Poll: Are wizards in pf2 balanced or underpowered?

[Old_Man_Robot]

I've long held that Wizards needed an extra mechanic to make them standout. Something that dove into their knowledge aspect, which is utterly lacking in this edition.

Pretty sure I say this in every thread about Wizards, but they very poorly execute on their class concept and have very little in the way that makes them an Intelligence/Knowledge class other than just spellcasting. In fact, Wizards are prehaps one of the worst classes for Recall Knowledge in the game due to their literal 0 support for it and by having the least amount of trained skills by default. Sure they have a natural alignment of stat to skill use, but the numeric difference between them and classes that care about Recall knowledge is pretty much nil, except those classes often have additional mechanics on top that actuall use knowledge in some way.

They also don't really standout when it comes to spellcasting. The Sorcerer ate too much of the Wizards design-space lunch in PF2, and, IMO should not have been a 4-slot caster but treated differently in terms of magic.

The complaints about blandness in both focus spells and feats is totally warranted as well.

The result being that yes, they are underpowered. They are an utterly functional class, but not really good at anything in particular. Making them somewhat underpowered by default.

They needed more design-love than they got.

[HumbleGamer]

Tristan d'Ambrosius wrote:

Balanced against what?

Alchemist ;)

I like the wizard, though I consider some schools not satisfying in terms of focus spells.

[Deriven Firelion]

Temperans wrote:

So the best option for a caster is not to do more casting... it's to go and attack like a martial. Think about that. The best option for a caster is to attack like a martial, when casters have literally worst scaling then martial.

Even in PF1 where attacking with a weapon was an actual potential strategy due to certain combination. The best option for a full caster was rarely ever "attack with a weapon".

So coming to a thread asking if the Wizard is "balanced". While some are saying, "it meh at best, it's very uninteresting". Your response is, "if you don't act like a caster you do much better" and "Wizard is good because its uninteresting". It just seems like you don't like Wizards/casters in the first place, which I doubt it's the case.

I did think about that. I thought of Gandalf, Bayaz, and many other wizards in books that could fight as well as cast.

The old D&D model of just casting has been replaced with a Gandalf or any of the many other wizards who can cast and fight. That idea that a caster only fights is an outdated notion tied mostly to D&D itself and video games which are based on D&D. In many books even powerful wizards can often take up a blade and throw down some.

I don't see any problem whatsoever with it. Any adventurer who goes out to seek combat and gain treasure should not be a one trick pony that when that trick is not working, they have nothing much else to do to survive.

[Deriven Firelion]

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

I've long held that Wizards needed an extra mechanic to make them standout. Something that dove into their knowledge aspect, which is utterly lacking in this edition.

Pretty sure I say this in every thread about Wizards, but they very poorly execute on their class concept and have very little in the way that makes them an Intelligence/Knowledge class other than just spellcasting. In fact, Wizards are prehaps one of the worst classes for Recall Knowledge in the game due to their literal 0 support for it and by having the least amount of trained skills by default. Sure they have a natural alignment of stat to skill use, but the numeric difference between them and classes that care about Recall knowledge is pretty much nil, except those classes often have additional mechanics on top that actuall use knowledge in some way.

They also don't really standout when it comes to spellcasting. The Sorcerer ate too much of the Wizards design-space lunch in PF2, and, IMO should not have been a 4-slot caster but treated differently in terms of magic.

The complaints about blandness in both focus spells and feats is totally warranted as well.

The result being that yes, they are underpowered. They are an utterly functional class, but not really good at anything in particular. Making them somewhat underpowered by default.

They needed more design-love than they got.

I don't think they're underpowered insofar as casting is very strong at higher level and wizard casting endurance is second to none. No one can keep on casting spells like a wizard if you build them even halfway right and add in Crafting for easy consumables.

But I agree they are pretty bland and intelligence based skills could use some cool skill feats or actions like Demoralize or Bon Mot. Even Religion recently received some very nice skill feat improvements that will make playing a cleric a little more fun, though they are pretty darn boring too.

[Temperans]

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Temperans wrote:

So the best option for a caster is not to do more casting... it's to go and attack like a martial. Think about that. The best option for a caster is to attack like a martial, when casters have literally worst scaling then martial.

Even in PF1 where attacking with a weapon was an actual potential strategy due to certain combination. The best option for a full caster was rarely ever "attack with a weapon".

So coming to a thread asking if the Wizard is "balanced". While some are saying, "it meh at best, it's very uninteresting". Your response is, "if you don't act like a caster you do much better" and "Wizard is good because its uninteresting". It just seems like you don't like Wizards/casters in the first place, which I doubt it's the case.

I did think about that. I thought of Gandalf, Bayaz, and many other wizards in books that could fight as well as cast.

The old D&D model of just casting has been replaced with a Gandalf or any of the many other wizards who can cast and fight. That idea that a caster only fights is an outdated notion tied mostly to D&D itself and video games which are based on D&D. In many books even powerful wizards can often take up a blade and throw down some.

I don't see any problem whatsoever with it. Any adventurer who goes out to seek combat and gain treasure should not be a one trick pony that when that trick is not working, they have nothing much else to do to survive.

Deriven, one thing is making it so a Wizard can attack with a weapon and not be horrible. Which is an archetype that I personally like. Another completely different thing is that a "Wizard" that focuses entirely on magic cannot function properly because they are focusing on magic.

Gandalf, was barely a Wizard since he is just a spirit, which makes it more noticeable when you notice most of his magic is considered low level by Pathfinder standards. While Bayaz is called out as a Magi, which is very much connected to physical attacks in Pathfinder.

But what about Zatanna, Dr. Strange, Enchantress, Jean Grey, etc. All of those are pure casters and some can barely fight if at all.

Not to mention that most "Wizards" that can fight in other novels/stories are justified in lore somehow, something that is not done in PF2. Not to mention that those novels should have 0 impact on what "Wizards" can do in Paizo's Golarion. Specially when this setting is already know for Wizards having incredibly strong magic; Although I guess now it's just meh magic. I still really wish they had given us some sort of explanation as to why magic is weaker at least then we could, "oh yes that's why Wizards are weak now". But we don't have that and are expected to believe that a PF2 Wizard with the "Runelord" Archetype is anywhere near the same as a Thasilonian Specialist Wizard: Which we all know are no where near the same, starting from the lack of prepared metamagic in PF2.

[Red Griffyn]

Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich wrote:

It is so heartening to see the posts in this thread. Having been a staunch defender during the 'wizards are terrible' threads a year or so back, it is awesome to see wizards being recognized for their strengths.

What we're not considering here is the potential pool of people who have stopped playing 2e because they don't like caster chassis, spell effects, spell duration, spell slot counts, high monster saves, recall knowledge issues for bad saves, etc. Otherwise the potential pool of people who stopped engaging in the community because these threads are typically quite hostile. It isn't difficult to imagine that if we keep sampling the existing population that the ratio of people happy with the system will increase as people leave or refuse to engage. I obviously don't have a quantifiable metric on how large that attrition is but I'd be careful in interpreting threads/polls like this. It may just be an exercise in confirmation bias.

[Temperans]

Red Griffyn wrote:

Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich wrote:

It is so heartening to see the posts in this thread. Having been a staunch defender during the 'wizards are terrible' threads a year or so back, it is awesome to see wizards being recognized for their strengths.

What we're not considering here is the potential pool of people who have stopped playing 2e because they don't like caster chassis, spell effects, spell duration, spell slot counts, high monster saves, recall knowledge issues for bad saves, etc. Otherwise the potential pool of people who stopped engaging in the community because these threads are typically quite hostile. It isn't difficult to imagine that if we keep sampling the existing population that the ratio of people happy with the system will increase as people leave or refuse to engage. I obviously don't have a quantifiable metric on how large that attrition is but I'd be careful in interpreting threads/polls like this. It may just be an exercise in confirmation bias.

It 100% is an exercise in that. Forum posters tend to self select on what they engage and you are more likely than not to find people who think similarly to you than not. Reddit might be the exception due to sheer amount of people engaged. But even then its debatable how accurate the poll is as a whole.

* P.S. People not being on the forum or interacting with a thread has a chance to affect both positive and negative responses. The matter of how much is affected is uncertain and would require it's own poll which might itself be biased. This is why polls and statistics are difficult to do.

[Old_Man_Robot]

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Iwizard casting endurance is second to none. No one can keep on casting spells like a wizard if you build them even halfway right and add in Crafting for easy consumables.

I’d dispute this.

Once again, the sorcerer ate the wizards lunch.

At base, without feats or class features, they are tied for slots.

Arcane bond grants the wizard a single additional spell per day at base, however this is often offset by sorcerer focus spells coming more often and with a higher in-play frequency. So the sorcerer slot dependance is lower than the wizards.

Even when we open it up to maximum white-room theory crafting, a Wizard using optimal cascade chains eventually still gets surpassed by a sorcerer and their bottomless 5th level spells.

[Temperans]

Not to mention that the fantasy of Wizards is not being able to cast more spells than everyone else. (They had one lowest max spells for a full caster in PF1). Their fantasy was being the best at casting spells and being the best at using prepared metamagic. Both things that that PF2 specifically did away with.

[SuperBidi]

Red Griffyn wrote:

Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich wrote:

It is so heartening to see the posts in this thread. Having been a staunch defender during the 'wizards are terrible' threads a year or so back, it is awesome to see wizards being recognized for their strengths.

What we're not considering here is the potential pool of people who have stopped playing 2e because they don't like caster chassis, spell effects, spell duration, spell slot counts, high monster saves, recall knowledge issues for bad saves, etc. Otherwise the potential pool of people who stopped engaging in the community because these threads are typically quite hostile. It isn't difficult to imagine that if we keep sampling the existing population that the ratio of people happy with the system will increase as people leave or refuse to engage. I obviously don't have a quantifiable metric on how large that attrition is but I'd be careful in interpreting threads/polls like this. It may just be an exercise in confirmation bias.

I've seen quite a few players who were against Wizards at launch switching to pro Wizards. Deriven is one of them.

Noone will never know the metrics, but there are still signs that the anti Wizards may have been to hard on it.

[Onkonk]

I do think wizards have nice features for certain playstyles, they have the most support for illusion magic, spell blending allows wizards to get more squeeze of playstyles that require top slots.

Though I think wizard suffers a bit from what most casters suffer from, lots of negligible feats that you aren't excited to pick.

[AlastarOG]

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Iwizard casting endurance is second to none. No one can keep on casting spells like a wizard if you build them even halfway right and add in Crafting for easy consumables.

I’d dispute this.

Once again, the sorcerer ate the wizards lunch.

At base, without feats or class features, they are tied for slots.

Arcane bond grants the wizard a single additional spell per day at base, however this is often offset by sorcerer focus spells coming more often and with a higher in-play frequency. So the sorcerer slot dependance is lower than the wizards.

Even when we open it up to maximum white-room theory crafting, a Wizard using optimal cascade chains eventually still gets surpassed by a sorcerer and their bottomless 5th level spells.

But the wizard, specially a spell blending wizard, has more spell slots of the highest level, than anyone else.

AKA the spells that really matter.

Not to mention having a repertoire that can change daily to account for expected situations.

As a wizard, I find the little "mini game" of constantly trying to guess what we're going to be up against in the future to be challenging and fun, as well as very rewarding when I pull it off properly!

[Old_Man_Robot]

AlastarOG wrote:

AKA the spells that really matter.

I’ve never found this to be explicitly true in PF2. Higher level spells tend to have more scope but a well picked low level spell can be just as effective.

That said, spell blending runs directly counter to the “Endurance” idea of the above, where you are directly trading staying power for potentially better scope. It’s something I’ve never personally been a fan of, but I’ve also never really played with the notion of 15-minute-adventuring days either, which really lends itself to the option.

It’s all very marginal at best.

[SuperBidi]

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

That said, spell blending runs directly counter to the “Endurance” idea of the above, where you are directly trading staying power for potentially better scope. It’s something I’ve never personally been a fan of, but I’ve also never really played with the notion of 15-minute-adventuring days either, which really lends itself to the option.

Quite the opposite, Spell Blending is the Endurance choice for a Wizard. If you expect long adventuring days, it's the only Thesis that can last that long.

Lower level spells are not very important. If you need dozens of them, you can just buy scrolls/wands, they are so cheap you can basically ignore their price. What matters are the 2 highest levels.

[AlastarOG]

And a lot of higher level spells do the same thing as the lower level ones but better.

Basically you use low level spells effectively in order to conserve resources when you're a sorcerer or bard. When you're a spell blending wizard you don't really need to conserve spell slots as much, so it balances.

This is a creeping process, in agents of edgewatch during an extreme encounter, I had to remind my level 17 bard player that he should probably use more than cantrips during the encounter, the player was so dead set on resource conservation because of the low spell slots that he tunnel visiones himself out of those options.

[Old_Man_Robot]

SuperBidi wrote:

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

That said, spell blending runs directly counter to the “Endurance” idea of the above, where you are directly trading staying power for potentially better scope. It’s something I’ve never personally been a fan of, but I’ve also never really played with the notion of 15-minute-adventuring days either, which really lends itself to the option.

Quite the opposite, Spell Blending is the Endurance choice for a Wizard. If you expect long adventuring days, it's the only Thesis that can last that long.

Lower level spells are not very important. If you need dozens of them, you can just buy scrolls/wands, they are so cheap you can basically ignore their price. What matters are the 2 highest levels.

Sometimes I just feel like I'm playing a different game from you.

There are tons of lower level spells that retain their power at higher levels. Being able to fall back on them is honestly the thing makes the Wizard worth playing. Setting up combos with lower level spells is the most fun and dynamic part of being a caster for me.

The idea that it all comes down to like 6-8 spells per day boggles my mind.

[AlastarOG]

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

SuperBidi wrote:

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

That said, spell blending runs directly counter to the “Endurance” idea of the above, where you are directly trading staying power for potentially better scope. It’s something I’ve never personally been a fan of, but I’ve also never really played with the notion of 15-minute-adventuring days either, which really lends itself to the option.

Quite the opposite, Spell Blending is the Endurance choice for a Wizard. If you expect long adventuring days, it's the only Thesis that can last that long.

Lower level spells are not very important. If you need dozens of them, you can just buy scrolls/wands, they are so cheap you can basically ignore their price. What matters are the 2 highest levels.

Sometimes I just feel like I'm playing a different game from you.

There are tons of lower level spells that retain their power at higher levels. Being able to fall back on them is honestly the thing makes the Wizard worth playing. Setting up combos with lower level spells is the most fun and dynamic part of being a caster for me.

The idea that it all comes down to like 6-8 spells per day boggles my mind.

Well if you consider, say, a level 12 wizard, with spell blending they can have 5 spell slots per day of levels 4-5-6 as well as their drain bonded item power, 2 focus points, and up to 7 cantrips.

That's more than enough spells to last most adventuring days.

Then they only have 2 spell slots of level 2-3 and 1 spell slot of level 1 (traded for more cantrips). So they nab true strike, enlarge, false life, longstrider, mirror image haste and the such in the lower level slots and stack the strong hitting damage and control spells in the upper slot. It works pretty well.

Of course I'm more of a substitution and/or staff nexus man myself as Im experienced enough to properly leverage versatility into power, but for raw output it's really hard to discard the spell blending wizard.

[AlastarOG]

As for the comment on secret of magic, well we now have wizards that can spell blend their higher level spell slots into 5 slots per day (4 on odd levels) with flexible spellcasting to have just as much flexibility (even more actually since all spells are signature spells) than sorcerers and be able to change their entire repertoire per day, constantly.

I'd go so far as to say that spell blending flexible spellcasting wizard is a better sorcerer than the sorcerer.

[AlastarOG]

Also Re: focus spells and secrets of magic.

The elementalist archetype opened up the path for some VERY powerful focus spells for the wizard.

If ever you thought that elemental tempest and force bolt lacked flavor and power, well just roll yourself a pyromancer and rock charred ground and combustion instead !

[Unicore]

I have played o3 different wizards now and enjoyed the nuanced differences between them. Mostly at lower levels, 1 to 6, the levels they supposedly struggle. I have a conjurer, a necromancer, and an illusionist. I have to say I use the focus powers of the necromancer and illusionist the most. But the focus power of the conjurer has been huge in 2 out of 10 encounters I have played with them.

The necromancer, level 5 is an in your face melee wizard with a lot of survivability, but is not the party tank. He draws attacks for the champion to do their thing and has tons of Temp HP and ways of replenishing HP while still debuffing and doing damage.

All my wizards are fun for me and I get a lot of basic use out of the lower level feats that keep getting written off. Maybe, maybe the wizard should have kept their level 1 class feat, but honestly, I don’t think doing so would have changed anyone’s opinion of them one way or another

[Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich]

Proficiency-wise, wizards are below the curve. In-combat contribution, they are right up there. Out-of-combat contribution, they can be the best.

In order to maximize wizards, a higher system proficiency is necessary. I'm very okay with that.

[RPGnoremac]

In general I don't think that Wizards are underpowered. Their features seem to be about the same power level as other classes. I just don't find their feats particularly interesting though.

Just wanted to comment on Deriven's comment about weapons. I don't think you would really have to go out of your way to get a particular proficiency. Just having turns being spells + focus spell/crossbow shot/recall knowledge should make you quite effective.

On a side note I find recall knowledge to me the least satisfying combat action. It entirely depends how much info the GM gives you. Also a lot of the time you can get knowledge you as a player you already know.

[Old_Man_Robot]

AlastarOG wrote:

As for the comment on secret of magic, well we now have wizards that can spell blend their higher level spell slots into 5 slots per day (4 on odd levels) with flexible spellcasting to have just as much flexibility (even more actually since all spells are signature spells) than sorcerers and be able to change their entire repertoire per day, constantly.

I think your math is little wonky. Don't forget, Spell Blending only gives you 1 additional spell slot per level, and you can only blend spells of the same level. So with Flexible spellcasting, assuming you're a Specialist, you would have 3 flexible slots on your top end in addition to the normal Specialist slot.

1st: 0, +1 Specialist slot
2nd: 0, +1 Specialist slot
3rd: 1, +1 Specialist slot
4th: 1, +1 Specialist slot
5th: 1, +1 Specialist slot
6th: 1, +1 Specialist slot
7th: 1, +1 Specialist slot
8th: 3, +1 Specialist slot
9th: 3, +1 Specialist slot

[SuperBidi]

You forgot the Bonded Item for the last spell slot. So five top spells.

Flexible casting on a Spell Blender is harsh on any spell slot but the highest. As much as I consider lower spell slots to be of low value, getting only 2 of them per level is a bit too few.

One interesting thing about Spell Blending is that you can spell blend the specialist's slots. On paper, you can choose any slot, and I haven't found anything preventing to spell blend them. I also find that it's a bit too strong and would understand a GM forbidding it, but it's RAW.

[Old_Man_Robot]

SuperBidi wrote:

You forgot the Bonded Item for the last spell slot.

I assumed they weren't taking that into account due to the "4 on odd levels" part, which suggests their math is incorrect somewhere else in the chain.

9th is the highest level odd slot, using Bond item to make that 5, the next odd slot is 7th at 2.

SuperBidi wrote:

One interesting thing about Spell Blending is that you can spell blend the specialist's slots. On paper, you can choose any slot, and I haven't found anything preventing to spell blend them

I'm not certain this is wholly true. Its true nothing in Spell Blending itself forbids it, but I have a feeling that the Restricted slot clause in Flexible caster is intended to keep the pools seperate for things like that.

[NielsenE]

I've been playing a Wizard MC Alchemist in an Abomination Vaults campaign and have been extremely happy with him. The character concept was a bit of 'annoying kid/troublemaker' -- most of his spell slots through 3rd level spells have been things that could be used as a'joke' -- Agitate, Hideous Laughter, Charitable Urge. etc, or things that let him do less work/show off being smart (Summon Construct, Temporary Tool). He picked up a staff that's a little off brand for him, but its what he found

AV:

Abjuration

. He's almost always been able to find the right spell in combat; I personally feel he's been the MVP (but I'm biased as he's my character). I've never felt weak or useless. Overall dice rolls have been average, but I do know I've been lucky in boss fights and unlucky in minion fights, which skews the perception some. -- Multiple do-or-die produce flames that have crit. Paralyze has been his go-to recently and has been amazingly effective -- turned around one almost TPK.

He's a staff nexus wizard, only just starting to get to the good part of that thesis. He tends to last longer than our Oracle in terms of staying power with spell slots. He now has Disturbing Knowledge for a great one-action ability. He is going off-brand with his fourth level spells -- fly and stoneskin so far, just because it feels like our front line needs some extra support and capabilities. He's taken a single AoE spell (fireball). Has a good mix of will/fort spells, would like to find a couple more on-theme reflex ones. Cantrips and his alchemical bombs cover most of the elemental weaknesses. I might be getting more out of that than normal since the Oracle's Vision of Weakness finds elemental weaknesses and/or weak saves pretty easily for me. Not sure when he took that, it was level 4 at the lowest, maybe even at level 6, but its definitely been a factor recently. Before he used to spend the actions to recall knowledge, but since the oracle covers that he's more free to position a little better or start out with the Disturbing Knowledge. Its definitely a place where pair of casters in the AP group are doing a good job synergizing to help out. We have a trip focused barbarian as well, so if the oracle learns about a weak reflex save that helps him out (even if that's my worst save to target... often just electric arc).

[thenobledrake]

Squiggit wrote:

So your position is that if the Wizard had access to a wider variety of feats or more options for starting focus spells or whatever that people such as yourself would lose interest in the class and quit playing it?

No, and I think you're deliberately misrepresenting what I said.

Because what I actually said was that if the class is changed to make it interesting to people who are not currently interested in it there are good odds that those changes could be unappealing to people currently interested in the class.

That was unrelated to just having more options. On the topic of more options though I'm not actually of the belief that people who aren't already mostly satisfied with the class are going to become satisfied with it just because new options get added. This is because I don't think the new options will be so different from the existing options to have significant impact on the way the class feels (and this is already evidenced by their being new feats and new spells and even a new thesis since the core book and none of them having caused a noticeable change in satisfaction levels). And that's why I was mentioning changing the design, rather than adding more options within the current design, in my prior post.

Djinn71 wrote:

Personally, even if the early levels are actually balanced, I think bland and balanced is a much worse problem than interesting but underpowered. It is a lot easier (and quicker) to buff an interesting class than it is to add a variety of interesting but balanced feats/features.

This is both true and irrelevant because we aren't still at the stage of design where we could make choices that result in an interesting but underpowered class. Also, it's bland to you - not bland objectively. I, and others I'm sure, find the class to be very interesting.

And that subjective case for what is or isn't interesting is why, in my opinion at least, balance should be the priority of design rather than putting trying to make a class interesting ahead of that.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

But once you accept that a low level caster should be using a weapon of some kind...

They can, sure... but there is no "should" about it.

And spreading this piece of misinformation, which it is because low-level casters play fine even when they don't use weapons, doesn't help the discussion of whether or not casters (especially wizard who have significant limits to their weapon options that runs counter to your claim) are balanced or not.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

I don't really think it's okay, much less "a massive win," for a large majority of Wizard feats to be pretty bad and otherwise uninteresting...

My response to that is a simple one; I don't think a large majority of wizard feats are "pretty bad" nor "otherwise uninteresting." Excluding counterspell which I feel takes more investment to make genuinely functional, I think every wizard feat is either interesting, potent, or both.

And this disagreement where you think it's bad and boring and I think it's good and fun, and about the only thing we can agree on is that it is (at least mostly) balanced is why I consider it a win. Everything you are saying as a negative basically matches up to me saying "I'm not interested in playing a bard." (by which I mean, just like bard shouldn't change to please me, wizard shouldn't be changed to please you - note: I used the word change on purpose again here, I do not mean it should never be added to, see the earlier portion of this post for further explanation to prevent misunderstandings like those that occured before).

Temperans wrote:

* P.S. People not being on the forum or interacting with a thread has a chance to affect both positive and negative responses.

I was going to say that as well. Just as likely that someone has gotten tired of interacting with overly-negative posts and bailed on the forum as it is that someone quit the game because they don't like casters. Less negative for the overall game, though, since some folks that quit PF2 because they don't like the caster chasis would never have liked it in any for that wasn't "I can cast spells so I win by default." which I only mention because it highlights that the existence of a complaint doesn't prove the complaint should actually be addressed.

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

Sometimes I just feel like I'm playing a different game from you.

That has happened to me so often that I have started to assume that whenever anyone can't see my point about something it is the direct result of their table not even kind of resembling mine as far as typical play scenarios go. It was the worst ever when it came to a particular system I was looking for help with and every time I went online to describe a specific problem encountered while playing the general response was "that doesn't happen."

Unicore wrote:

All my wizards are fun for me and I get a lot of basic use out of the lower level feats that keep getting written off. Maybe, maybe the wizard should have kept their level 1 class feat, but honestly, I don’t think doing so would have changed anyone’s opinion of them one way or another

To add to your anecdote of enjoying the wizard class:

Wizard is one of the most frequent to show up classes in my group's campaigns thus far as a few of us like spellcasters in general and have found something that looked fun in the wizard class to try out, and in all cases fun was had (and none of the characters felt like a burden on the rest of the team or like they weren't having any "big moments"). The only negative to be experienced thus far was that I wanted to be the best blaster wizard I could be and started out as an evocation school build... but after a few levels gained I realized I'd actually be an even more effective version of the character if I were a conjurer instead because of how much better uses i could find for my specialty school slots of lower levels and how the dimensional step focus spell would help me with positioning for cones and lines (which I find easier to maximize potential targets while not harming my party as much). But even then, if I were trying to be a more general-purpose wizard instead of "the combat guy" I'd likely have been happy with evocation school specialty.

[PossibleCabbage]

I honestly think it's kind of impressive how Paizo managed to stick the Wizard right in that median power tier. It's a class that's good at what it does, but isn't gonzo bananas powerful and that's an achievement considering the history of the class throughout various editions.

[breithauptclan]

Temperans wrote:

So the best option for a caster is not to do more casting... it's to go and attack like a martial. Think about that. The best option for a caster is to attack like a martial, when casters have literally worst scaling then martial

Geez, from your response, you make it sound like Deriven Firelion is suggesting that all that a Wizard should be doing at low levels is making weapon attacks.

As SuperBidi and RPGnoremac mentioned, I would also say that having a weapon is a useful option for a Wizard, but it isn't the only thing other than spellcasting that they can be doing. My Warrior Android Witch certainly gets good mileage from casting shortbow.

[The-Magic-Sword]

I got to play a Blasting Wizard at more or less all levels of play (there were skipped levels in the course of that campaign) I was generally pretty impressed, this after I GMed a 1-18 campaign where no one opted to play one and I got to see a significant amount of play from an optimized Cleric and Sorcerer.

Basically, I took Evocation and Spell Blending. The game itself was dual classed, but I had taken investigator and never used it in combat, so it only really benefited my HP and Saves (if at all.) So my combat ability was virtually identical if I flipped off the investigator side, especially since I didn't choose to take toughness or canny acumen, when I would have normally done so.

In practice, I found that I could do a lot of damage-- at low to mid level I prepared a combination of AOE Damage Spells, Sudden Bolt, and Magic Missile, and Flaming Sphere in many of my slots. I used Magic Missile to chip down bosses to soften them for when other members of my party actually hit them, as we got to higher levels and Magic Missile's scaling got worse, I relied on my Saving Throw damage spells for the same role, expecting to get the failure effect more reliably than Martials would hit, which paid dividends in actually killing bosses. I was the belle of the ball in any fight with two or more targets of course as I dropped Fireballs and Lightning Bolts, or sub 5, double sustained flaming spheres.

As we got to higher levels, I kept up my AOE blasting (Horrid Wilting is such a screwed up, but fun to use spell in a game with armies, Chain lightning is also pretty GOAT), but gradually converted my magic missiles into True Stike Disintegrate, I did less of that and started playing with some of the other spells at high level-- Mask of Terror is especially neat, as is Implosion, and if you don't mind gambling, Massacre. Summon Draconic Legion saw use as well. Things got a little distorted here because a campaign specific power called a Throne Spell (essentially, like an artifact) started giving me weird damage bonuses at very high levels.

Throughout the campaign, Force Bolt and Shield served my third action pretty well when i didn't need to move.

[AlastarOG]

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

AlastarOG wrote:

As for the comment on secret of magic, well we now have wizards that can spell blend their higher level spell slots into 5 slots per day (4 on odd levels) with flexible spellcasting to have just as much flexibility (even more actually since all spells are signature spells) than sorcerers and be able to change their entire repertoire per day, constantly.

I think your math is little wonky. Don't forget, Spell Blending only gives you 1 additional spell slot per level, and you can only blend spells of the same level. So with Flexible spellcasting, assuming you're a Specialist, you would have 3 flexible slots on your top end in addition to the normal Specialist slot.

1st: 0, +1 Specialist slot
2nd: 0, +1 Specialist slot
3rd: 1, +1 Specialist slot
4th: 1, +1 Specialist slot
5th: 1, +1 Specialist slot
6th: 1, +1 Specialist slot
7th: 1, +1 Specialist slot
8th: 3, +1 Specialist slot
9th: 3, +1 Specialist slot

Like Super bidi pointed out, the specialist slot spell blending hasn't been officially adressed, so its up to the GM. Weither it is or not those are still spell slots as every school has some good spells to take at every level.

The spread you've outlined above is still incredibly versatile as every spell learned can be cast at any level inside of there, any number of times. Learn haste as a level 3 spell and have the option to cast it at 7th level! Learn fear at 1st level and cast it at 3rd if applicable!

Then on top of that you have your focus spells, 7 cantrips, a staff, your drain bonded item for yet another highest level spell slot and most likely scroll savant for 2 scrolls per day of max spell level-2.

I would play that over a sorcerer almost every time if my goal was ''flexible spellcaster with access to arcane list''

[Deriven Firelion]

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Iwizard casting endurance is second to none. No one can keep on casting spells like a wizard if you build them even halfway right and add in Crafting for easy consumables.

I’d dispute this.

Once again, the sorcerer ate the wizards lunch.

At base, without feats or class features, they are tied for slots.

Arcane bond grants the wizard a single additional spell per day at base, however this is often offset by sorcerer focus spells coming more often and with a higher in-play frequency. So the sorcerer slot dependance is lower than the wizards.

Even when we open it up to maximum white-room theory crafting, a Wizard using optimal cascade chains eventually still gets surpassed by a sorcerer and their bottomless 5th level spells.

Wizard feats provide additional uses of Arcane Bond.

You have scroll savant which is a free four additional castings per day.

Reprepare Spell which is like an endless 4th level slot.

Spell Mastery gives you four additional castings of a spell each day if you take that at lvl 20.

Though a good Sorcerer Focus spell can make up for a lot of castings.

Then couple that with having a good stat for crafting easily, you can cast a lot as a wizard.

Sorcerer's are good too. Definitely better focus options and builds.

[Deriven Firelion]

SuperBidi wrote:

Red Griffyn wrote:

Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich wrote:

It is so heartening to see the posts in this thread. Having been a staunch defender during the 'wizards are terrible' threads a year or so back, it is awesome to see wizards being recognized for their strengths.

What we're not considering here is the potential pool of people who have stopped playing 2e because they don't like caster chassis, spell effects, spell duration, spell slot counts, high monster saves, recall knowledge issues for bad saves, etc. Otherwise the potential pool of people who stopped engaging in the community because these threads are typically quite hostile. It isn't difficult to imagine that if we keep sampling the existing population that the ratio of people happy with the system will increase as people leave or refuse to engage. I obviously don't have a quantifiable metric on how large that attrition is but I'd be careful in interpreting threads/polls like this. It may just be an exercise in confirmation bias.

I've seen quite a few players who were against Wizards at launch switching to pro Wizards. Deriven is one of them.

Noone will never know the metrics, but there are still signs that the anti Wizards may have been to hard on it.

I'm not pro-Wizard. I still prefer druids and sorcerers as they are more fun to build.

I just understand how to build an optimal caster now. It's much easier to build an optimal druid, sorcerer, bard, or even cleric. But the wizard isn't as terrible as I originally thought and I understand how to optimize a caster better now.

I still don't rate wizard's nearly as high as Exocist or other fans of wizards. I think they have certain strengths you can build for like casting a lot and casting in general is good as you gain levels.

Using a weapon as a one action option for a caster is an easy way to boost their damage at low level if someone is concerned about combat contributions for casters. They don't have to do it, but if they do their damage will increase nicely over the course of many battles. It will give them a magic item to look forward to building up.

[Deriven Firelion]

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

SuperBidi wrote:

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

That said, spell blending runs directly counter to the “Endurance” idea of the above, where you are directly trading staying power for potentially better scope. It’s something I’ve never personally been a fan of, but I’ve also never really played with the notion of 15-minute-adventuring days either, which really lends itself to the option.

Quite the opposite, Spell Blending is the Endurance choice for a Wizard. If you expect long adventuring days, it's the only Thesis that can last that long.

Lower level spells are not very important. If you need dozens of them, you can just buy scrolls/wands, they are so cheap you can basically ignore their price. What matters are the 2 highest levels.

Sometimes I just feel like I'm playing a different game from you.

There are tons of lower level spells that retain their power at higher levels. Being able to fall back on them is honestly the thing makes the Wizard worth playing. Setting up combos with lower level spells is the most fun and dynamic part of being a caster for me.

The idea that it all comes down to like 6-8 spells per day boggles my mind.

I use lower level spells myself.

1st: True Strike

2nd: See invis.

3rd. Haste and Slow.

4th. Phantasmal Killer

There are others. I tend to agree with you that throwing away lower level slots is not how I play either. Extra actions spent to draw wands and scrolls is bad action economy at times.

A familar is helpful using scrolls and wands now that they added valet to their ability list. A good valet familiar with independent is nice for drawing a wand or scroll for no real action cost.

[Gortle]

RPGnoremac wrote:

On a side note I find recall knowledge to me the least satisfying combat action. It entirely depends how much info the GM gives you. Also a lot of the time you can get knowledge you as a player you already know.

I find that is an implementation problem that they should fix.

I always do my best as a GM to make the a successfull recall knowledge action worthwhile, by a) providing useful information and b) using the characters most appropriate knowledge skill and not forcing them to waste an action because they decided to check against arcane rather than occult which they also had.

Paizo need to fix up the guidelines on this. Then recall knowledge actually works fine.

[graystone]

Deriven Firelion wrote:

A familar is helpful using scrolls and wands now that they added valet to their ability list. A good valet familiar with independent is nice for drawing a wand or scroll for no real action cost.

Valet and Independent don't interact in any way: one only works if you command a familiar and one only works if you don't command them. This has been confirmed by Mark.

[Deriven Firelion]

Temperans wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Temperans wrote:

So the best option for a caster is not to do more casting... it's to go and attack like a martial. Think about that. The best option for a caster is to attack like a martial, when casters have literally worst scaling then martial.

Even in PF1 where attacking with a weapon was an actual potential strategy due to certain combination. The best option for a full caster was rarely ever "attack with a weapon".

So coming to a thread asking if the Wizard is "balanced". While some are saying, "it meh at best, it's very uninteresting". Your response is, "if you don't act like a caster you do much better" and "Wizard is good because its uninteresting". It just seems like you don't like Wizards/casters in the first place, which I doubt it's the case.

I did think about that. I thought of Gandalf, Bayaz, and many other wizards in books that could fight as well as cast.

The old D&D model of just casting has been replaced with a Gandalf or any of the many other wizards who can cast and fight. That idea that a caster only fights is an outdated notion tied mostly to D&D itself and video games which are based on D&D. In many books even powerful wizards can often take up a blade and throw down some.

I don't see any problem whatsoever with it. Any adventurer who goes out to seek combat and gain treasure should not be a one trick pony that when that trick is not working, they have nothing much else to do to survive.

Deriven, one thing is making it so a Wizard can attack with a weapon and not be horrible. Which is an archetype that I personally like. Another completely different thing is that a "Wizard" that focuses entirely on magic cannot function properly because they are focusing on magic.

Gandalf, was barely a Wizard since he is just a spirit, which makes it more noticeable when you notice most of his magic is considered low level by Pathfinder standards. While Bayaz is called out as a Magi, which is very much connected to physical attacks in...

I told you how to boost your damage and combat contribution for castes for those concerned.

If all you want to do is cast, you can cast your damage cantrip and erect your shield or shoot off your 1 action evocation or focus spell.

It's not required that you do equal damage to martials at low level for the group to succeed. I'm offering anyone that feels like it a way to have a 1 action option to boost their caster damage at low level using a weapon. Up to them if they "see their character using it." But don't try to sell me that using a weapon for wizards is something that no wizard ever does. That's just BS.

Doctor Strange is not a wizard in any D&D sense. He's a superhero. This is a game based on the fantasy book genre, not superheroes.

And Gandalf was not barely a wizard. He knew thousands of spells. He was a very powerful wizard, but just another example of each fantasy writer handles wizardry and casting differently. There is no one way to be a caster.

I'll leave it there since you don't even play PF2 and have nearly zero idea how it runs.

[Deriven Firelion]

graystone wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

A familar is helpful using scrolls and wands now that they added valet to their ability list. A good valet familiar with independent is nice for drawing a wand or scroll for no real action cost.

Valet and Independent don't interact in any way: one only works if you command a familiar and one only works if you don't command them. This has been confirmed by Mark.

Not how I'm going to run it, but hey, if a designer wants to make a familiar even more useless in their PF2 game system you have at it running it in that fashion.

I'm trying to make familiars and other aspects of the game more fun for my players, not less enjoyable and useless.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Iwizard casting endurance is second to none. No one can keep on casting spells like a wizard if you build them even halfway right and add in Crafting for easy consumables.

I’d dispute this.

Once again, the sorcerer ate the wizards lunch.

At base, without feats or class features, they are tied for slots.

Arcane bond grants the wizard a single additional spell per day at base, however this is often offset by sorcerer focus spells coming more often and with a higher in-play frequency. So the sorcerer slot dependance is lower than the wizards.

Even when we open it up to maximum white-room theory crafting, a Wizard using optimal cascade chains eventually still gets surpassed by a sorcerer and their bottomless 5th level spells.

Wizard feats provide additional uses of Arcane Bond.

You have scroll savant which is a free four additional castings per day.

Reprepare Spell which is like an endless 4th level slot.

Spell Mastery gives you four additional castings of a spell each day if you take that at lvl 20.

Though a good Sorcerer Focus spell can make up for a lot of castings.

Then couple that with having a good stat for crafting easily, you can cast a lot as a wizard.

Sorcerer's are good too. Definitely better focus options and builds.

I'll dispute this too.

Those feats do cost additional actions in combat, though, and the returns are diminished, reducing their overall effectiveness and likelihood of being functional in an appropriately-challenged encounter. They are also required in succession, which isn't a guarantee, and requires previously expended lower level spell slots, which won't be relevant until several encounters have taken place. It's a lot of "ifs" that I feel isn't worth a feat option, because it becomes extremely niche, and now the character tries to work around the feat, not the other way around, as it should be by design.

Scroll Savant is cool and useful, but it's better for utility spells and really serves as a gold saver for not having to purchase (or waste time to craft/purchase) scrolls for those corner case situations. It also only gives 2 lower level spell options from the initial feat, scaling to 4 spell options by 19th level, which is basically endgame. It lets you cover the bases that a lot of your lower level spell slots won't be able to cover, especially if Spell Blending is on the table.

Reprepare Spell is a bad feat simply because even 4th level spells are worse than most every cantrip by the point the feat comes online. At no point should you need to have to cast 4th level spells that many times in an adventuring day. What, are you expending Fly spells every combat that a simple item or feat or what have you can't fix that job already? That's actions wasted in-combat that should be expended elsewhere.

Then again, all of the 18th level class feats are bad; Infinite Possibilities just lets you choose between 2 lower level spells for a given slot that you can confirm at the time of expending the slot, which is just a waste of higher level spell slots and is easily solved by being a better spell preparer. Second Chance Spell could have use if you don't want spell slots to be wasted on a good roll from the GM (or if you mistakenly target an enemy that has a solid save against that type of spell, but another enemy may not), but the simple fact that it's restricted to Enchantment school spells really hurts the impact this feat could have for the class as a whole, especially with a lot of Enchantment spells at this level being Uncommon or worse, meaning little to no access without GM approval. (It's also pointlessly limiting in the sense of only a single school being applicable, given the feat name and it's description shouldn't be limited to just Enchantment spells.)

Spell Mastery is a solid feat, since it's basically a free 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th level spell slot of your most favorite spell(s) for that given level, the problem is that it comes online way latecompetes with the other awesome level 20 feat, Archmage's Might, wherein acquiring a 2nd 10th level spell slot is the bee's knees, especially when 10th level spell slots are the new norm, and it's harder to acquire extra slots for them now more than before. (Some would argue that 10th level is just an "extra" tier that should put spellcasters over the edge, but I disagree simply because monsters above 20th level do exist, and their DCs and powers far outweigh 9th level spells and their effects.) If Spell Mastery was an 18th level feat with it being from 5th to 8th level, maybe scaling to 6th/9th level, it'd be a solid choice.

[AlastarOG]

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Iwizard casting endurance is second to none. No one can keep on casting spells like a wizard if you build them even halfway right and add in Crafting for easy consumables.

I’d dispute this.

Once again, the sorcerer ate the wizards lunch.

At base, without feats or class features, they are tied for slots.

Arcane bond grants the wizard a single additional spell per day at base, however this is often offset by sorcerer focus spells coming more often and with a higher in-play frequency. So the sorcerer slot dependance is lower than the wizards.

Even when we open it up to maximum white-room theory crafting, a Wizard using optimal cascade chains eventually still gets surpassed by a sorcerer and their bottomless 5th level spells.

Wizard feats provide additional uses of Arcane Bond.

You have scroll savant which is a free four additional castings per day.

Reprepare Spell which is like an endless 4th level slot.

Spell Mastery gives you four additional castings of a spell each day if you take that at lvl 20.

Though a good Sorcerer Focus spell can make up for a lot of castings.

Then couple that with having a good stat for crafting easily, you can cast a lot as a wizard.

Sorcerer's are good too. Definitely better focus options and builds.

I'll dispute this too.

Those feats do cost additional actions in combat, though, and the returns are diminished, reducing their overall effectiveness and likelihood of being functional in an appropriately-challenged encounter. They are also required in succession, which isn't a guarantee, and requires previously expended lower level spell slots, which won't be relevant until several encounters have taken place. It's a lot of "ifs" that I feel isn't worth a feat option, because it becomes extremely niche, and now the character tries to work around the feat, not the other way around, as it should be by design.

Scroll Savant is...

Then would you be of the opinion that the spell blender's ability to have the most highest level spell slots in the entire system makes wizards the best caster?

I ask since you've pointed out that most of these options are not competitive cause they only provide lower level spell slots.

[graystone]

Deriven Firelion wrote:

graystone wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

A familar is helpful using scrolls and wands now that they added valet to their ability list. A good valet familiar with independent is nice for drawing a wand or scroll for no real action cost.

Valet and Independent don't interact in any way: one only works if you command a familiar and one only works if you don't command them. This has been confirmed by Mark.

Not how I'm going to run it, but hey, if a designer wants to make a familiar even more useless in their PF2 game system you have at it running it in that fashion.

I'm trying to make familiars and other aspects of the game more fun for my players, not less enjoyable and useless.

You're welcome to run it how you want, but in a conversation about about how wizards play, it's important to base that off how it works by default. In a similar way, a talk about alchemists would also be limited by those familiar abilities not combining and also the ruling that minions can't activate items. Personally, I'd like familiars to do a LOT more, but that's just not in the cards for PF2.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

AlastarOG wrote:

Then would you be of the opinion that the spell blender's ability to have the most highest level spell slots in the entire system makes wizards the best caster?

I ask since you've pointed out that most of these options are not competitive cause they only provide lower level spell slots.

Absolutely. The game balances around offensive/competitive spells (such as Fireball, Dispel Magic, Heal, etc.) to be within the top 2 spell levels of the given encounter level to maintain effectiveness and parity with others of an appropriate challenge rating. The feature that gives the spellcaster more of those top 2 spell levels for the day means they have more staying power for each encounter, and more nova potential for each encounter as well (though a spellcaster ought to be careful not to go full supernova despite having more slots). Plus, the spellcaster feels good when they are casting effective spells (or at least, as effective as they can be against a given encounter or challenge). An option that lets the spellcaster do more of their "feel good" thing is always healthy for the overall outlook of playing the class. It's a big reason why cantrips are pretty cool in this edition now, since it lets a spellcaster do more of their schtick without tiptoeing on others.

Keep in mind that I am not saying that lower level spells are useless or don't have a niche; they do. It's just that in my play experience of (just now hitting) 18 levels as a Wizard, Spell Blending, which removes lower level spell slots for higher level ones, still leaves me with more than enough lower level slots for utility options as I see fit for a given adventuring day; combined with Scroll Savant, which lets me prepare niche spells as-is, I feel like the class already has enough lower level spell slots to cover utility (especially since a lot of lower level spells require scaling, which Spell Blending does an awesome job at removing entirely so that they don't become "dead" spell slots), and a thesis which lets them do just that. They already have enough support for lower level spell slots that I feel like expending more feats on them isn't a worthwhile endeavor.

[AlastarOG]

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

AlastarOG wrote:

Then would you be of the opinion that the spell blender's ability to have the most highest level spell slots in the entire system makes wizards the best caster?

I ask since you've pointed out that most of these options are not competitive cause they only provide lower level spell slots.

Absolutely. The game balances around offensive/competitive spells (such as Fireball, Dispel Magic, Heal, etc.) to be within the top 2 spell levels of the given encounter level to maintain effectiveness and parity with others of an appropriate challenge rating. The feature that gives the spellcaster more of those top 2 spell levels for the day means they have more staying power for each encounter, and more nova potential for each encounter as well (though a spellcaster ought to be careful not to go full supernova despite having more slots). Plus, the spellcaster feels good when they are casting effective spells (or at least, as effective as they can be against a given encounter or challenge). An option that lets the spellcaster do more of their "feel good" thing is always healthy for the overall outlook of playing the class. It's a big reason why cantrips are pretty cool in this edition now, since it lets a spellcaster do more of their schtick without tiptoeing on others.

Keep in mind that I am not saying that lower level spells are useless or don't have a niche; they do. It's just that in my play experience of (just now hitting) 18 levels as a Wizard, Spell Blending, which removes lower level spell slots for higher level ones, still leaves me with more than enough lower level slots for utility options as I see fit for a given adventuring day; combined with Scroll Savant, which lets me prepare niche spells as-is, I feel like the class already has enough lower level spell slots to cover utility (especially since a lot of lower level spells require scaling, which Spell Blending does an awesome job at removing entirely so that they don't become "dead" spell slots), and a thesis which lets...

Perfect, glad to hear that.

I asked because Deriven was simply stating those options I believe as an answer to an earlier poster who said that they prefered having more low level spell slots.

[Temperans]

AlastarOG wrote:

Then would you be of the opinion that the spell blender's ability to have the most highest level spell slots in the entire system makes wizards the best caster?

I ask since you've pointed out that most of these options are not competitive cause they only provide lower level spell slots.

Last time I checked you could not get 10th level spells with Spell Blending because of the ruling that you can only get a bonus spell with the 20th level feat or in the case of Clerics, healing font. Just like Flexible casting does not give you an extra 10th level spell.

[AlastarOG]

Temperans wrote:

AlastarOG wrote:

Then would you be of the opinion that the spell blender's ability to have the most highest level spell slots in the entire system makes wizards the best caster?

I ask since you've pointed out that most of these options are not competitive cause they only provide lower level spell slots.

Last time I checked you could not get 10th level spells with Spell Blending because of the ruling that you can only get a bonus spell with the 20th level feat or in the case of Clerics, healing font. Just like Flexible casting does not give you an extra 10th level spell.

Outside of that they do have the most higher level spell slots. And hey, 9th level spells ain't shabby!

[Temperans]

Deriven Firelion wrote:

I told you how to boost your damage and combat contribution for castes for those concerned.

If all you want to do is cast, you can cast your damage cantrip and erect your shield or shoot off your 1 action evocation or focus spell.

It's not required that you do equal damage to martials at low level for the group to succeed. I'm offering anyone that feels like it a way to have a 1 action option to boost their caster damage at low level using a weapon. Up to them if they "see their character using it." But don't try to sell me that using a weapon for wizards is something that no wizard ever does. That's just BS.

Doctor Strange is not a wizard in any D&D sense. He's a superhero. This is a game based on the fantasy book genre, not superheroes.

And Gandalf was not barely a wizard. He knew thousands of spells. He was a very powerful wizard, but just another example of each fantasy writer handles wizardry and casting differently. There is no one way to be a caster.

I'll leave it there since you don't even play PF2 and have nearly zero idea how it runs.

My point still stands, why the heck does a caster have to use a weapon to try and keep up when magic has a limited number of uses.

Also you are the one bring up other literature as support for "Wizard is fine needing to use weapons to be good casters". Gandalf being effectively an actual god in lore does not by any means make him a Wizard. Specially when he in lore rarely casts spells, rarely uses spells, rarely counters spells, etc. Heck he doesn't even have a spellbook or any ways to "prepare spells". Dr. Strange you can see him going to study about magic, you can see that he prepare before casting spells, you can see him actually cast spells.

But no! You determined Gandalf, a god that barely casts any spells, is more of a "wizard" than Dr. Strange, a human who learned magic and constantly casts powerful spells. Think about that... because Dr. Strange is labeled as a "superhero" in his universe he is less a Wizard than gandalf which is label a "god" in his. Despite Dr. Strange having used more magic in a handful of comics than Gandalf does in the entire LoTR series.

********************
* P.S. Do note that by old Golarion standards Gandalf is mythic with at most 5th level Wizard. While Dr. Strange is easily 20th level.

By new Golarion standards Gandalf is more of Martial with Wizard multiclass. While Dr. Strange is is extremely hard to replicate at all. Even a 20th level Wizard with full access to rare spells might not be enough.

[Deriven Firelion]

graystone wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

graystone wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

A familar is helpful using scrolls and wands now that they added valet to their ability list. A good valet familiar with independent is nice for drawing a wand or scroll for no real action cost.

Valet and Independent don't interact in any way: one only works if you command a familiar and one only works if you don't command them. This has been confirmed by Mark.

Not how I'm going to run it, but hey, if a designer wants to make a familiar even more useless in their PF2 game system you have at it running it in that fashion.

I'm trying to make familiars and other aspects of the game more fun for my players, not less enjoyable and useless.

You're welcome to run it how you want, but in a conversation about about how wizards play, it's important to base that off how it works by default. In a similar way, a talk about alchemists would also be limited by those familiar abilities not combining and also the ruling that minions can't activate items. Personally, I'd like familiars to do a LOT more, but that's just not in the cards for PF2.

It is sad that a designer ruined a mild action economy boost provided by a familiar for a caster.

Even without independent action, valet will help retrieve scrolls for use. Use it to get one scroll, cast 2 action spell, drop scroll, have it hand you another one to use next round. Valet is still very solid for scroll or wand use for a caster that has one.

That is more in line for those restricted by the design choice for independent and valet.

[Norade]

Deriven Firelion wrote:

graystone wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

A familar is helpful using scrolls and wands now that they added valet to their ability list. A good valet familiar with independent is nice for drawing a wand or scroll for no real action cost.

Valet and Independent don't interact in any way: one only works if you command a familiar and one only works if you don't command them. This has been confirmed by Mark.

Not how I'm going to run it, but hey, if a designer wants to make a familiar even more useless in their PF2 game system you have at it running it in that fashion.

I'm trying to make familiars and other aspects of the game more fun for my players, not less enjoyable and useless.

If you're going to house-rule familiars to make them work, how can we be sure you aren't tweaking other aspects of your game in a way that skews how useful wizards are relative to other classes?

[Deriven Firelion]

Norade wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

graystone wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

A familar is helpful using scrolls and wands now that they added valet to their ability list. A good valet familiar with independent is nice for drawing a wand or scroll for no real action cost.

Valet and Independent don't interact in any way: one only works if you command a familiar and one only works if you don't command them. This has been confirmed by Mark.

Not how I'm going to run it, but hey, if a designer wants to make a familiar even more useless in their PF2 game system you have at it running it in that fashion.

I'm trying to make familiars and other aspects of the game more fun for my players, not less enjoyable and useless.

If you're going to house-rule familiars to make them work, how can we be sure you aren't tweaking other aspects of your game in a way that skews how useful wizards are relative to other classes?

My house rules are clearly listed in the House Rules forum and apply to all casters. I made casting substantially more enjoyable than it is in the base game for all casters. The house rules I created for wizards has made them mildly more attractive to play, but even with a substantial upgrade to their ability via house rules my players still don't like playing wizards. Not because they are underpowered, but because they are boring to play and build.

I did not house rule the familiar. I wasn't aware a designer nixed that use of familiars combining valet and independent. I don't keep track of every rule clarification, nerf, or change a designer makes. I don't much agree with quite a few of their design decisions in PF2 as they often make decisions that reduce the enjoyment of the game and keep players from enjoying parts of the game they used to enjoy like familiars.

So far after playing PF2 for over a year, my players think familiars are useless and don't even use them when they get them for free like when playing a witch. I think making class features that can be completely ignored by players with no material effect on the class playability means that class feature is not designed very well.

I'm not saying anything revolutionary anyway. Wizards are my least favorite of the PF2 caster classes. About all I'm changing my mind on is that you can build one to their strengths and be very effective. The feats are still super bland and the class overall not very interesting. The wizard is the porridge of the PF2 casting classes: it can get the job done, but doesn't have much you can do to it to make the class fun and interesting to play. You either like porridge and accept how it tastes or you find something else to play and just about every other caster class is more interesting than the porridge wizard.

[graystone]

Deriven Firelion wrote:

It is sad that a designer ruined a mild action economy boost provided by a familiar for a caster.

I wouldn't say sad, but just pointing out what I always thought was crystal clear: abilities that that require 'when commanded' and 'when not commanded' aren't compatible. I don't see that as shutting down anything except what wasn't already unintended. Familiars aren't meant to have much of an impact from how they are built: overall direct action in combat from the familiar is as limited as possible [to the point it is incapable of Striking].

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Even without independent action, valet will help retrieve scrolls for use. Use it to get one scroll, cast 2 action spell, drop scroll, have it hand you another one to use next round. Valet is still very solid for scroll or wand use for a caster that has one.

I never said the abilities weren't useful by themselves: I just mentioned that they don't work in combination. Valet only nets you something when you plan on using 2 items in a round, which is kind of niche from my experience but it also opens up the familiar to taking random damage from things like area attacks.