Can't you just do the same as a psychic and use Possession + Become Thought?
Probably.
That doesn't help a Wizard do it though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its funny "if a class only did summoning", but let me not derail the thread with that can of worm.
Overall I do agree with you that summons are a tool kit that require tactical decisions. However, I still do think that summons in the context of PF2 are not balanced correctly. In a game where math is more loose summons being 5 levels below is okay; However, in PF2 a level-2 creature is trivial, a level-5 creature is less than trivial, a level-7 creature is outright useless outside of casting support spells or the GM being nice and wasting an action on it.
The action thing is more complex and I don't want to talk about it right now.
-4 is trivial, and yes -5 is lower than that, but ofc you must also recognize that summons shouldn't contribute to damage or have save or suck aspects, yes? Perhaps a level 15 creature is too low for one of your precious 10th level slots, but outside that specific scenario, I still find them okay
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Niche protection is garbage. Classes should be built around a theme, not a mechanical role.
Define "theme".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Niche protection is garbage. Classes should be built around a theme, not a mechanical role.Define "theme".
I'm going to define what I mean by theme by showing a few specialist subtypes of a casting tradition - in this case, the Arcane tradition - that existed in PF1:
1) Summoner - Contributes to combats primarily via creatures brought in from somewhere else usually spontaneously in combat but at higher levels this archetype might have a stable of more permanent helpers to draw from.
2) Shapeshifter - From using Alter Self to buff otherwise neglected physical stats to stealing the bodies of others this caster contributes by turning the strengths of monstrous foes into their own power to command.
3) Divination - Knowledge is power and this caster can always find what they seek if given a little time to work their magic.
4) Buffing - This version of a Wizard might play slightly off type but don't underestimate them. Spells like Haste, Shrink/Enlarge, Magic Weapon, Stoneskin, and Heroism define this playstyle.
5) Blasting - Often derided as being simple these casters use a carefully picked selection of spells and metamagic feats to ensure that no target is immune to their large spikes of damage.
6) Control - From humble beginnings with Sleep and Color Spray to Force Cage and Banishment these casters seek to waste the actions of their enemies and ensure that their allies are never forced to fight a fairly.
You could also define a theme for something like the Arcane tradition by looking at examples from fiction and deciding if they fit or not, but as I am explicitly arguing that Paizo shouldn't have removed themes from the Arcane tradition I have gone with the above, nonexhaustive list, instead.
Fair enough. Though I would say "classes should be built around at least one, and often more than one, theme". Otherwise we might define "class" as "theme".
My favorite TTRPG system (Harnmaster) has plenty of themes, but no classes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fair enough. Though I would say "classes should be built around at least one, and often more than one, theme". Otherwise we might define "class" as "theme".
My favorite TTRPG system (Harnmaster) has plenty of themes, but no classes.
I'm in agreement. I vastly prefer classless games where you can pick and choose which themes and abilities define your character but with PF2 being a game defined by niche protection themes have to be defined in terms of what each class and spellcasting tradition is given permission to excel at.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fiery body and corrosive body give immunity. Very nice spells.Compare that to the 24-hour long buff that was elemental immunity and tell me we're even on the same plane of existence.
Equal action economy after 5 rounds? What? You can use sustain spells at level 16 as a free action which allows for summons if find a useful one.See above. I was incorrect about how summons work due to not using them.
I still find them weak and very rarely worth the opprotunity cost even with the correction to their action economy.
What do you even mean non-template form changes?Pick a form from the Monster Manual Shapechange. Magic Jar. The kind of stuff where you could take a monster as is from the list and just be that creature. Instead, we get very limited selections of things to change into and they're often applied like a PF1 template of changes rather than a wholesale change.
So you want to play PF1. That game exists.
That type of material will likely never exist in PF2. So why are you over here wanting PF1 material in a game that has flatly decided it isn't going to do that?
I see now you are not realistically trying to improve this game and you want to play PF1. You are not at all helpful in making PF2 better. You seem to be another player that can't let go of PF1.
All done discussing PF2 with someone that isn't interested in improving PF2. You want to play PF1 which is still available for you to do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the Wizard fits well being “boring”. I mean, it is a character much related with intellectual stuff and all that. People who likes it, is going to enjoy the Wizard a lot. Think really what the Wizard is based on description, base stat, and abilities/features. Don’t judge it just for the heritage of a name that can be something different in other games.
If you are more about action, or that mentioned stuff is not your point, play another class, like a Sorcerer, Oracle, or any of the many others available.
That was a spell substitution equivalent. Leaving slots open until you needed them. Now you have to spend a thesis to do something similar? It's not cool at all.They basically took an ability a wizard could do as part of the class in PF1 and turned it into a thesis with Spell Substitution. All wizards in PF1 could do Spell Substitution as needed. They turned that into a Spell Thesis and made you have to take it as your only thesis? That's kind of a kick in the teeth if you ask me.To be honest, no, the wizard couldn't do that; the arcanist could (if they took that ability).
What every prepared caster could do was leaving blank slots to memorize stuff later, but that's a bit different compared to changing an already memorized slot with another.
It's not something that only affects Wizards though. You could even say that Wizards are especially lucky, being the only class who still has an option to do something like that.
|
But more importantly. Many monsters don't have energy or weapon material weaknesses at all. But they all have weak saves. So the wizard still gets more use out of recall knowledge than the typical fighter, because they're built around saves.Until wizards (and other casters) have at-will auto-scalable max-power abilities targeting all saves, the place for this 'argument' is in the trash bin.
If martials using scrolls or being able to RK is a valid argument for crying over casters, I propose that casters can use maneuvers as well as martials to freely target REF and FORT save, or Demoralize / Bon Mot for WILL saves.
Not to mention all the cantrips that are around. Which is also a counter for the argument that a wizard succeeding at a RK would be unable to benefit from a weakness to slashing or bludgeoning. Because Telekinetic Projectile is definitely a thing.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm convinced at this point that this is supposed to be a elaborate punishment for previous editions, I assume everyone who is saying the wizard is fine must have had to deal with the most insufferably smug wizard player for years and years claiming that wizards are perfectly balanced and now they are sadistically relishing in doing the same trolling to us as revenge, I just hope the punishment isn't forever. :)It's funny how people say "wizard is a recall knowledge class because of int". Meanwhile, that class gets the least support for it. More skills? pfft A fighter that maxes Int has the same number of skills as the Wizard, all other class (which get more skills) have even more. That is before you even consider that: Bard, Dandy, Investigator, Folklorist, Oracle, and Loremaster all give you at least expert in all lores; Oracles can literally get legendary in any lore at the cost of a focus point.
To say that wizard is a recall knowledge class is laughable on its face.
To bring up "they are good at recall knowledge" to try to argue that spell slots specially at low level are fine is even more so.
Please stop insulting your fellow posters.
I did notice that several people who bash any argument that would show wizards can be played in PF2 seem to have been perfectly happy with the PF1 wizard power level and do not see at all why it needed to be nerfed in PF2.
In a way it reminds me of the people who hated how 3.5 nerfed the 3.0 spells.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Casters in general could use with more 3 action interactions imo, more 1-action or even 3-action spells, and more variable action spells. They are fun and neat, but there could be some variable action cantrips and more in general.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah when i first looked into the Casting in Pf2 i had the false thought that variable Action casting were the norm and i thought that was a very good idea to take full advantage of the 3 Action System as a caster.
Quicker but weaker option
the Middle ground for two
And the overcharged for a full 3 Action.
But i realised quickly this was not the case :(
Well yeah, that's why 2 action casting should be the norm. But that doesn't mean there shouldn't also be more variable action spells. Heck, we now have the possibility of multiple-round spells from secret of magic even.
We know they're going to keep adding spells into the game, so it's not a bad idea to think if you have like, 1 out of every 15 spells you're writing "Maybe this can work as a variable action spell" and try to get more of them.
I like casters and I actually think casters have a fine early-level experience since their damage actually eeks a little ahead of martials and everyone is mostly on the same even fitting as far as accuracy goes. But just having more spells that can have you decide if you need 1 action or 2 actions a turn, or any actions at all, is good.
|
|
Well yeah, that's why 2 action casting should be the norm. But that doesn't mean there shouldn't also be more variable action spells. Heck, we now have the possibility of multiple-round spells from secret of magic even.
We know they're going to keep adding spells into the game, so it's not a bad idea to think if you have like, 1 out of every 15 spells you're writing "Maybe this can work as a variable action spell" and try to get more of them.
I like casters and I actually think casters have a fine early-level experience since their damage actually eeks a little ahead of martials and everyone is mostly on the same even fitting as far as accuracy goes. But just having more spells that can have you decide if you need 1 action or 2 actions a turn, or any actions at all, is good.
I agree with the theory. In practice, it needs the designers to create a spell that is in fact 3 spells and that has a great consistency between its 3 results. I feel it is the equivalent of designing and balancing 5 simple spells.
What I miss are more 1-action attack spells. Probably lesser damage but to compare with a weapon attack in the case of cantrips, but using your spell attack skill. It would allow to use more the combo saving and attack spells as most saving are 2-actions.
|
|
What I miss are more 1-action attack spells. Probably lesser damage but to compare with a weapon attack in the case of cantrips, but using your spell attack skill. It would allow to use more the combo saving and attack spells as most saving are 2-actions.
I totally see why a caster PC would want this. But the spell should either cost a slot, a Focus point or deal less damage than an equivalent Simple weapon (if a cantrip). The latter so that higher attack proficiency is balanced by lower attack damage to get the same average damage.
What I miss are more 1-action attack spells. Probably lesser damage but to compare with a weapon attack in the case of cantrips, but using your spell attack skill. It would allow to use more the combo saving and attack spells as most saving are 2-actions.I totally see why a caster PC would want this. But the spell should either cost a slot, a Focus point or deal less damage than an equivalent Simple weapon (if a cantrip). The latter so that higher attack proficiency is balanced by lower attack damage to get the same average damage.
Why shouldn't a 1-action ranged cantrip deal as much damage as a crossbow? Would it really be too much to chain a single target 1d8 elemental damage attack into another two-action ability?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why shouldn't a 1-action ranged cantrip deal as much damage as a crossbow? Would it really be too much to chain a single target 1d8 elemental damage attack into another two-action ability?What I miss are more 1-action attack spells. Probably lesser damage but to compare with a weapon attack in the case of cantrips, but using your spell attack skill. It would allow to use more the combo saving and attack spells as most saving are 2-actions.I totally see why a caster PC would want this. But the spell should either cost a slot, a Focus point or deal less damage than an equivalent Simple weapon (if a cantrip). The latter so that higher attack proficiency is balanced by lower attack damage to get the same average damage.
Because you have to spend wealth to improve your crossbow's damage and attack bonus through Runes.
You do not have to spend wealth to heighten a Cantrip.
Not to mention the crossbow is a reload weapon.
Because you have to spend wealth to improve your crossbow's damage and attack bonus through Runes.
It's almost like we should have some sort of runes that boost spell attacks and scale cantrip damage...
Not to mention the crossbow is a reload weapon.
That can be negated with a feat and some ancestries grant access to weapons better than a crossbow so I don't feel like limiting 1-action cantrips to the level of a sling is particularly well justified.
Also because the crossbow has lower to-hit than the cantrip, given your casting stat presumably isn't Dex. And of course, unless it's repeating, the crossbow takes an action to reload...
This is why I maintain the correct scaling is 1d4, heightened (+2) 1d4.
I'm not comparing the same weapon in a Wizard's hands to a 1-action cantrip, I'm comparing it to the baseline ranged attack all-day options that other classes get. Even at scaling 1d8 and a Wizards full spell attack, they'll never add a stat modifier to the attack, won't get other class-specific damage boosters, and can't use specialized ammunition. In this context, 1d8 elemental damage at 30ft. range as a single action won't break anything.
What problem would that solve? What would be gained?Because you have to spend wealth to improve your crossbow's damage and attack bonus through Runes.It's almost like we should have some sort of runes that boost spell attacks and scale cantrip damage...
You'd have more reliable single-target attack spells for one. This in turn reduces the reliance on True Strike spam, which should be a goal at this point, so we can reduce it to a nice-to-have spell rather than a must-have for certain styles of play.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure that's really a deliberate problem that needs to be fixed - the casters (Wizards, included) in my games don't find it to be an issue.
Given that we've had many threads about the disappointment of early-level casters and how players don't like, "Just use a two-action cantrip plus a weapon." as a solution I figure adding in a few single-action cantrips that do 1d8 damage at 30 feet would be a reasonable solution. If 1d8 is too strong I'd be open to 1d6 but 1d4 with zero stat modifier isn't really any better than the 1d3 damage PF1 had cantrips dealing and we can all agree that those sucked.