but learning how to use the system to your advantage and bend the numbers in your favor is very possible and a big source of fun for many players. I recommend giving it a try because developing strong team tactics can really bring a group of players together and make the experience about more than "I win." Which is how even mid to high level casters in PF1 really played.In that case, why not remove accuracy-boosting items for martials as well? Then they too could enjoy the "fun" of low accuracy and really develop those strong team tactics.
So if martials do need tactics to be effective, despite having accuracy-boosting items, then casters would still need solid tactics even if they had such items.
Casters should have ways to increase their accuracy with items. same as martials. Doing so would not buff them to the point that they wouldn't require strategy or tactics.
Personally I feel spell slots is a non issue in PF2 compared to PF1. Mainly because low level debuff stay good and combination of focus spells + scaling cantrips feels like I always have stuff to do.
PF1 I spent like 6+ spell slots on buffs otherwise things went poorly. The best thing I should do in PF 1 was do nothing for any easy combat. Obviously I did cast spells for fun and just had to rest more.
My buffs were so impactful I probably could have just afked until a boss fight.
I did play an Arcanist in PF1 which I think has the least spell slots.
At least in PF2 I can cast 1 focus spell and some decently scale cantrips on easier battles. At higher levels you get 2-3 focus spells an encounter.
Then again in PF2 a lot of battles are more challenging so I feel casting spells is necessary.
The essentiality of weapon runes is a mixed bag that I probably could have lived without, but with things like doubling runes, at least it is relatively easy to have them apply to many different kinds of weapons. And outside of the Fighter, martials do need to develop their tactics and strategies as well, or else they end up feeling like they are spinning their wheels without going anywhere...
...It is much, much better for casters that the base accuracy of their spells is not dependent upon items for accuracy. I can appreciate feeling like the overall accuracy feels low to some players, but learning how to use the system to your advantage and bend the numbers in your favor is very possible and a big source of fun for many players. I recommend giving it a try because developing strong team tactics can really bring a group of players together and make the experience about more than "I win." Which is how even mid to high level casters in PF1 really played.In that case, why not remove accuracy-boosting items for martials as well? Then they too could enjoy the "fun" of low accuracy and really develop those strong team tactics.
So if martials do need tactics to be effective, despite having accuracy-boosting items, then casters would still need solid tactics even if they had such items.
Casters should have ways to increase their accuracy with items. same as martials. Doing so would not buff them to the point that they wouldn't require strategy or tactics.
Again, I probably could have lived with magic items only increasing damage and not accuracy, although they would still have probably been just as mandatory a purchase for martials. In fact, I think it would have been a lot cooler for magical weapons to be more about giving you broad and expensive powers, perhaps even access to powerful strike activities instead of just number inflating, but to force casters into that same position, with items that they will have to have, without gaining any useful extra abilities from is boring. If you are a GM and you hate casting accuracy, fix it having them face lower level monsters in greater numbers, it will make them feel more powerful anyway.
But please recognize that their accuracy against saving throws is pretty strong if you get good at the minigame of learning spell saves to target, better than martials with their item bonuses against AC, almost across the board. AND you have access to a lot of great spells for doing something useful on a successful save. Boosting caster spell save DCs is a fast track towards unbalancing the game towards "casters rule everything around me," or C.R.E.A.M in the parlance of the Wu Tang Clan.
If you fix caster accuracy by having the party face lower enemies the martials will just mow through the enemies. At which point having casters isnt really useful except for healing and maybe aome buff/debuffs.
Also the fixed caster level mayde debuff spells way better than they used to be. But all the other spells got overall worse. Buff spells are weaker and dont last as long, Utility and Crowd Control spells dont last as long or have smaller area (no scaling area), attack spells dont deal as much damage, etc.
Which leads to the fewer spells per day. Which makes it so that not only you have less powerful spells, but you also have fewer of them. So every failure to have effect or strong effect hurts even more, specially with attack roll spells which don't benefit from tiers of success.
And that's the catch. Magic is way more limited than ever. Buffs and Debuffs staying relevant because the system is so tight a single +1 swings the math, and AoE staying relevant because its always been multiplicative on how many creatures it hits.
This is not really true. Martials get chewed up by lots of lower level enemies. I have seen this in APs and in the game I homebrew. 8 level -2 enemies becomes a real problem for a party of martials if they can succeed on some trips or get a +1 boost from a bard. If all of the enemies just move forward and position themselves to be attacked repeatedly by the martials, yes, they will get mowed down, same as PCs that do that to level +2 or 3 creature. Casters can destroy large forces much more quickly, but even more interestingly, theycan use their charm / incapacitation spells to much more interesting effects as well.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Casters can destroy large forces much more quickly, but even more interestingly, theycan use their charm / incapacitation spells to much more interesting effects as well.
I do belief that a lot of a spellcasters power progression has nothing to do with his hardcoded stats but is largely dependant on his environment and the ability to make informed decisions. IF your environment actually has a lot of low level enemy encounters (the early AP's do not seem to feature a lot of those) AND you have any means of suitable forshadowing (GM dropping hints or other) I can see a caster doing very well. If however you get thrown into the cold water every single encounter, possible only featuring same level or higher opponents I exspect a real struggle.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As players, you can push back a little on this though. Ask to gather information about locations you are headed to, people you are expected to encounter, and potential threats in the area. If your GM grows antagonistic to giving you useful information, then point out how much that completely wrecks prepared spell casting and that the game expects smart and wise characters to play like smart and wise people that don't just jump recklessly and unknowingly into the dangers ahead.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my recent campaign that ran from 1-17, skipping a few levels here and there, the casters felt pretty powerful, and while they grew to really like buffing and healing, their blasting presence stayed very significant pretty much the whole time. Fireballs, Eclipse Burst, Elemental Toss, and others were a consistent feature of our encounters.
They even felt fine during encounters against the higher level creatures people usually cite them as having problems with, and while we agreed on paper that spell attack rolls were an issue, they were actually used fairly well by our sorcerer at certain moments (I still think a metamagic with the same effect as true strike is the right move to enable more dedicated spell attack builds.)
|
|
...If you are a GM and you hate casting accuracy, fix it having them face lower level monsters in greater numbers, it will make them feel more powerful anyway.
But please recognize that their accuracy against saving throws is pretty strong if you get good at the minigame of learning spell saves to target, better than martials with their item bonuses against AC, almost across the board. AND you have access to a lot of great spells for doing something useful on a successful save. Boosting caster spell save DCs is a fast track towards unbalancing the game towards "casters rule everything around me," or C.R.E.A.M in the parlance of the Wu Tang Clan.
Lowering enemies' levels helps martials as much as casters, so that doesn't address martial/caster disparity. Unfortunately, there are no spells with attack rolls that target anything but AC, and those spells have no effect on a failure (unlike spells that targets saves, which is why Electric Arc is the best cantrip).
The problem with casters' spell attack rolls is that it requires spending scarce resources and multiple actions but has less accuracy than a martial's Strike. A simple solution is an item that increases spell attack rolls but not spell DCs. That would make spell attack rolls as good as spells that require a save, but it would not make casters better than martials, as you fear.
I would prefer that Vancian casting be ejected altogether, but that is not feasible to implement short of an edition change and OT in any case.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Frankly, any game without a fighter has happy casters. The stack up really well against rangers and rogues and monks and champions and all that so far in our games. It's just the fighter that's so much more effective than any other class that's making casters (or rogues and rangers and champions and monks and so on) feel like they aren't contributing well.I did want to say I do feel the game is completely different when our player switched from a Ranger to a Fighter. Fighter's hit chance / crit rates make everyone feel indirectly worse imo.
Of course if someone compared classes damage in combat Fighter might not always be on top but it sure does feel that way when I see one in PFS and our campaign.
It might just be because they are so easy to build though, you can pretty much take any feats since +2 attack and attack of opportunity are amazing.
I pretty much have just played casters in PFS and overall have felt most classes felt good. When a Fighter joins things just feel so different.
That's why the Wizard School Specialists should have their proficiency in their school bumped to Expert. So, an Evoker, for example, would be Expert at all Evocation spells, and Trained in the rest. This mirrors how Fighters specialize in 1 weapon type, and become better with it.
That's why the Wizard School Specialists should have their proficiency in their school bumped to Expert. So, an Evoker, for example, would be Expert at all Evocation spells, and Trained in the rest. This mirrors how Fighters specialize in 1 weapon type, and become better with it.
Wouldn't that just make the problem worse. I have to be honest if a Wizard was one step above all casters I am pretty sure everyone would just play a Wizard for an offensive spellcaster.
Fighter "kind of" works because every other martial has "something" that makes them better than Fighters while attacking like Rage/Hunt Prey etc.
Like I said I am not sure if Fighters are actually the strongest but they can 100% feel that way when you as a player a whiffing your attacks and the Fighter just wallops them with crits/hits.
Spell casters just don't have the oomph from being a spellcaster class like martials. For the most part a Wizard cast a Fireball just like a Sorcerer with a few exceptions. Nothing like Rage/Hunt Prey though.
I do hope Secrets of magic they add some sort of cool spell specializing, doesn't have to be raw numbers but I 100% want to make characters specialize in schools and have some sort of advantage. Wizards get a very small advantage.
Its in the spell lists. Which is the main factor people seem to ignore in these discussions. Higher level spells are very much more powerful.
Wizards have the best spell list.
Clerics get extra free Heals
Wizards and Clerics have crappy class feats, crappy focus powers and Vancian casting
Bards, Sorcerers and Druids have good class feats and focus powers.
Wizards and Witches get INT for better knowledge skills
Bards and Sorcerers get CHA for better combat and social skills
Druids and Clerics get WIS which doubles for important skills like perception and frees up their 4th ability score to do with as they please.
Honestly Wizards have their place but are not the best. Play an arcane Sorcerer instead.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its in the spell lists. Which is the main factor people seem to ignore in these discussions. Higher level spells are very much more powerful.
Wizards have the best spell list.
Why is Arcane the best list? Occult gets Synesthesia, Visions of Danger and Soothe. What's so great about Arcane? I still haven't seen what justifies their lack of healing (balance-wise), even disregarding the fact that Occult seems to get the best unique spells and Occult Sorcerers can dip in the Arcane list to get the best spell of that level if they really want to.
Also Arcane prepared casters have to actually go out and learn their spells (gets real expensive real quick, and you probably need to spend class/skill feats on making the checks more consistent) unlike all the other Prepared casters who just have access to most of it every morning.
I'd certainly take Occult over Arcane on a Wizard if I could, and Primal would be pretty close.
Oh I feel all the spell list are great which is a good thing. Divine I havent looked much into but man Primal/Arcane/Occult have so many spells that look good I can never decide!
There was a super long discussion about Wizards awhile back. I am definitely not a huge fan of them in general but you have to admit their thesis have some great potential at higher levels. Low levels are a different story.
Spell blending and spell substitution are just great at higher levels! Their focus spells are ok... but definitely not as fun as others imo.
Personally I definitely feel they lack the "fun factor" of other classes to me.
Pretty much every class has super fun features to mess with. While Wizards just dont appeal to me. Also I 100% like Cha over Int.
I do admit that an illusionist Wizard seems super fun though. Their focus spell is fun and they get access to some fun sneaky metamagic!
Other than that I will go with Witch because they have so many fun features and feats.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder how much of the spells-per-day design came from market research. I think a lot of tables see way less combat than designers sometimes expect. I know 5e's expected combats per day is generally derided as way too high.
Frankly, how much combat in a given day to expect or prepare is one of the weirder gaps in PF2's GM advice. Personally, more than three combat situations in one in-game day to me says they are fighting for their very lives and things are dire.
I think you're on to something here. A lot of campaigns I've played would be on a weekday, the productive part of a session when everyone's focused on the game is about 3 hours in which you'll have some plots, several days of traveling around, and maybe 1-2 combats which might not even happen on the same day.
Its in the spell lists. Which is the main factor people seem to ignore in these discussions. Higher level spells are very much more powerful.
Wizards have the best spell list.
Why is Arcane the best list? Occult gets Synesthesia, Visions of Danger and Soothe. What's so great about Arcane? I still haven't seen what justifies their lack of healing (balance-wise), even disregarding the fact that Occult seems to get the best unique spells and Occult Sorcerers can dip in the Arcane list to get the best spell of that level if they really want to.
Also Arcane prepared casters have to actually go out and learn their spells (gets real expensive real quick, and you probably need to spend class/skill feats on making the checks more consistent) unlike all the other Prepared casters who just have access to most of it every morning.
I'd certainly take Occult over Arcane on a Wizard if I could, and Primal would be pretty close.
The arcane list is significantly larger in size. Has more metamagic aka contigency, a full range of elemental options like Electric Arc/Chain Lightning (not just force/necromatic/mental), more area of affect options, more wall options, polymorphs.
Yes Occult is second. It does seem like a selection of good Arcane spells has been deliberately poached into the Occult list.
Missing out on healing is not such a big deal. There are plently of non spell slot ways of covering healing. A healer cleric is still very useful. So well Soothe is useful for Occult casters its not really major.
In my opinion:
1st
- Feather Fall ( life saver, especially given how stuff like bottomless pits now work ).
- Jump ( Can be used like a mini teleport by lvl 3 )
- Longstrider ( +10 feet speed )...
Slightly off topic, but is anyone else grabbing Trick Magic item and buying Wands of Longstrider 2nd for +10 foot speed on most higher level characters? Seems weird that a bit of gold can replace a class feat like Barbarians Fast Movement. Maybe the Class feats/features that give movement speed shouldn't have been Status bonuses to begin with.
I still think Occult is the better list in terms of actually contributing in encounters, but I think it will come down to personal preference in the end.
I'm surprised you didn't list Wall of Stone in the 5th level Arcane/Primal spells, I think it is actually superior to the 6th level Wall of Force, due to being able to shape it and each square only being removed when Destroyed rather than when Broken. Also, gotta have Gust of Wind in the best of 1st level for the Save or Die vs. flying creatures (well... not quite due to Arrest a Fall, but maybe if they're out of reactions...)
Paizo seem a bit inconsistent about adding that "Falls safely to the ground" text to the anti-flying abilities.
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
These threads tend to go around in circles.
The problem lies in several places:
1) There is nothing exclusively good about the Wizard chassis.
People mention spell lists, but Wizards aren't the only ones with access to it.
People mention spell slots, but Wizards aren't the only 4 slot casters.
People mention the value of prepared casters, but Wizards aren't the only prepared casters.
On and on.
The Wizards chassis doesn't give it a defined place in any particular table, everything from its core can be achieved elsewhere. From a top down design perspective, this seems pretty bad.
It's been said in a lot of threads, but the Wizard doesn't ever really get to execute on its class concept. You never to get really feel like a master of magic, nor does the class do anything sciencey at all. Wizards don't even have the most metamagic feats, or do anything exclusively interesting with them. Yes, it has its own metamagic feats, but so does every other caster.
2) The Wizard has unique penalties/limitations built into it with no pay off.
Wizards have the worst weapon profs, even among other casters, for a pointless feat tax. Wizards have the lowest number of starting skills, even when taken against the Witch, who is also an Int-based prepared caster. Wizards have some of the fewest and worst focus spells, among classes who get them.
There isn't really enough "oomph" in the rest of the chassis to explain these unique limitations.
3) Strong class options which apparently "explain" the classes weakness are high-level gated.
Things like scroll savant, clever counterspell, infinite possibilities, metamagic mastery (just to name things called out in this thread), are all 10th level+.
Some Thesis options, like Staff Nexus, don't even really do anything until 8th. Most of the actually good focus spells are gated to after 8th as well. The class lacks the refocusing feats of other classes, so it's hard to even lean-in to those worthwhile focus spells they do get.
There is just a lot of weak levels to push through, but the payoff for that push through isn't any stronger than other classes. It's not like PF1 where Wizards snowball the higher level they get. In PF2 they match the same power as other casters and tend to stay there.
4) The Sorcerer simply has too much Wizard in it.
This is a bit of a re-hash from point 1, but the Sorcerer is somewhat of outlier in just how much it takes away from the Wizards whole shtick.
I'm not just talking about Arcane Evolution either. The two classes share a lot of overlap, but the sorcerer gets additional stuff on-top of the Wizard features, both in terms of class concept and execution on that concept.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
These threads tend to go around in circles.
The problem lies in several places:
1) There is nothing exclusively good about the Wizard chassis.
...
2) The Wizard has unique penalties/limitations built into it with no pay off.
...
3) Strong class options which apparently "explain" the classes weakness are high-level gated.
...
Just want to +1 on all of these, including the explanations.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorcerer ( 1 extra slot per level, tied to its bloodline ).
I'm not sure what you mean by this. The Sorcerers 4th spell slot is agnostic of your bloodline and you aren't limited to only casting bloodline spells, it just an extra spell slot.
Contrast this with the 4th slot granted to Wizard specialist school, which actually limited to a specific type of spell.
I wasn't even counting the cleric's healing font in this because it is exclusively those two spells.
The Sorcerer has no possibility to learn all spells, so it will be tied to 37 out of 300, more or less (depends its tradition ), of the available spells
That's just not true man. What a Sorcerer is limited in is their ability to change out their spells easily, as is the trade off of being spontaneous vs prepared caster.
Additionally, you keep a book of arcane spells similar to a wizard’s spellbook. You add all the spells in your spell repertoire to this book for free, and you can add additional arcane spells to the book by paying the appropriate cost and using your Arcana skill, similarly to how a wizard can Learn Spells to add those spells to his spellbook.
An arcane Sorcerer has just as much access to spells as a Wizard does. It's true that this locks to the Sorcerer into being an arcane caster, but the Wizard is only ever an arcane caster, so its pretty good for comparison.
***The wizard will have a choice among its arcane school or, if universalist, the possibility to get back "any spell" he had prepared, one for each level he can cast.***
I'm honestly sorry, I'm quite sure what point you are trying to make here.
Don't forget that the Universalist doesn't come with an extra slot as standard. The arcane bond of the the Univeralist is its functional equivalent to an extra slot, it's not in addition to.
Much like Arcane Evolution injects some preparedness into the sorcerer, Arcane Bond injects a little bit of spontaneousness into the Wizard (though in a more limited way)
-Sorcerer ( 1 extra slot per level, tied to its bloodline ).
Small correction, but unless I'm missing something it's the spells known that are tied to bloodline, the four spell slots per level they get can be used to cast any spell the Sorcerer knows.
These threads tend to go around in circles.
The problem lies in several places:
1) There is nothing exclusively good about the Wizard chassis.
The Wizards chassis doesn't give it a defined place in any particular table, everything from its core can be achieved elsewhere. From a top down design perspective, this seems pretty bad.
It's been said in a lot of threads, but the Wizard doesn't ever really get to execute on its class concept. You never to get really feel like a master of magic, nor does the class do anything sciencey at all. Wizards don't even have the most metamagic feats, or do anything exclusively interesting with them. Yes, it has its own metamagic feats, but so does every other caster.
2) The Wizard has unique penalties/limitations built into it with no pay off.
....
3) Strong class options which apparently "explain" the classes weakness are high-level gated.
Yep a very strong option at levl19+ is a curiosity I sort of expect an over the top game at that level.
4) The Sorcerer simply has too much Wizard in it.
No argument from me. There are very few things that the wizard has that no one else does, and they are very minor. If I wanted to roleplay a Wizard I'd make an Imperial Sorcerer with Arcane Evolution and Crossblooded Evolution and fake it. Zero chance I'd acutally play a Wizard.
Well, this discussion once again focuses on the Wizard.
I think it's perfectly fine to have one or 2 caster classes that are subpar when there are 7 of them available...
Perfect balance is hard to achieve.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, this discussion once again focuses on the Wizard. I think it's perfectly fine to have one or 2 caster classes that are subpar when there are 7 of them available...
Perfect balance is hard to achieve.
While I am not under the impression that PF2 features a large array of weak casters, I will again point out that from what I have seen the meta shift in between PF1 and PF2 (level difference based target numbers and 4 levels of success) seems to really favour spontaneus casters as those are the ones that can usually throw frack against the wall until some of it sticks.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, this discussion once again focuses on the Wizard.
The whole thread is about caster issues, however, due to the design of the Wizard, caster related issues really tend to pile up on it. It's why these things always tend down to the weakest class in the option.
Every thread about martials in the 3.x tended towards discussions about Fighters for the same reason.
I think it's perfectly fine to have one or 2 caster classes that are subpar when there are 7 of them available...
Perfect balance is hard to achieve.
I empathetically don't agree.
NOTHING has to be subpar. Nothing at all. It doesn't have to happen. Everything can good, as long as they are good in their own way and have their own domains of expertise. Having classes, especially core classes, that fail in this regard highlights core design issues with the game.
There will be always overlap in a lot of areas, but as long as each class has a distinct and solid "what I bring to the table", then everything can be good from a systematic stand point.
#UnchainCasters
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, this discussion once again focuses on the Wizard.
I think it's perfectly fine to have one or 2 caster classes that are subpar when there are 7 of them available...
Perfect balance is hard to achieve.
I don't agree with the premise here (that having one of the Core classes be subpar/unsatisfying is okay), but even if I did, I think the Wizard is used as the prime example because it extrapolates the problems spellcasters have. Wizard is a caster in its purest form, with barely anything else it knows how to do, so there are less clouds blocking the vision of all the issues spellcasting has.
Prepared casting being clunky as hell is something that about half the casters have to deal with. An extremely low amount of resources early; low level spells being mostly bad or unimpressive with a couple few exceptions like Heal, Magic Weapon and Hideous Laughter; spell success rates being kinda bad because they forced themselves to balance them around critical failures instantly ending a fight; weird, gappy proficiencies when compared to martials; etc. are issues all casters have to deal with to varying degrees.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I am not under the impression that PF2 features a large array of weak casters, I will again point out that from what I have seen the meta shift in between PF1 and PF2 (level difference based target numbers and 4 levels of success) seems to really favour spontaneus casters as those are the ones that can usually throw frack against the wall until some of it sticks.
There are a few things to take into consideration:
- Spontaneous is better than prepared in a vacuum. If you absolutely don't know what you will face, then it's better to be able to choose your spell at the last moment than to try to guess with no information.- The more spells in the game the stronger prepared casters get while spontaneous casters will see a slower improvement. It's because prepared casters have a larger spell list to choose from, but you need enough good spells to have an interesting spell list otherwise it's just better to know all the good ones. In my opinion, there were not enough good spells in the core rulebook for prepared casters to get anything out of their preparation.
- Sorcerer gets less class features than Wizard. So, the game already acknowledges that spontaneous is better than prepared.
So I agree with you but it doesn't mean that Wizard has to be weak. In my opinion, the main question with Wizard specifically is "Does your GM give you enough intel to get something out of your ability to prepare spells?". It's often not the case (PFS is a perfect example where Wizards get nothing out of their ability to prepare spells as you have extremely limited ways to get some intel before preparing your spell list). But if your GM really gives you intel about what you'll face, then a Wizard can be extremely playable.
I also expect Secrets of Magic to increase caster's power by the sole addition of spells. And prepared casters will get more gain than spontaneous ones.
I empathetically don't agree.
NOTHING has to be subpar. Nothing at all. It doesn't have to happen. Everything can good, as long as they are good in their own way and have their own domains of expertise. Having classes, especially core classes, that fail in this regard highlights core design issues with the game.
There will be always overlap in a lot of areas, but as long as each class has a distinct and solid "what I bring to the table", then everything can be good from a systematic stand point.
#UnchainCasters
Maybe my choice of word was inadequate. I don't mean unplayable or useless. I just mean weaker than other classes.
There are many people having fun with wizards, so it seems the class is not completely broken. The gap of power between a Wizard and a Sorcerer is not tremendous.|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Spontaneous casters are better than prepared casters when the prepared casters don't know what to prepare for.
Gosh.
When my cleric went to do battle with the giants, he packed some extra lightning bolts, guessing they might be worse at Reflex than Fortitude. Normally I don't really like lightning bolt because it's often hard to place without frying my teammates who have this weird habit of being in between me and enemies. But if I can angle the thing over their heads maybe, it'll work out. Yeah, it did, as did the blade barrier when I left 5ft gaps that my party could use to maneuver around it but that were too small for the giants to safely cross.
I think that's part of why the arcane list is considered a strong spell list: it's more evenly spread across saving throw types. The divine spell list leans heavily on Fortitude saves with few Reflex saves, but also fewer Will saves than you'd expect. I suspect (but haven't analyzed) that Occult leans heavily on Will, and Primal probably leans a bit towards Reflex. But Arcane has something fun for every kind of monster.
So yeah, wizards are best placed to use information for specialized preparations, if you have that information. When you don't, the sorcerer's one size fits all spontaneous casting is easily superior.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe my choice of word was inadequate. I don't mean unplayable or useless. I just mean weaker than other classes.
There are many people having fun with wizards, so it seems the class is not completely broken. The gap of power between a Wizard and a Sorcerer is not tremendous.
I didn't think you did. I took you at your word, "subpar".
The "par" of classes doesn't simply sit at "mechanically functional". This sort of reasoning crops up in these threads from time to time and it's expressly not what I'm talking about.
Mechanical functionality is the absolute bare minimum expectation of the class to exist. That's not relevant to the discussion of par or subpar.
I do expressly mean weaker classes. They don't need to exist. At all.
It can and obviously does happen, but it's a failing of the game and it's design when it occurs. And failures can be corrected.
So yeah, wizards are best placed to use information for specialized preparations, if you have that information.
This argument was better prior to the existence of the Witch, who steals this thunder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It can and obviously does happen, but it's a failing of the game and it's design when it occurs. And failures can be corrected.
I can't say you're wrong. I just think it's very hard when you have so many variables. And when I see the number of balance patches on video games, it seems like a never ending fight.
So yeah, wizards are best placed to use information for specialized preparations, if you have that information.This argument was better prior to the existence of the Witch, who steals this thunder.
It's funny, because I consider the Witch the worst caster right now. It has nice focus spells, but it loses so much on the spell part that it doesn't compare to the Wizard in my opinion.
The Witch is the class with no schtick for me. The Wizard's schtick being more high level spells (I think it's a nice schtick, others don't).|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't really come to firm conclusions about the witch yet. We have a divine witch in our Edgewatch game. In theory Stoke the Heart looks nice but spending actions every round sustaining spells is quite a ball and chain. But those sustained hexes are a pretty big part of your chassis..
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I consider Witch to be the worst caster in the game atm. Worse than Wizard by a long shot imo.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
These threads tend to go around in circles.
The problem lies in several places:
1) There is nothing exclusively good about the Wizard chassis.
The Wizards chassis doesn't give it a defined place in any particular table, everything from its core can be achieved elsewhere.
I think this just isn't true. Normally when I look at classes I look at their base features and Wizard does get some unique features. Also I would say all classes don't exactly have define places in PF2 since the classes are built to be played however you want.
Their special "base features are"
-Extra Spell Slots
-Arcane Thesis (Super unique except for familiar master, which was unique before APG)
-I don't want to go super into detail but they are all quite
unique.
-Unique Focus Spells (They are unique just feel kind of weak to me, there are plenty of other weak focus spells in the game too)
I also wanted to say they were more unique before the APG, Witch steps over their toes now.
So yes they definitely have some unique features. If a player likes those things well a Wizard would be a great for them. Generally when comparing classes I just look at their base features first.
Then of course feats do matter but those are so subjective because everyone values different things. Also I love to mix and max archetypes so much that I sometimes barely use class feats.
I am definitely not saying they are super strong or anything but there are definitely merits to picking them. Truthfully though Wizard never appeals to me in PF1/5e/PF2, they have always been the generic character "good at spells". I always much prefer the specialized Sorcerer type of character. Some people like the basic Wizard flavor though.
The Wizard has unique penalties/limitations built into it with no pay off.
I admit I really dislike how limited the poor Wizard gets for weapons. It just really pushes them in "pure caster" territory.
Overall I 100% love the Sorcerer over the Wizard for lots of reasons. In general I have had fun as every caster I played with from level 1-X, which is what the thread is about.
I did state Wizard at a base level seems the worse at low levels though which is kind of sad. Things like spell blending/spell substitution barely do anything until 5+.
I consider Witch to be the worst caster in the game atm. Worse than Wizard by a long shot imo.
Overall I feel all casters are great and there are definitely certain subclasses I dislike though. With feats/archetypes I feel every caster can shine great though!
Witch definitely wins for flavor for me, from a pure power perspective I understand Wizard might be just as good though. Hexes and familiars are just so fun.
I am planning on making a familiar/healer character that carries around potions and heals players. Can't decide on Witch/Wizard/Druid.
Witch you get hex cantrip + any choice of spell list
Wizard you get a focus spell + 1 extra spell slot + arcane spell list
Druid you get goodberry + better life/proficiency + primal spells - a worse familiar.
They all have their pros and cons, that is what I love about PF2 though. There are just so many ways to make a character!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have actually found playing a wizard in Society is incredibly rewarding. Scenarios very typically take place over the course of days and often encourage gathering information over pressing ahead immediately. Also, prepared casters can teach and learn spells from spontaneous casters, and in games where there is more than one caster, it is really easy to end up learning a new spell or two just for the minimal cost of materials.
The biggest problem that wizards face in PF2 is GMs that are scared of what wizards have done to their games in past editions of the game and preemptively assume that the wizard will break their game if they give them even an ounce of leeway in learning what dangers lurk ahead and how to prepare for them.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
A +1 rune item at level 5 and a +2 rune item at level 13 to spell attack rolls and spell save dcs would probably be enough to appease all of us who think that casters need a little love without utterly terrifying people who consider them just fine. Seems like a half measure. The perfect solution for everyone
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In comparing wizards to sorcerers, I think it's also important to look at which skills they have and what abilities they use.
For example, a sorcerer with an arcane tradition gets Arcana but isn't particularly talented at it because it's unusual for a sorcerer to really invest in Intelligence.
For the most part though, neither is particularly better at skills, but they're going for different skills. And if those skills are part of what you had in mind for your character, then the one class or the other may complement it better.
So if you wanted to play a smart knowledgeable arcane scholar, sorcerer isn't really wonderful for it, and wizard does it nicer. If you were more interested in the social skills, sorcerer's the one for you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A +1 rune item at level 5 and a +2 rune item at level 13 to spell attack rolls and spell save dcs would probably be enough to appease all of us who think that casters need a little love without utterly terrifying people who consider them just fine. Seems like a half measure. The perfect solution for everyone
Personally as someone who mostly plays casters I wouldn't quit if a table really wanted to homebrew them to be better. Giving them that sort of bonus puts them dangerously close to overshadowing martials. On the reverse end I feel a martial player might get upset since this makes them indirectly contribute less.
One thing is for certain you NEVER want cantrips to come close to Martial on demand damage. Electric Arc comes a bit close. After playing 5e/PF1 I think it is safe to say balance really isn't a huge factor for players to have fun though.
I was the only one that played a caster in Extinction Curse from level 1-4 (Druid) 5-9 (Bard) and I can say for certain I always felt super powerful. There was an awkward level at 5-6 where telekinetic projectile felt bad but that was about it.
I have zero experience with other players playing casters other than in PFS I never heard anyone complain then again no one in PFS really complains about much :)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A +1 to save DCs on AoE blasting spells is going to have a big impact on the game overall.
I agree that it is not going to have a game shattering impact, but it won't be a universally good one either. As a homebrew item, I think GMs are fine to provide these kind of items as very special (rare) rewards for their players, although I would only ever consider allowing it to affect 1 target. The game doesn't need them though for caster to be played at a perfectly high level of play. And it is much better to be something held in reserve to give to players who are clearly struggling with their casters and not getting support from their allies.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just keep circling back to both my AoA campaign (containing a wizard player) and a friend's homebrew campaign (containing a sorcerer). The fighters, rangers, and rogues were all wide eyes and smiles while the wizard and sorcerer players had slumped looks of disappointed resignation after multiple turns of subpar results on limited resources. The dm in me screamed in empathy and I justed wanted the feels of play to be equitable. Martials have unlimited attacks while casters need both tactical PARTY play AND thoughtful deduction of monster vulnerabilities to get favorable results on their limited resource. It just seems a little lop sided to me when half of the classes can be best enjoyed by anyone while the other half is best enjoyed by dedicated war gamers. It just seems like a big ask. An overall +2 would go a long way in addressing these issues in a game with such tight math. Just make them extremely rare items subject to dm fiat (I realize it's easily homebrewed on a table to table basis. I just kinda want it codified). I can honest take or leave caster buffs as a player (simply accepting the design philosophy of the edition and having fun regardless) but as a dm I strongly, strongly hate seeing people not having fun
|
|
That's why the Wizard School Specialists should have their proficiency in their school bumped to Expert. So, an Evoker, for example, would be Expert at all Evocation spells, and Trained in the rest. This mirrors how Fighters specialize in 1 weapon type, and become better with it.Wouldn't that just make the problem worse. I have to be honest if a Wizard was one step above all casters I am pretty sure everyone would just play a Wizard for an offensive spellcaster.
Fighter "kind of" works because every other martial has "something" that makes them better than Fighters while attacking like Rage/Hunt Prey etc.
Like I said I am not sure if Fighters are actually the strongest but they can 100% feel that way when you as a player a whiffing your attacks and the Fighter just wallops them with crits/hits.
Spell casters just don't have the oomph from being a spellcaster class like martials. For the most part a Wizard cast a Fireball just like a Sorcerer with a few exceptions. Nothing like Rage/Hunt Prey though.
I do hope Secrets of magic they add some sort of cool spell specializing, doesn't have to be raw numbers but I 100% want to make characters specialize in schools and have some sort of advantage. Wizards get a very small advantage.
They only get Expert in their 1 school, being only Trained in the other schools. (If you wanted to limit school specialists even further, say that they are also unable to cast any spells at all from 1 school of their choice). They only eventually gain Legendary in their 1 school, the others only reaching Master at the highest. The only Wizard that eventually gains Legendary in all the schools is the Universalist. So if you enjoy the "start weaker but eventually become a legend" style of Wizards, then choose the Universalist. With the Specialist school Expert bump, they gain an extra feat at the point that the Universalists gain Legendary (thus reversing the trade off paid for upfront by Universalists of getting +1 feat in exchange for not specializing).
By contrast, the Fighter starts at Expert in all Simple, Martial, and Unarmed attacks, so why would you play any other class if you wanted to attack with weapons? (or even Unarmed... Monks are only Trained in Unarmed attacks!) At 5th level they advance to Master with 1 weapon of their choice... FAR earlier than even other martial classes, who need to wait till 13th level to become Masters (at which point the Fighter gains Legendary in his chosen weapon group)!
I'm just saying that it's very easy to create a Wizard with a special, unique ability, really emphasizing their magical power. I don't know why they didn't do it, when they created Fighters with different proficiency levels depending upon the weapon they are using, and they felt they were able to balance that with Barbarian Rage, Paladin Focus Spells and armor prof, etc. So, buff the other casters a little bit if needed, but just like Fighters are the "weapon masters", Wizards should be the "arcane magic masters." Druids have their wild shape, Clerics get their Healing/Harming fonts, Bards get their Focus cantrips, etc. to balance it all out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In comparing wizards to sorcerers, I think it's also important to look at which skills they have and what abilities they use.
For example, a sorcerer with an arcane tradition gets Arcana but isn't particularly talented at it because it's unusual for a sorcerer to really invest in Intelligence.
For the most part though, neither is particularly better at skills, but they're going for different skills. And if those skills are part of what you had in mind for your character, then the one class or the other may complement it better.
So if you wanted to play a smart knowledgeable arcane scholar, sorcerer isn't really wonderful for it, and wizard does it nicer. If you were more interested in the social skills, sorcerer's the one for you.
Yes but you are missing the point that in this game called PF2 social skills are combat skills. Feint, Demoralize, Bon Mot, Evangelize. Sure Recall Knowledge has its place. But how important is it really? Excuse me but I don't think its close.
Looks Wizards work I'm Ok with that. It is just that Sorcerers are a bit better and more fun, and they actually get good powers as they go up levels.