I want to ask you all in your opinion what you consider the best 10 arcane spell to any spell caster starting from the least up to the best
that's a loaded question, and it all depends on what you want the caster to be able to do. and what levels you are talking about
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
When I think about the answer to the question, "What are the best arcane spells?" the first thing that occurs to me is that establishing meaningful criteria is going to be paramount to make any sense of the ensuing list. Most of the most powerful spells are in the upper levels if not 100% consisting of 9th-level spells, but in terms of practical use-cases, if all the good spells were 9th-level, no one would think that arcane magic was particularly good. With that said, I feel like a proper evaluation of what makes arcane power meaningful needs to take into account the value of a spell not simply at 17th or 20th character level, but the value of the spell for the entire time a character is in use. If a spell is so strong that it is still valuable even at 20th character level, so much the better, but it is even more important if it was a game-changer at 5th character level, 6th character level, etc.
As such, the resulting list I present is skewed heavily toward the spells that come online early and stay strong for the caster's entire career. I have also excluded a couple of Bard/Skald spells that would have made the list, but felt out-of-place ranked among a primarily Wizard set.
Honorable Mention: Color Spray
While it doesn't quite make the cut for my pick of the top ten arcane spells in all of Pathfinder, Color Spray is a very worthy contender. Capable of wiping out encounters on its own at Level 1 or Level 2, even at Level 20 a Wizard could still ostensibly find a use for this gem. With DCs scaled high enough, an AoE stun on a failed save is still a great use for a standard action against weaker opponents when conserving resources. Of course, the flaws with Color Spray are readily apparent -- short range, and the inability to affect creatures immune to mind-affecting effects. These are major issues, but the spell is so good at such a wide level range that it nearly makes the cut despite those problems.
Honorable Mention: Wall of Stone
Wall of Stone isn't the most durable wall an arcane caster can create, but its ability to take on literally any shape is what makes this spell such a force to be reckoned with. Such a wide variety of problems can be solved with the sudden creation of a permanent chunk of stone in the shape of the caster's choosing that it's hard to find weaknesses here; the biggest problem with Wall of Stone is that it's a 5th-level spell, but it's just so versatile that it barely makes the cut despite that and continues to be useful for the rest of any Wizard's career that chooses to prepare it.
10th: Invisibility
This one is more GM-dependent. I've seen tables where this spell is practically useless, but unless one is living in a world where people with permanent See Invisibility or True Seeing are commonplace, this spell splits scenarios wide open. A large part of the power of Invisibility is that it comes online at 2nd-level. Obviously, this spell has very little combat value by the end of one's career in an adventuring party, but the problems that this spell solves, it utterly obliterates.
9th: Mirror Image
Another 2nd-level spell foiled by True Seeing, Mirror Image is the biggest crux behind a Wizard's ability to mock non-magical attempts to protect one from harm. Why bother with AC when you can conveniently ignore it and not get hit anyway? It doesn't help that the types of opponents one most wants to be protected from with Mirror Image are exactly the ones that are least likely to possess the hard counter to it. If "clever" counterplay to your strategy is forcing your opponent to deliberately close their eyes and spend an extra feat to still come up short-handed, one could call your defense strategy overwhelmingly successful.
8th: Dispel Magic
Detractors from this spell are quick to point out that it does indeed have a very real chance of failure, but no other single spell can come close to being able to solve as many problems as Dispel Magic. While it does require an investment of feats, you can greatly improve your odds of success by spending two feats -- considering most of the worst problems you would ever want to solve can be solved with Dispel Magic, it feels like an easy investment to me. Even without, you still have a decent chance of success as long as you're not fighting casters 5+ levels higher. In that sense, it continues to become more useful as you level up, as it's simply more likely that anything you want to dispel will have been created by a weaker caster.
7th: Haste
Pound for pound, there is no better statistical buff in the game relative to the resource expended to obtain it. The raw damage contribution of Haste in a party with multiple martials is insane. The fact that it can also reduce damage with higher AC and Reflex saves is fantastic, as well as enabling tactical options that would otherwise have been impossible with the increased movement makes it peerless as a numerical buff.
6th: Stinking Cloud
Like Color Spray, there are enemies immune to poison, and Stinking Cloud isn't effective against them. Thankfully, there are fewer opponents immune to poison than there are opponents immune to mind-affecting, and Stinking Cloud's benefits over the lower-leveled crowd control don't stop there. While the vision effect can be a hindrance when used poorly, the capability of disrupting a fight and splitting an enemy party is astounding. A single casting of this spell can end entire encounters for all intents and purposes.
5th: Silent Image
Convey thoughts to creatures that don't even have a language. Remove any doubt as to whether or not you're talking about the same figure in a brown cloak. Make a wall. Show nothing but empty space where others wait in ambush. Silent Image isn't as powerful as Minor Image or Major Image (or other spells down that spell line), but that's because it's the weakest of the bunch and can already solve innumerable problems. The benefits of the spell are indeed foiled by True Seeing, but its versatility extends far beyond the limits of Invisibility or Color Spray.
4th: Fly
Haste may be the strongest numerical buff when compared to the resources expended to gain it, but the ability to move in three dimensions instead of two is greater still, making this the most valuable arcane buff spell by my reckoning. Ignore terrain. Take unexpected entrances. Make a mockery of any opponent without a ranged attack as strong as their melee option. This spell absolutely devastates any situation not specifically set up to take it into account.
3rd: Emergency Force Sphere
Why counter an enemy spell when you can break line of effect as an immediate action? Emergency Force Sphere casually beats any 9th-level spell that actually needs to be targeted or maintain line of effect to its target by the time of resolution. It also does an excellent job averting raw physical harm for a brief period of time, but the spell's benefits shine far greater against supernatural forces than they do against melee weaponry (which can actually break the sphere in fairly short order as martials scale in power). This spell has been banned at a majority of tables I've played at, and I think the games have been better for it...
2nd: Blood Money
...But the number of times I've seen Emergency Force Sphere banned can't hold a candle to my pick for the second spot, Blood Money. Destroy economies. Attain limitless power. This is a signature spell of a specific figure for a reason, and any situation where a caster is allowed a reasonable amount of time to use it will quickly grow out of control.
1st: Teleport
Yet strangely, in first place is a spell I rarely see banned. I don't ban it. Yet people are certainly aware of its power to disrupt campaigns. Launch a surprise attack on the enemy leader. Escape with your companions. Stop two catastrophic events on opposite sides of a continent (or start them!). It may not become available until 5th-level spells, but Teleport is without peer in the ability to change and influence the events of a world. As such, I can only place it at the top of the list.
1st: Teleport
Yet strangely, in first place is a spell I rarely see banned. I don't ban it. Yet people are certainly aware of its power to disrupt campaigns. Launch a surprise attack on the enemy leader.
Ah yes, the potential of the "Scry n' Fry" tactic. See, at my table, this does not get abused. But that's because my players know the moment they start doing that to their enemies, their enemies start doing it to them, and there will be no mercy. That is what prevents them from using it. LOL
I like your list.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1st: Teleport
Yet strangely, in first place is a spell I rarely see banned. I don't ban it. Yet people are certainly aware of its power to disrupt campaigns. Launch a surprise attack on the enemy leader.
Ah yes, the potential of the "Scry n' Fry" tactic. See, at my table, this does not get abused. But that's because my players know the moment they start doing that to their enemies, their enemies start doing it to them, and there will be no mercy. That is what prevents them from using it. LOL
I like your list.
I am very strict with the "You must have some clear idea of the location and layout of the destination." You can Scry the enemy in a room somewhere, but that doesn't allow Teleportation, as you don't know where is "somewhere".
It is one of the reasons why kings, in my world, have several mansions, and all the bedrooms have the same layout. "I scry the king in his bedroom." "It is the one at Windsor, St. James's Palace, Buckingham Palace, or Clarence House" "Our spies say he is in London." "So, not at Windsor, but we can't risk getting the wrong room. We need more information."
Then there is "Areas of strong physical or magical energy may make teleportation more hazardous or even impossible." The target is in a subterranean dungeon? Probably teleporting in isn't that easy.
Enough magical defenses will greatly reduce the chance of successfully teleporting to the target location. Some of that stuff is in Complete Intrigue.
When I think about the answer to the question, "What are the best arcane spells?" the first thing that occurs to me is that establishing meaningful criteria is going to be paramount to make any sense of the ensuing list.
When I think of this I would probably go with "which is the most powerful spell from each spell level?" It's not quite the question that was asked, but it does seem difficult to compare something like Silent Image with Time Stop. On the other hand, how many times will you cast Time Stop compared to Silent Image? Even in a campaign that goes all the way to 20 you only have 3-4 levels to cast Time Stop, while you could be solving problems with Silent Image from level 1 all the way to 20. Having a best-at-each-level lets you compare them to like-spells, rather than trying to tie in all the variables associated with all levels of spells.
Of course then we have the problem of spells having different levels for different classes, but they're usually only different by 1 spell level.
7th: Haste
Pound for pound, there is no better statistical buff in the game relative to the resource expended to obtain it. The raw damage contribution of Haste in a party with multiple martials is insane. The fact that it can also reduce damage with higher AC and Reflex saves is fantastic, as well as enabling tactical options that would otherwise have been impossible with the increased movement makes it peerless as a numerical buff.
This is a specific disagreement, but in my opinion SLOW has a greater statistical impact than Haste.
There is no doubt that Haste is an unbelievably good spell. If it were a 4th level spell we would still cast it every combat. If it were a 5th level spell it would still be high on people's list of spells to cast. This spell approximately doubles the effectiveness of the entire party, increasing damage output, movement speed and defences of the entire party all from a single standard action.
However Slow effectively does the same thing. Action economy isn't just about increasing your own actions, it's about increasing your actions in relation to your enemies' actions. The attack penalty and AC penalty give the same numerical benefit of Haste, and halving enemy movement speed gives the same general benefit as Haste [ooc[(increasing your movement speed compared to theirs)[/ooc], but the 1 extra attack from Haste doesn't come close to comparing to reducing enemies to 1 attack per round. Sure low level enemies might only have 1 attack, but those enemies aren't usually the real threats. Against any enemy that matters reducing them to 1 attack per round is effectively nerfing them into incompetence. But the real thing that makes this spell better than Haste is that it benefits casters just as much as martials. Haste gives your martials better action economy compared to enemies, but Slow gives the martials and the casters better action economy.
Now I will wager that a 5th level wizard casting Haste on the party is likely to have a greater impact than casting Slow. None of the party have 2 attacks yet so Haste will double the number of attacks , while a Slow spell might reduce enemies from 1 attack to 1 attack. But the higher your level the lower the advantage of Haste and the higher the probably advantage of Slow.
There are 2 potential disadvantages of Slow, but I don't think either of them are enough to actually make Haste better. First, there is a saving throw. It's possible that enemies are unaffected by it. Second, while the party is usually grouped up at the beginning of combat and able to be buffed with a single cast, the enemies are more likely to be spread out. For this reason Hast is more likely to affect 100% of the intended targets, while Slow could have something like a 50% effect rate. I would say though that even 50% is often as useful as Haste, which just goes to show how good it is. And while a single enemy could entirely negate Slow with a single save, a single enemy who fails that save is likely a huge problem if not debuffed. Landing that debuff could be enough to render the encounter trivial.
|
7th: Haste
Pound for pound, there is no better statistical buff in the game relative to the resource expended to obtain it. The raw damage contribution of Haste in a party with multiple martials is insane. The fact that it can also reduce damage with higher AC and Reflex saves is fantastic, as well as enabling tactical options that would otherwise have been impossible with the increased movement makes it peerless as a numerical buff.
This is a specific disagreement, but in my opinion SLOW has a greater statistical impact than Haste.
There is no doubt that Haste is an unbelievably good spell. If it were a 4th level spell we would still cast it every combat. If it were a 5th level spell it would still be high on people's list of spells to cast. This spell approximately doubles the effectiveness of the entire party, increasing damage output, movement speed and defences of the entire party all from a single standard action.
However Slow effectively does the same thing. Action economy isn't just about increasing your own actions, it's about increasing your actions in relation to your enemies' actions. The attack penalty and AC penalty give the same numerical benefit of Haste, and halving enemy movement speed gives the same general benefit as Haste [ooc[(increasing your movement speed compared to theirs)[/ooc], but the 1 extra attack from Haste doesn't come close to comparing to reducing enemies to 1 attack per round. Sure low level enemies might only have 1 attack, but those enemies aren't usually the real threats. Against any enemy that matters reducing them to 1 attack per round is effectively nerfing them into incompetence. But the real thing that makes this spell better than Haste is that it benefits casters just as much as martials. Haste gives your martials better action economy compared to enemies, but Slow gives the martials and the casters better action economy.
Now I will wager...
Why not cast both?
Why not cast both?
Honestly, that's a great idea for tough fights.
For smaller encounters though it's kinda a waste of resources. I guess by high level it's not though, so yeah do that.
7th: Haste
Pound for pound, there is no better statistical buff in the game relative to the resource expended to obtain it. The raw damage contribution of Haste in a party with multiple martials is insane. The fact that it can also reduce damage with higher AC and Reflex saves is fantastic, as well as enabling tactical options that would otherwise have been impossible with the increased movement makes it peerless as a numerical buff.
This is a specific disagreement, but in my opinion SLOW has a greater statistical impact than Haste.
There is no doubt that Haste is an unbelievably good spell. If it were a 4th level spell we would still cast it every combat. If it were a 5th level spell it would still be high on people's list of spells to cast. This spell approximately doubles the effectiveness of the entire party, increasing damage output, movement speed and defences of the entire party all from a single standard action.
However Slow effectively does the same thing. Action economy isn't just about increasing your own actions, it's about increasing your actions in relation to your enemies' actions. The attack penalty and AC penalty give the same numerical benefit of Haste, and halving enemy movement speed gives the same general benefit as Haste [ooc[(increasing your movement speed compared to theirs)[/ooc], but the 1 extra attack from Haste doesn't come close to comparing to reducing enemies to 1 attack per round. Sure low level enemies might only have 1 attack, but those enemies aren't usually the real threats. Against any enemy that matters reducing them to 1 attack per round is effectively nerfing them into incompetence. But the real thing that makes this spell better than Haste is that it benefits casters just as much as martials. Haste gives your martials better action economy compared to enemies, but Slow gives the martials and the casters better action economy.
Now I will wager...
Haste is fundamentally better than Slow because Slow grants a saving throw, Haste does not.
7th: Haste
Pound for pound, there is no better statistical buff in the game relative to the resource expended to obtain it. The raw damage contribution of Haste in a party with multiple martials is insane. The fact that it can also reduce damage with higher AC and Reflex saves is fantastic, as well as enabling tactical options that would otherwise have been impossible with the increased movement makes it peerless as a numerical buff.
This is a specific disagreement, but in my opinion SLOW has a greater statistical impact than Haste.
There is no doubt that Haste is an unbelievably good spell. If it were a 4th level spell we would still cast it every combat. If it were a 5th level spell it would still be high on people's list of spells to cast. This spell approximately doubles the effectiveness of the entire party, increasing damage output, movement speed and defences of the entire party all from a single standard action.
However Slow effectively does the same thing. Action economy isn't just about increasing your own actions, it's about increasing your actions in relation to your enemies' actions. The attack penalty and AC penalty give the same numerical benefit of Haste, and halving enemy movement speed gives the same general benefit as Haste [ooc[(increasing your movement speed compared to theirs)[/ooc], but the 1 extra attack from Haste doesn't come close to comparing to reducing enemies to 1 attack per round. Sure low level enemies might only have 1 attack, but those enemies aren't usually the real threats. Against any enemy that matters reducing them to 1 attack per round is effectively nerfing them into incompetence. But the real thing that makes this spell better than Haste is that it benefits casters just as much as martials. Haste gives your martials better action economy compared to enemies, but Slow gives the martials and the casters better action economy.
Now I will wager...
So I'd first clarify by saying that much as you acknowledge the value and power of Haste, I without a doubt acknowledge the value and power of Slow. However, I don't think it comes close to beating out the power of Haste. A lot of this is likely down to different assumptions being made about one might expect in an "average" campaign, because there are obviously situations where Slow absolutely shines, but I still think there are a number of considerations that push Haste over. There's no objective argument that can be made, here, so I want to try and highlight the assumptions I'm making and why I'm making them that lead me to the conclusion that Haste is better (and Slow doesn't make the top ten for me at all).
The top reason, for me, is situational knowledge. Haste, as a buff, has many parties it isn't good in. A charge-based Cavalier, a Kineticist, a Wizard, and an Ecclesitheurge Cleric probably do not derive a ton of value from Haste in comparison to a Fighter, an archer Occultist, an archer Bard, and a Molthuuni Arsenal Chaplain Warpriest. But the Wizard in the first party doesn't need to over-index their Haste investment. They know that Haste is predominantly providing "just" the movement bonus, AC bonus, and Reflex save bonus, and that the extra attack is almost always getting wasted. If they use a slot for Haste, there's no confusion about what benefits it's providing. Likewise, the Bard in the second party has no confusion that Haste is always going to be a major buff in every fight it's dropped down. The 30 ft. span limitation can also be a massive factor if you're not fighting in cramped rooms constantly, but this is something that you can choose to control when buffing; the Haste caster simply needs to let their allies know their intent in advance, and you can be assured that unless people start taking heavy AoE damage round one, everyone will still be grouped up for Haste (or knowingly choose to give it up for that encounter).
Alternatively, there are simply situations that Slow isn't very good in -- namely, it's really bad against the most dangerous opponents: Casters. Casting opponents usually have good-to-excellent Will saves, but even excluding that factor, hitting a caster with Slow means that they can still cast a normal and Quickened spell. Their primary routine hasn't been disrupted at all. It's true that Slow also denies them the 5 ft. step in that situation (along with the AC and Reflex penalty), but Quickened spells don't provoke by default, and as levels escalate, the chance of failing to cast defensively (even on a really high level spell) approaches zero. Aside from that, even against opponents that Slow is effective against, and even if the saving throw is assumed to be a non-factor, you have no assurances on how the enemy will be grouped, and certainly can't force them to position themselves in a way that favors optimal efficiency with the spell.
I also disagree with the interpretation of the scaling argument. You're obviously correct in that the raw addition of one extra attack is most impactful at the level Haste comes online and diminishes afterward, but the extra attacks gained from later levels on martial characters aren't capable of being compared to Haste on a 1:1 scale; the iteratives are obviously less accurate. This then partially comes down to how optimized the parties in question are. I consider it "normal" for anyone expecting to full-round to have a 90%-95% chance of hitting on their first attack. In theory, you can optimize up to having a 95% even down to third and fourth iteratives with heavy buff-stacking, but I don't consider that normal, and my baseline expectation is that third attacks will have right around a 50% chance of hitting a meaningfully dangerous opponent (obviously, some will have higher or lower ACs, but that's my mental "average"). If that degree of optimization is more normal at the tables you play at, then Haste will scale as you describe. Otherwise, the addition of a highly accurate attack (and that little extra boost to all attacks) is going to still have a high impact even going into the latter parts of the campaign.
With Slow, it's the same -- denying iteratives with Slow does have higher value later on in campaigns (especially if it's an opponent who was trying to get into position to hit a low-AC party member), but you're still denying them their bad/inaccurate attacks. Of course, the Slow condition is much worse than that since they will need to spend their sole action repositioning if the party used tactics effectively, and will also provoke from anyone they are in melee with if do want or need to reposition. Slow is fantastic -- but I actually think the opponents it's best against are early natural attackers. Right when Slow comes online, animals with three or four natural attacks, especially primary natural attacks, are absolutely horrifying and can down someone in a single round if the dice are with them. These types of opponents overall tend to become less scary as the campaign progresses and an increasing percentage of the party gets an increasing quantity of tools to negate their options or make fools of them.
And that brings me to my second point on the matter of scaling, and my third argument as to why I value Haste much more highly -- both enemies and the party naturally scale in a direction that leads away from raw damage and toward magic. Even though Slow appears to scale better over time on paper, the opponents it's neutralizing are the ones the party tends to fear less and less. At 17th level, would I rather prepare a spell that will help the party in an encounter against four CR 13 natural attack focused opponents, or four 13th Level Wizards? Which one do I think is more likely to show up and actually be encountered? For me, the answer to the second question is the Wizards, but I realize that's obviously going to have both a lot of individual campaign and table variance. In general, my expectation is that as overall party power level escalates and high levels are reached, the types of opponents that they will both encounter and fear will generally turn away from those that Slow is effective against and toward those that Slow is ineffective against. I do buy the argument that in these high-level fights, when you do fight the party that Slow is effective against, it absolutely demolishes them (which in turns saves everyone resources). I have never been arguing that Slow is a bad spell (since it's a brilliant and powerful spell), just that it doesn't hold up to Haste in my evaluation.
With those thoughts, assumptions, and explanations in place, I view Haste and Slow as being strongest at exactly the same time (immediately upon acquiring them), and both gradually decreasing over time. One of them allows complete knowledge about its usefulness and never fails, the other can fail (via save) and might be target-inefficient (due to positioning). But it's true that I would much rather have Slow in my back pocket than, say, Stinking Cloud in the situations where Slow is strong, since such enemies are far more likely to have a good Fortitude saving throw than a good Will saving throw. Obviously, the best arcane strategy is to have a good variety of the best spells; we just seem to be of different minds on where we place our evaluation of what has the biggest impact (which is tough to do and means comparing apples to oranges from the start).
I agree with most of your argument, but there is a point I want to correct:
It's true that Slow also denies them the 5 ft. step in that situationTaking a 5' step isn't an action so Slow doesn't affect it (unless it reduces your base movement to 5' or less).
You are absolutely correct.
You can only take a 5-foot-step if your movement isn't hampered by difficult terrain or darkness.
So many other instances that reduce movement either do so by explicitly creating difficult terrain, or directly state that a 5 ft. step is impossible (as in the case of Solid Fog), but there is no such restriction on Slow. It does feel against the established pattern as I can't think of another situation where one's movement is impaired and they can 5 ft. step outside of the entangled condition, but yeah, no arguments here from a rules interpretation. Honestly, that's a pretty heavy weakness for Slow.
Haste is fundamentally better than Slow because Slow grants a saving throw, Haste does not.
Well my argument was that even a 50% success rate with Slow still makes it more impactful on the action economy a lot of the time, so the saving throw is more of a balancing factor than an unmanageable detriment. You should also be able to get higher than a 50% success rate if you put resources into it.
<Lots of stuff - namely caster enemies are the scarier ones and they don't care about Slow>
I don't especially disagree with this. Caster enemies are less affected by Slow, and as such it becomes a less useful debuff. But the same can be said about caster allies being less affected by Haste, making it a less useful buff.
I think the fundamental thing to realise is that Haste and Slow effectively serve the same function. They both change the action economy in the favour of the caster and their allies. The more casters on the enemy side the less useful Slow becomes, while the more casters on the allied side the less useful Haste becomes. In a 4v4 caster-vs-caster fight neither of these spells would likely see any use.
Your experience is that caster enemies tend to be the most threatening, so that's when you would break out the good spells, and that's fair enough. In my experience though caster enemies are Much less common than caster allies. There are 44 classes in the game and 24 of them are 6/9 casters or 9/9 casters . In my experience most parties have 2-3 casters, and at least 1-2 of them will be casting as their main schtick. Meanwhile the average encounter is mostly martial enemies, with the occasional caster. While this could simply be that we play at different tables, I also think an encounter against a serious caster could be better served by readying actions to hit them with Magic Missile or similar - if action economy is king then denying that enemy caster their actions will be more impactful than either Haste or Slow. This doesn't make Haste or Slow better or worse, but it does mean that the encounters where this matters may not be the best judge of which spell is better.
I will say 2 things though. First is that both of these spells are fantastic, and I do think they both have a place. I wouldn't say that 1 is always the best choice, Schrodinger's Wizard would have both and would apply the best spell to any given situation. The second is that I appreciate the discussion. I think the whole point of this thread is to have these discussions, which is why I brought it up in the first place.
I guess my premise is that Haste is the easy spell, and that's why it's considered so good by everyone. You always know what it's going to do and how it will impact the combat. Slow seems a little harder to pin down because it has a limited area and a saving throw, but there are a Lot of situations when Slow is objectively a better choice than Haste, and I often see people skipping it because they don't put the thought into it, and from an optimization standpoint this saddens me.
Haste is fundamentally better than Slow because Slow grants a saving throw, Haste does not.Well my argument was that even a 50% success rate with Slow still makes it more impactful on the action economy a lot of the time, so the saving throw is more of a balancing factor than an unmanageable detriment. You should also be able to get higher than a 50% success rate if you put resources into it.
DC = 10 + spell level + ability (plus whatever resource you spend)
Save = d20 + level bonus +ability + additional resources spent + magic itemsSince Slow is a 3rd level spell, the success rate against NPCs drops as their level increases. (i.e. the DC typically doesn't increase much per caster level, but the Save does increase per NPC level)
Haste on the other hand, while it does offer a saving throw to it's recipients, is almost always failed on purpose.
My experiences are vastly different than yours. Most parties have 1-2 casters, with one of them acting as a martial (magus, warpriest, inquisitor, etc), and 3-4 martials. So Haste is a very valuable spell.
I’m not sure I have a perfect top 10, because to a degree it depends on the character and campaign, but in addition to those listed above, Prestidigitation, Glitterdust and Magic Missile would be on my list.
Prestidigitation is the classic ‘I am a wizard, I can do magic all day long’ spell, and has potential for all sorts of clever tricks if used imaginatively.
Glitterdust is a great battlefield control spell that also counters Invisibility, which can be a wizard killer.
Magic Missile is the spell that hits when so many others don’t. Force damage, huge range, ignores cover… it may not do a lot of damage, but it stays relevant for a long time.