Frankly, my favorite wizards are ones who never cast any blast spells at all. Which is why I also like the occult list a lot... it's a shame the lamest class to ever exist is the poster child for it
I will always admit my bias that I want the wizard class to cater to my play style of "do little to no damage, control the battlefield, set up the martials, do cool utility stuff, be a knowledge guy"
I want a wizard who doesn't blast to be and remain a viable option. It's how I played them in 1e, it's who I have played them in 5e. It's how I try to play them in BG3 and the owlcat pathfinder games... with... less success but still some success. It's also something the other players at my tables like because they get to do their damage role thing and crush enemies and bosses
Lamest class? You mean the bard?
Lamest class? You mean the bard?
Don't take it heart, I have a blood feud against bards (and rogues). It goes back centuries
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Probably, I thought I put legacy reasons in my comment to account for that but I might have got rid of it while rewording some stuff, but it is a mechanic that I feel could probably be improved a bit, even just upping it to 3 per level would help a lot with picking up weird spells along with workhorses. (They did technically get a spellbook in 4e but it just let them swap daily powers).
I will say, it sells the flavor and class fantasy of the wizard to learn spells while adventuring and a GM who doesn't facilitate this is a jerk, but I wouldn't say no to extra spells known at level up. I will say the new schools effectively do exactly this
Lamest class? You mean the bard?Don't take it heart, I have a blood feud against bards (and rogues). It goes back centuries
What did they do to you?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wizards targeting the correct saves and doing the right damage types against weaknesses can outpace the damage output of martials in some circumstances already. It is ok for the complexity meter of different classes to slide without the overall power meter sliding that much. There are plenty of magical class options that are not that tactically complex once they are built: the bard, the cleric, the psychic, the Oracle, the kineticist.
Cool but these circumstances rely on GM fiat of foreknowledge of encounters and weaknesses when you prepare for the day or is purely a matter of luck that I picked a spell that does cold damage and target's reflex in a slot high enough to matter today. This isn't good design.
You seem to want the wizard to only cater to your vision of a wizard, I am happy for it to work either way even if it means it needs a level 1 thesis options which determines whether I want to play pure support wizard or a more classical fantasy wizard like Pug, Macross the Black, Nakor (Riftwar saga), or Allanon (Shannara books), or Belgarath.
Your arguing to preserve your way of play and everything else is bad/wrong fun.
It is ok for there to be some that are tactically complex and that is not elitism, it is just letting classes be good at different things. What would be elitism is if wizards played well just massively out performed every other class, so that...
Wizard is and should be an entry level class not a master class in guessing or knowing the AP/adventure you are on ahead of time. Classes having to work harder to get similar results or more dependant on GM fiat for balance is bad design.
I am not suggesting that wizards should excel, I am saying you should need all these things to be true for a wizard to be good. It should be as reliable and easy to play as fighter, rogue, cleric the other 3 of the original 4 iconic classes for fantasy games. Requiring more of one class to get similar result, or more of a GM to ensure that class can get similar results to what other classes get out of the gate isn't great. You and I differ on what 'tactically complex' means, wizards shouldn't need to play a guessing game about what encounters are on that day or rely on knowing the bestiary or lucky guesses to be good. That isn't tactically complex that is just a barrier to new players getting into the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Probably, I thought I put legacy reasons in my comment to account for that but I might have got rid of it while rewording some stuff, but it is a mechanic that I feel could probably be improved a bit, even just upping it to 3 per level would help a lot with picking up weird spells along with workhorses. (They did technically get a spellbook in 4e but it just let them swap daily powers).I will say, it sells the flavor and class fantasy of the wizard to learn spells while adventuring and a GM who doesn't facilitate this is a jerk, but I wouldn't say no to extra spells known at level up. I will say the new schools effectively do exactly this
I agree with you on this one and I think it should be built into the wizard's rulebook entry and all APs but it isn't. Most APs barely have any spells as treasure, some take place with little to no downtime to buy spells or have towns of appropriate level nearby to purchase spells. Others are more forgiving for this but its not universal. If its an expectation of the game it should be very clearly spelled out.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not convinced that more than a handful of people have been complaining about caster balance for four years.
Between late comers from 1e finishing up their 1e campaigns and the influx of D&D players from the OGL debacle, I think that we just get waves of people falling into the same mental traps (akin to how many apply 1e or D&D tactics to 2e) such as thinking something is broken or needs fixing just because they're not yet accustomed to the way things are intended to work. That, or they get caught up in listening to the diehard vocal minority complaints about non-existent problems.
Most anyone who has played the game long enough to know how best to utilize 2e tactics also knows that casters are totally fine where they are. Silver bullet situations such as targeting weak saves or energy weaknesses, or being able to control the battlefield, limit enemy options, or expand the party's options, makes it so the extremely minor numerical lag in attack or damage values becomes a balancing measure that makes martial characters still worth playing. After all, if you could do all that and crit all the time, why would you ever play anything else?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
IMO the source here is some players viewing this ttrpg through the lens of a video game raid
The main reason of disagreements, the play style. Each thing can look nice or bad depending of how you play the game.
In fact, you can make a martial with caster archetype, a caster with martial archetype, or in the other hand you can make casters with up to 6 spells of each level with 2 casters archetypes.
So make the one you like. How moldable characters are in PF2 is impressive
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not convinced that more than a handful of people have been complaining about caster balance for four years.
Between late comers from 1e finishing up their 1e campaigns and the influx of D&D players from the OGL debacle, I think that we just get waves of people falling into the same mental traps (akin to how many apply 1e or D&D tactics to 2e) such as thinking something is broken or needs fixing just because they're not yet accustomed to the way things are intended to work. That, or they get caught up in listening to the diehard vocal minority complaints about non-existent problems.
Most anyone who has played the game long enough to know how best to utilize 2e tactics also knows that casters are totally fine where they are. Silver bullet situations such as targeting weak saves or energy weaknesses, or being able to control the battlefield, limit enemy options, or expand the party's options, makes it so the extremely minor numerical lag in attack or damage values becomes a balancing measure that makes martial characters still worth playing. After all, if you could do all that and crit all the time, why would you ever play anything else?
It was refreshing to go on the pathfinder discord and back search "wizard" to see everyone clearly easily recognizing that wizard is still one of the most powerful classes in the game, one of the best casters and that casters are definitely very good. It really is just like four or five people on here complaining and the through-line is an unreasonable expectation that wizards should get everything and it's sometimes masked as being "about casters" when they really just want to be the annoying guy at the table stealing everyone's thunder rather than a team player
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wizard is and should be an entry level class not a master class in guessing or knowing the AP/adventure you are on ahead of time. Classes having to work harder to get similar results or more dependant on GM fiat for balance is bad design.
I am not suggesting that wizards should excel, I am saying you should need all these things to be true for a wizard to be good. It should be as reliable and easy to play as fighter, rogue, cleric the other 3 of the original 4 iconic classes for fantasy games. Requiring more of one class to get similar result, or more of a GM to ensure that class can get similar results to what other classes get out of the gate isn't great. You and I differ on what 'tactically complex' means, wizards shouldn't need to play a guessing game about what encounters are on that day or rely on knowing the bestiary or lucky guesses to be good. That isn't tactically complex that is just a barrier to new players getting into the game.
There are very many ways to play a wizard successfully. Since this thread is about low level, we can look at level 1 and say that a battle mage wizard really isn't that complicated a build: You get a good focus spell you will use in every encounter, You get magic missile as a school spell, you will be using that spell at least 1x a day. You get a bunch of cantrips that you are probably going to use to pick a variety of combat spells, maybe you need a slight hint here not to over focus on spells that target one kind of defense. So you have two level 1 spell slots to really play around with finding what you want to be your niche as a caster, but for the most part, you are relying on your focus spell and cantrips to learn the meta game of targeting the right defense. There is no barrier to entry here.
Now, I agree that some players have been stumbling with building wizards, because they take too many spell attack roll cantrips, and then they find that they are difficult to use as "default spells" to cast all the time. The character gets a couple levels in and starts to see that martial characters are starting to get item bonuses to attack rolls and they were already finding spell attack roll accuracy a challenge. Maybe their table or their GM hasn't really helped them see how getting scrolls of spell slot spells that you want to cast will quickly help you over come feeling like your character is just supposed to be firing off cantrips that target AC, and that by level 3 those cantrips are really situational spells that you use when AC has been debuffed effectively, not as the first spell that you throw out against a target that has some kind of cover. That is the low level wizard hiccup that I think has caused the most damage to the wizard's reputation, and is why so many of the upset feedback focuses on spell attack roll accuracy.
But as a developer, if you have an option that you envisioned being 1/4th of a casters spell casting, and suddenly it is the only aspect of the class that unhappy players are focusing on and asking for more ways to specialize their casters into doing (probably exclusively if they are spending gold upgrading this option), then the thing to do is actually make sure that there are more other options, like cantrips that target more than one enemy and more saving throw targeting cantrips, which is exactly what paizo has done.
I am not accusing anyone of bad/wrong fun. I am saying that if you are playing wizards and not having fun, and getting mad at the fundamental design of the class, it is possible that your approach to building a wizard is the source of that frustration, although it is also possible the GM expectations and table expectations of your game are not well aligned with this class. These are all things that can happen with any class at any table. Rogues, barbarians and fighters who catch focus fire without a lot of healing and defensive support from the rest of the party can end up in a similar boat (and have at tables I have played at). It gets really difficult to have continued conversations with people who insist that their experiences with the game are the default, assumed experiences and will call any design that doesn't fit in those expectations "bad design," while accusing any players who step in and say "this design is working really great at my table" as being elitists.
Here is a game system. Play it how you want. Observe what is fun and what is not fun for you. With your group, make changes where everyone agrees that those changes make the game more fun for your group. But please be aware that insisting those changes be adopted by the system itself (especially once to start meeting resistance to the idea that your changes will make the game more fun for everyone) is neither necessary nor helpful to the development of the game. If your house rules or homebrew make your game more fun for you and your friends/table, awesome! But insisting the developers have made a bad class because you don't like the design is rude behavior.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do agree with that.
My point for the record was that I wanted more casters to have better and more diverse uses for their third action. That's really all.
We are in perfect agreement here, it's just what that third action should do is what we disagree on
And according to that, what would be more non-changing anything than just and alternative Strike?
What we have to add, a 1-action-maneuver only for casters? That is much worse, right?
With an alternative Strike, we change nothing, some casters are happier, and others don’t bother because they can do it in tons of ways.
At the same time you get something better if invest on it, as you can get using a martial weapon even with critical specialization and using Potency weapons and special ammunition, which is much better, but requires investment.
Then cannot understand unless I miss something about making that mountain around it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It was refreshing to go on the pathfinder discord and back search "wizard" to see everyone clearly easily recognizing that wizard is still one of the most powerful classes in the game, one of the best casters and that casters are definitely very good. It really is just like four or five people on here complaining and the through-line is an unreasonable expectation that wizards should get everything and it's sometimes masked as being "about casters" when they really just want to be the annoying guy at the table stealing everyone's thunder rather than a team playerI'm not convinced that more than a handful of people have been complaining about caster balance for four years.
Between late comers from 1e finishing up their 1e campaigns and the influx of D&D players from the OGL debacle, I think that we just get waves of people falling into the same mental traps (akin to how many apply 1e or D&D tactics to 2e) such as thinking something is broken or needs fixing just because they're not yet accustomed to the way things are intended to work. That, or they get caught up in listening to the diehard vocal minority complaints about non-existent problems.
Most anyone who has played the game long enough to know how best to utilize 2e tactics also knows that casters are totally fine where they are. Silver bullet situations such as targeting weak saves or energy weaknesses, or being able to control the battlefield, limit enemy options, or expand the party's options, makes it so the extremely minor numerical lag in attack or damage values becomes a balancing measure that makes martial characters still worth playing. After all, if you could do all that and crit all the time, why would you ever play anything else?
Wizards are not clearly one of the most powerful classes. PF discord won't change that. I hope they get the improvements they deserve to make them a more interesting and attractive class.
I've made it clear I don't think casters are weak.
I've made clear arguments showing the wizard is not a top tier class. It has recognizable problems compared to other classes. It is only preference with no real data showing the wizard is a comparative high performing caster class.
If you enjoy it, then you will consider it fine, especially if you don't bother to build anything else to see comparative performance. I don't play that way. I use comparative performance in rating classes.
The witch and wizard are both provably weaker casters than the 8 hit point casters bard and druid. It's not that either's casting is bad because casting is extremely generic in PF2. So as long as you get legendary, you will cast fine.
But the witch and wizard have inferior class feat choices and class chassis abilities that should be improved given they already have weak defenses of a 6 hit point caster and less impactful feat choices than the 8 hit point casters and the sorcerer.
I don't know why this is such a resisted idea on these forums or any forums. I don't like getting lumped with the "caster vs. martial disparity" given I don't see that at all. I do not also like seeing a group that doesn't want certain classes improved given they have a weaker class chassis and feat options than comparable class abilities with substantially better abilities built on a powerful class chassis.
I've made it quite clear I know the wizard can never again be what it was in PF1.
That being the case, then it should be built like the 8 hit point casters and sorcerers with other powerful options that fit into the PF2 paradigm rather than saying, "Wizards can't be like PF1, but we're going to build them like PF1 with lots of spell slots in a greatly weakened magic system and act like the Arcane list is still the best and spell slots are more valuable than these powerful focus spell and innate class chassis abilities classes have that exceed what spells can do now."
That's just not right.
There isn't a single wizard spell in this game that can do Inspire Heroics with Inspire Courage. A 60 foot emanation that boosts everyone's attack roll by up to +3 attack and damage. There isn't even a level 10 spell that does this. The bard's doing this up to 3 times a battle while he's casting synesthesia or true target or phantasmal killer.
The wizard's doing what with his extra spell slots? Dropping a what? A disintegrate while he's thanking the bard for boosting his attack roll?
I can't buff myself for casting spells as well as you Mr. Bard, thanks for making my disintegrate work a little better while debuffing with your 1 action better than a level 10 spell ability you can use over and over and over again on the entire group. That's awesome. Thanks.
I don't think it is too much to point this out and ask for some high value wizard and witch abilities when the wizard and witch are 6 hit point casters with poor weapon and armor choices. They should have some serious high impact focus abilities or innate class abilities or feats.
Why is the druid turning into a dragon all day or an elemental while also having better hit points, better armor, a better casting stat, while also having Tempest Surge for blasting if they feel like switching, and casting a ton of blasting spells and changing battles with powerful healing?
It's so obvious that these focus spells are powerful. Really powerful. As good or better than spell slots. They can do them all day.
So I'm supposed to pretend that isn't true to make wizard players feel better? And not tell the designers the "Emperor has no clothes?" Not how I'm going to do it. The wizard and witch need some high impact abilities to go with their generic legendary casting and they need to be high impact abilities that fit what they do and make players want to use them like bard and druid players are enjoying using their focus abilities while also casting powerful spells.
It's not too much to ask for. It's a very real difference between the 8 hit point casters and 6 hit point casters (other than the sorcerer). This is not PF1. Wizard spell slots are not as valuable as they once were and a good focus spell is every bit as good as a spell slot. This should be acknowledged and actioned with the wizard and witch.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hope [wizards] get the improvements they deserve to make them a more interesting and attractive class.
As do I. I disagree with much of what you said, but wizards as they stand now certainly aren't terribly interesting and could certainly stand to have a few new things to make them more interesting and attractive.
The witch and wizard are both provably weaker casters than the 8 hit point casters bard and druid. It's not that either's casting is bad because casting is extremely generic in PF2. So as long as you get legendary, you will cast fine.
But the witch and wizard have inferior class feat choices and class chassis abilities that should be improved given they already have weak defenses of a 6 hit point caster and less impactful feat choices than the 8 hit point casters and the sorcerer.
Wizards get more top level spells than even the sorcerer when we consider feat selection and frankly this is unquestionably better than focus spells and hit points. You have made it clear your favoritism is over at-will effects and healing that a class without them is automatically worse, but when the wizard rolls up able to cast between 7 or 8 9th and 7 or 8 8th rank spells in a given day, I can't take seriously any arguments about it having lesser feats. This same bonus applies at lower levels than 19 too. Scroll savant is an 10th level ability that give two extra spells perday at max rank -2. At max level this is the same rank of spell as the all star Maze. Drain Bonded item and bond conservation give an extra max slot with the second feat giving an extra max -2, and if you don't have to move the next round max -4 and then max -6 until you move or run out of slots to fill. Every spell you talk about being good on occult is on arcane, most good spells on primal is on arcane. On occult the only spell people bring up is synesthesia, very good spell sure, but it's one of a measly 35 unique to it out of 400 or so, most of which are on arcane anyways. This applies to primal as well. Most spells are on multiple lists. Arcane has the most crossover meaning it poaches the most good spells from everyone else. Yes it doesn't get heal or synesthesia, and yes wizards have worse focus spells than sorcerers, but boy howdy is that not at all a concern when I can cast minimum 6 max level spells trending up to 7 and 8 and cast as much or more of those on the two ranks below. People's real issue is that wizards are spell slot spells focused and dealing with that and preparing these spells is inconvenient, and that wizards aren't flashy, but more high level spells than anyone else is unquestionably more powerful. The measly 3 9th level spells of the bard compared to 6, 7 or 8. I'll take the worse focus spells and less flashy class feats, thank you very much
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That last part is important. Balance is as much about GMing as rules. GMs should be considering the types of PCs in their game when designing scenes, adventures, campaigns, and balancing by ensuring the scenes you incorporate take into account the PC's capabilities. Got an investigator? Include investigation. Got a swashbuckler? Include scenery they can swing on, slide under, etc. Well okay, those are easy peasy, everyone knows that, right? But then why is this one so hard for some folks to grok: Got a wizard? Include tomes, puzzles that require lore and INT checks, spells as loot. Mobs that can be really hard to kill with single attacks but much easier with AoE's
The pressure to build a one-dimensional combat cannon comes from playing lots of scenes where one-dimensional combat cannons are important. And where do those scenes come from? From us. Not the game rules. Some APs excepted - but even with those, it is kinda understood by the player base and the industry that the GM is going to modify scenes in response to different play group capabilities and interests.
So Calliope and others, I agree with y'all about wizard being cool mostly as is. I'm looking forward to the remaster tweaks, but won't be at all upset if they don't get some bonus blaster treatment.
As for the single target magic action, there's always witch hexes for casters to take the archetype. 1a's from other archetypes your wizard takes. At higher levels when you can burn [top-1] spell slots as support, there's single action magic missile. Scrolls of 1-action spells. Though I'd have little problem with a 'Wand of...
Any class that relies on the GM making changes to support them is a bad design unless they are compensated in baseline power with the expectation that many tables won't support them well.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Any class that relies on the GM making changes to support them is a bad design unless they are compensated in baseline power with the expectation that many tables won't support them well.That last part is important. Balance is as much about GMing as rules. GMs should be considering the types of PCs in their game when designing scenes, adventures, campaigns, and balancing by ensuring the scenes you incorporate take into account the PC's capabilities. Got an investigator? Include investigation. Got a swashbuckler? Include scenery they can swing on, slide under, etc. Well okay, those are easy peasy, everyone knows that, right? But then why is this one so hard for some folks to grok: Got a wizard? Include tomes, puzzles that require lore and INT checks, spells as loot. Mobs that can be really hard to kill with single attacks but much easier with AoE's
The pressure to build a one-dimensional combat cannon comes from playing lots of scenes where one-dimensional combat cannons are important. And where do those scenes come from? From us. Not the game rules. Some APs excepted - but even with those, it is kinda understood by the player base and the industry that the GM is going to modify scenes in response to different play group capabilities and interests.
So Calliope and others, I agree with y'all about wizard being cool mostly as is. I'm looking forward to the remaster tweaks, but won't be at all upset if they don't get some bonus blaster treatment.
As for the single target magic action, there's always witch hexes for casters to take the archetype. 1a's from other archetypes your wizard takes. At higher levels when you can burn [top-1] spell slots as support, there's single action magic missile. Scrolls of 1-action spells. Though I'd have little problem with a 'Wand of...
What Easl mentioned is basic GMing and should be considered baseline. Even if you are running an AP and the loot doesn't fit the party your players constructed you should adjust it to suit them such as including more scrolls if that makes sense, or changing an encounter that might be boring to your players for one that is more engaging and give each of them more opportunities to shine
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Any class that relies on the GM making changes to support them is a bad design unless they are compensated in baseline power with the expectation that many tables won't support them well.That last part is important. Balance is as much about GMing as rules. GMs should be considering the types of PCs in their game when designing scenes, adventures, campaigns, and balancing by ensuring the scenes you incorporate take into account the PC's capabilities. Got an investigator? Include investigation. Got a swashbuckler? Include scenery they can swing on, slide under, etc. Well okay, those are easy peasy, everyone knows that, right? But then why is this one so hard for some folks to grok: Got a wizard? Include tomes, puzzles that require lore and INT checks, spells as loot. Mobs that can be really hard to kill with single attacks but much easier with AoE's
The pressure to build a one-dimensional combat cannon comes from playing lots of scenes where one-dimensional combat cannons are important. And where do those scenes come from? From us. Not the game rules. Some APs excepted - but even with those, it is kinda understood by the player base and the industry that the GM is going to modify scenes in response to different play group capabilities and interests.
So Calliope and others, I agree with y'all about wizard being cool mostly as is. I'm looking forward to the remaster tweaks, but won't be at all upset if they don't get some bonus blaster treatment.
As for the single target magic action, there's always witch hexes for casters to take the archetype. 1a's from other archetypes your wizard takes. At higher levels when you can burn [top-1] spell slots as support, there's single action magic missile. Scrolls of 1-action spells. Though I'd have little problem with a 'Wand of...
Then, that is every class. Every single one is heavily item/gear dependant and if not given those options by the GM you will have a bad time
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What Easl mentioned is basic GMing and should be considered baseline. Even if you are running an AP and the loot doesn't fit the party your players constructed...
So is parking your car and signaling before making a turn and people screw that up day in and day out. Any class that has more dependence on everything going its way will always be worse, on average, than simpler classes that are fine outside of a few specific types of encounters that are more difficult for them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wizards get more top level spells than even the sorcerer when we consider feat selection and frankly this is unquestionably better than focus spells and hit points. You have made it clear your favoritism is over at-will effects and healing that a class without them is automatically worse, but when the wizard rolls up able to cast between 7 or 8 9th and 7 or 8 8th rank spells in a given day, I can't take seriously any arguments about it having lesser feats. This same bonus applies at lower levels than 19 too. Scroll savant is an 10th level ability that give two extra spells perday at max rank -2. At max level this is the same rank of spell as the all star Maze. Drain Bonded item and bond conservation give an extra max slot with the second feat giving an extra max -2, and if you don't have to move the next round max -4 and then max -6 until you move or run out of slots to fill. Every spell you talk about being good on occult is on arcane, most good spells on primal is on arcane. On occult the only spell people bring up is synesthesia, very good spell sure, but it's one of a measly 35 unique to it out of 400 or so, most of which are on arcane anyways. This applies to primal as well. Most spells are on multiple lists. Arcane has the most crossover meaning it poaches the most good spells from everyone else. Yes it doesn't get heal or synesthesia, and yes wizards have worse focus spells than sorcerers, but boy howdy is that not at all a concern when I can cast minimum 6 max level spells trending up to 7...The witch and wizard are both provably weaker casters than the 8 hit point casters bard and druid. It's not that either's casting is bad because casting is extremely generic in PF2. So as long as you get legendary, you will cast fine.
But the witch and wizard have inferior class feat choices and class chassis abilities that should be improved given they already have weak defenses of a 6 hit point caster and less impactful feat choices than the 8 hit point casters and the sorcerer.
Why exactly do you think this?
A wizard gets 3 top spells, a use of arcane bond, and if they take Spell Blending another level 9 spell. That is a total of what? 5?
You can't increase level 10 spells, so everyone is equal with level 10 spells.
So what spell do you have that is a single target spell like Tempest Surge that hits reflex saves, does Clumsy 2 on a failed save, and does persistent electricity damage?
Or the ability to turn into a dragon all day and use a variety of breath weapons and energy types to activate weakness while having 100 foot flight and reach? They can do this all day.
Or an elemental sorcerer who can use an 18d6 fireball up to 3 times a battle over and over and over again mixed with flight over and over or a 1 action blast spell that does up to 10d8+10 damage that they can do over and over and over again.
Or a shadow sorcerer's consuming darkness with Effortless concentration that expands, does damage, and can immobile all targets hitting only enemies they can do all day.
They can do all this while also using their spell slots casting the standard slows or a chain lightning to add more damage.
You keep bringing up these spell slots, what are you doing with them? The focus spells are max level spells that can be used all day. They are versatile and have nice little add on effects.
Have you bothered to investigate high end focus abilities compared to spells? It sure sounds like you haven't.
You keep insisting spell slots are better without having any idea of what some classes focus spells do.
Even the Psychic turns cantrips into incredible damage dealing abilities with focus points all day.
How are you getting up to six max level spells unless you take spell blending? What are you doing with them? They aren't spontaneous. They may not be useful every encounter. So what are you doing with these top level slots?
If you take Spell Blending, then you're stuck with them. So they better work because you can't change them for the day.
I guarantee you battle forms work in every single battle. I can pick from every dragon on the list. Purple worm form is also great with Monstrosity Shape. The various elementals provide great abilities as well.
So what are you doing with these slots that outdoes the druid or sorcerer or bard in those 3 to 5 round encounters? Those max six or seven max spell slots you have to memorize in advance while I use this incredible versatile focus spell all day.
10ths are, I should point out, irrelevant for at least 90 percent of people and in reality a lot more than 90.
A wizard basically always has 5 top level slots. Unless they're a universalist. That's more than any other class except cleric. Likewise, any wizard has more lower level spell slots than any other class except sorcerer. Witch? Druid? Bard? Psychic? Yeah they all have fewer slots than the wizard.
If "having a pile of slots" is the sorcerer's compensation for not having focus cantrips like bard or amps like psychic, why isn't it also the wizard's? Especially since the wizard has more than the sorcerer, especially with staff nexus and spell blending? Why don't we see arguments for why sorcerers suck?
It's just the weakness of preparation vs spontaneous casting. That's it. And that's pretty dang small.
Sorcerers have very good feats too and can have powerful focus spells that are like having max level slots.
I'm playing a Harrow Sorcerer right now. Those Harrow focus spells are very good. Level 1 focus spell maxes out at a 29d4 damage single target spell that can possibly stun. The level 6 focus spell is a massively versatile buff or debuff spell you can cast on an ally or an enemy. The level 10 Harrow Spell is a 1 minute duration reaction based let a target reroll with a bonus that works for any roll: saves, attacks, skills. It's pretty amazing.
If you sift that sorcerer bloodline, some of those focus spells are pretty awesome.
Sorcs have a lot of role versatility as well.
Baseline is 5:
4+drain bonded item
Spell Mastery is another one
Spell blending and staff nexus can you you an extra 9th slot
So it's actually 7 maximum, I forget where the 8th came from.
But you also get more 8th slots with scroll savant, +2 and superior bond +1, spell mastery also gives another 8th if you'd like here, and staff nexus can be versatilely cast to give an 8th instead of 9th or what have you based on what spells you feed it. 2 fourth slots is an 8th if you'd like. This is 4+2+1+1 reaching out 8 slots without spellblending or using staff nexus to cast 8th level slots. You can use bind conservation from you 9th slot for a 7th as well. 4+1+1
In fact with staff nexus and spell mastery eating a 4th and 5th slot you have:
7 9th level slots
8 8th level slots
6 7th level slots
And to get this out of the way, no focus spells which auto heighten are not equivalent in power to the highest tiers of slotted spells
10ths are, I should point out, irrelevant for at least 90 percent of people and in reality a lot more than 90.
A wizard basically always has 5 top level slots. Unless they're a universalist. That's more than any other class except cleric. Likewise, any wizard has more lower level spell slots than any other class except sorcerer. Witch? Druid? Bard? Psychic? Yeah they all have fewer slots than the wizard.
If "having a pile of slots" is the sorcerer's compensation for not having focus cantrips like bard or amps like psychic, why isn't it also the wizard's? Especially since the wizard has more than the sorcerer, especially with staff nexus and spell blending? Why don't we see arguments for why sorcerers suck?
It's just the weakness of preparation vs spontaneous casting. That's it. And that's pretty dang small.
Sorcerers have very good feats too and can have powerful focus spells that are like having max level slots.
I'm playing a Harrow Sorcerer right now. Those Harrow focus spells are very good. Level 1 focus spell maxes out at a 29d4 damage single target spell that can possibly stun. The level 6 focus spell is a massively versatile buff or debuff spell you can cast on an ally or an enemy. The level 10 Harrow Spell is a 1 minute duration reaction based let a target reroll with a bonus that works for any roll: saves, attacks, skills. It's pretty amazing.
If you sift that sorcerer bloodline, some of those focus spells are pretty awesome.
That's true of some sorcerers but definitely not all of them.
29d4, for instance. That's...72.5 damage? At level 20? Not bad, I agree (stunning only on a crit fail, though, so good luck with that...), but it's the same damage as an 8th rank thunderstrike, and lower damage than polar ray (85 damage against a level 20 target). And 8ths are pretty much the lowest level damaging spells I cast at 20th.
And it costs two actions, not ideal on a class with 4 slots per spell rank that can...
The average is also just one point higher than chain lightning heightened to 9th rank which has theoretically unlimited targets. In the damage department this spell fits within being pretty good, it damn well better do 72.5 or better for two actions, a focus point and at level 20. However chain lightning at 9th rank is level 17 and one slot, same number of actions
Baseline is 5:
4+drain bonded item
Spell Mastery is another one
Spell blending and staff nexus can you you an extra 9th slot
So it's actually 7 maximum, I forget where the 8th came from.But you also get more 8th slots with scroll savant, +2 and superior bond +1, spell mastery also gives another 8th if you'd like here, and staff nexus can be versatilely cast to give an 8th instead of 9th or what have you based on what spells you feed it. 2 fourth slots is an 8th if you'd like. This is 4+2+1+1 reaching out 8 slots without spellblending or using staff nexus to cast 8th level slots. You can use bind conservation from you 9th slot for a 7th as well. 4+1+1
In fact with staff nexus and spell mastery eating a 4th and 5th slot you have:
7 9th level slots
8 8th level slots
6 7th level slotsAnd to get this out of the way, no focus spells which auto heighten are not equivalent in power to the highest tiers of slotted spells
I disagree that they aren't as powerful.
I don't know why you keep making this claim. How do you back it up?
Once again, what are you doing with your slots that I can't do with a focus spell combined with my slots? Show the proof.
...10ths are, I should point out, irrelevant for at least 90 percent of people and in reality a lot more than 90.
A wizard basically always has 5 top level slots. Unless they're a universalist. That's more than any other class except cleric. Likewise, any wizard has more lower level spell slots than any other class except sorcerer. Witch? Druid? Bard? Psychic? Yeah they all have fewer slots than the wizard.
If "having a pile of slots" is the sorcerer's compensation for not having focus cantrips like bard or amps like psychic, why isn't it also the wizard's? Especially since the wizard has more than the sorcerer, especially with staff nexus and spell blending? Why don't we see arguments for why sorcerers suck?
It's just the weakness of preparation vs spontaneous casting. That's it. And that's pretty dang small.
Sorcerers have very good feats too and can have powerful focus spells that are like having max level slots.
I'm playing a Harrow Sorcerer right now. Those Harrow focus spells are very good. Level 1 focus spell maxes out at a 29d4 damage single target spell that can possibly stun. The level 6 focus spell is a massively versatile buff or debuff spell you can cast on an ally or an enemy. The level 10 Harrow Spell is a 1 minute duration reaction based let a target reroll with a bonus that works for any roll: saves, attacks, skills. It's pretty amazing.
If you sift that sorcerer bloodline, some of those focus spells are pretty awesome.
That's true of some sorcerers but definitely not all of them.
29d4, for instance. That's...72.5 damage? At level 20? Not bad, I agree (stunning only on a crit fail, though, so good luck with that...), but it's the same damage as an 8th rank thunderstrike, and lower damage than polar ray (85 damage against a level 20 target). And 8ths are pretty much the lowest level damaging spells I cast at 20th.
And it costs two actions, not ideal on a class with 4
You don't always need chain lightning. You can can always use a single target damage spell that does that much damage.
Did you read Rewrite Possibility? Give that focus spell a read.
And battle forms are spells. You can use them all day at max level, varying them as needed.
Elemental Blast is shapeable. It's a focus spell that does up to 18d6 bludgeoning or fire and you choose the shape of it when casting.
So you get up to 5, 6 with spell blending, and 7 with Spell Specialization a level 20 feat, the sorcerer gets their maxed out focus spell 2 to 3 times per 10 minute rest on top of 4 level 9 slots.
Who can go longer? I can choose four different level 9 spells I can cast anywhere from 1 to 4 times as needed. What do you do after you blow off a couple of your spells with an arcane bond? Hope the other ones are useful?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you seriously NOT take player class, skill etc. selection into account when you design and GM your adventures and encounters?
Where did I say I was talking about my own group? PFS and people who run unmodified APs exist and won't ever tailor to any given class, and new GMs often have trouble tailoring things. A Wizard played by a new player with a GM fresh to PF2 is going to have a bad time while a Fighter played in the same group by somebody of equal skill is going to have more fun. This disparity in experiences is bad game design and cannot be excused by saying, "But it's balanced" or "Some classes should have lower skill floors, but equally high ceilings".
You don't always need chain lightning. You can can always use a single target damage spell that does that much damage.
Did you read Rewrite Possibility? Give that focus spell a read.
And battle forms are spells. You can use them all day at max level, varying them as needed.
Elemental Blast is shapeable. It's a focus spell that does up to 18d6 bludgeoning or fire and you choose the shape of it when casting.
So you get up to 5, 6 with spell blending, and 7 with Spell Specialization a level 20 feat, the sorcerer gets their maxed out focus spell 2 to 3 times per 10 minute rest on top of 4 level 9 slots.
Who can go longer? I can choose four different level 9 spells I can cast anywhere from 1 to 4 times as needed. What do you do after you blow off a couple of your spells with an arcane bond? Hope the other ones are useful?
Just like your's was an illustrative example, so was mine. Just about every effect in the spells from 7 to 9 is a stronger version of the effect compared to focus spells. This is a deliberate design decision according to various people at Paizo. The purpose of mentioning wizards getting the most top level, and most total, spells is to say that they don't need as many or as powerful of focus spells. Many wizard focus spells are 1 action because it combines well with more slotted spells but we such they're weaker. A fine trade off. More over quicken spell is stronger in the hands of someone with more top level slots. Those sorcerer focus spells are fine spells, my argument is not and never will be that they aren't quite good, but that factually they're weaker than what slotted spells do at the same level. The point of chain lightning as a comparison is your focus spells is 72.5 and chain lightning at one level lower is 71.5 but also hits everything in a room, but that isn't also. Calliope brought up polar ray, also more damage, but so is heightened disintegrate. However I personally don't value damage all that highly on casters. The fact you give flat footed by default with a rider of stunned is the selling point of your spell. Throwing dudes into mazes several times with slots to spare for other spells in your 8th level slots is pretty damn sweet and better though, but even then at lower levels you got more slots for heightened slow plus other 6th level spells such as wall of force. People say it's difficult to have spells for all these situations but when you get as many castings as the wizard does you can afford to cover your bases if you're really ever that blind, or take either staff nexus or spell substitution. Both increase versatility massively, staff nexus can be used to get more lower level slots or more higher level depending on what you need, where as substitution is more surgical in the versatility or allows. However you make all your casters spontaneous anyways so you won't ever value what these add to the class
Do you seriously NOT take player class, skill etc. selection into account when you design and GM your adventures and encounters?That last part is important. Balance is as much about GMing as rules. GMs should be considering the types of PCs in their game when designing scenes, adventures, campaigns, and balancing by ensuring the scenes you incorporate take into account the PC's capabilities. Got an investigator? Include investigation. Got a swashbuckler? Include scenery they can swing on, slide under, etc. Well okay, those are easy peasy, everyone knows that, right? But then why is this one so hard for some folks to grok: Got a wizard? Include tomes, puzzles that require lore and INT checks, spells as loot. Mobs that can be really hard to kill with single attacks but much easier with AoE'sAny class that relies on the GM making changes to support them is a bad design unless they are compensated in baseline power with the expectation that many tables won't support them well.
In fact, I do. This is not the ideal party facing their ideal adventure knowing what they are going to find and because that they trained those skills.
If an adventure has traps, and no one knows how to disarm them, sorry. Hire a thief, or do whatever you want, improvise and go ahead as you can, but they are not going to banish magically just because no one in the party wanted to be trained at disarming traps.If they find an ancient text with important information and no one can read it, there will not be a gnome behind a rock jumping into just for reading it for them.
Sorry people, such is life.
I give total flexibility for character creation, players can make them as they want, are their choices, now face the adventure with what they choose and live with that just like any one.
Encounters more balanced, but there could be cases than not, and players should think how to face it, lure into a trap, stealth, negotiate? In these cases is when exploring and lore is important, so you can balance the challenge before running into it like crazy.
You never know what you are going to find out there.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just like your's was an illustrative example, so was mine. Just about every effect in the spells from 7 to 9 is a stronger version of the effect compared to focus spells. This is a deliberate design decision according to various people at Paizo. The purpose of mentioning wizards getting the most top level, and most total, spells is to say that they don't need as many or as powerful of focus spells. Many wizard focus spells are 1 action because it combines well with more slotted spells but we such they're weaker. A fine trade off. More over quicken spell is stronger in the hands of someone with more top level slots. Those sorcerer focus spells are fine spells, my argument is not and never will be that they aren't quite good, but that factually they're weaker than what slotted spells do at the same level. The point of chain lightning as a comparison is your focus spells is 72.5 and chain lightning at one level lower is 71.5 but also hits everything in a room, but that isn't also. Calliope brought up polar ray, also more damage, but so is heightened disintegrate. However I personally don't value damage all that highly on casters. The fact you give flat...You don't always need chain lightning. You can can always use a single target damage spell that does that much damage.
Did you read Rewrite Possibility? Give that focus spell a read.
And battle forms are spells. You can use them all day at max level, varying them as needed.
Elemental Blast is shapeable. It's a focus spell that does up to 18d6 bludgeoning or fire and you choose the shape of it when casting.
So you get up to 5, 6 with spell blending, and 7 with Spell Specialization a level 20 feat, the sorcerer gets their maxed out focus spell 2 to 3 times per 10 minute rest on top of 4 level 9 slots.
Who can go longer? I can choose four different level 9 spells I can cast anywhere from 1 to 4 times as needed. What do you do after you blow off a couple of your spells with an arcane bond? Hope the other ones are useful?
A spontaneous caster can chain all those spells you listed better than a prepared caster. I use wall of force all the time. I used slow as a signature spell all the time.
Then I get these "Free" versatile focus spells that let me do other things when you don't need to chain slow or cast maze or any of that. They allow me to cast durably powerful spells in weak encounters that don't require a high level spell.
You are not going to be able to chain things like a sorcerer. You know how many times I can cast wall of force if I make a sig spell? I can use it 24 times a day at the highest level. I can chain slow 40 times a day. I can chain heightened slow.
Then I can do a bunch of damage or some other effect with my focus spells without wasting a slot for moderate or so encounters.
Have you not even played a spontaneous caster? You've never built an arcane or primal sorcerer? Or a druid? The druid focus spells are great. Really great. Certain sorcerer bloodlines are amazing as well.
Focus spells allow classes with powerful choices to preserve spell slots for important fights where they are needed, while still contributing powerful attacks and other effects.
This extends their ability to contribute while still blasting high level slots when the fights require it.
I'm sorry you don't want to see it, but high quality focus spells are every bit as good as a spell slot. Some do things spell slots can't even replicate. As in your level 10 spells can't do what a high level bard's focus spells do no matter what you memorize.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just to add some anecdotal evidence.
The first class I played in PF2 was an evoker wizard. This was by the rules, no house rules, brand new box. I got tired of this guy around level 7 because his contributions compared to other characters sucked terribly. he was way weaker than the martials for damage dealing and spells were getting resisted 50% of the time or so and the incap spells made them pointless to use against a boss since a boss resists probably 60 to 70 percent of the time then apply incap.
I decided to switch to a bard. It was night and day in the ability to impact the group in PF2. Not only could I cast useful spells and cantrips that did damage, I boosted the entire group while doing so with amazing 1 action activities. You can even combine them with metamagic like harmonize which when mixed with Inspire Courage and Dirge of Doom is a two point shift in attack rolls for no resource cost other than three actions. To my knowledge there is not a spell on any of the spell lists even spending three actions as powerful as this combination that can AoE fear for no save and aoe buff at the same time for unlimited duration.
This gets even better at level 18 when you can get cast composition as an extra quickened action while using spells and such.
Literally untouchable abilities the bard has that a caster can't even emulate with a level 10 spells.
If anything, some focus spells are better than spell slots. The bard is a good deal more impactful to a group and any group that has one will feel their presence in a way no other caster can match no matter how many spell slots they have.
A spontaneous caster can chain all those spells you listed better than a prepared caster. I use wall of force all the time. I used slow as a signature spell all the time.
Then I get these "Free" versatile focus spells that let me do other things when you don't need to chain slow or cast maze or any of that. They allow me to cast durably powerful spells in weak encounters that don't require a high level spell.
You are not going to be able to chain things like a sorcerer. You know how many times I can cast wall of force if I make a sig spell? I can use it 24 times a day at the highest level. I can chain slow 40 times a day. I can chain heightened slow.
Then I can do a bunch of damage or some other effect with my focus spells without wasting a slot for moderate or so encounters.
Have you not even played a spontaneous caster? You've never built an arcane or primal sorcerer? Or a druid? The druid focus spells are great. Really great. Certain sorcerer bloodlines are amazing as well.
Focus spells allow classes with powerful choices to preserve spell slots for important fights where they are needed, while still contributing powerful attacks and other effects.
This extends their ability to contribute while still blasting high level slots when the fights require it.
I'm sorry you don't want to see it, but high quality focus spells are every bit as good as a spell slot. Some do things spell slots can't even replicate. As in your level 10 spells can't do what a high level bard's focus spells do no matter what you memorize.
But you can't cast more than 4 9th rank spells, or more tham 4 8th rank. Sure you can cast maze 8 times between the two levels of you make it signature, but if a wizard really wanted to they could cast it 8 times as well as 7 9th level spells, but chain casting is not the point of what I said. The point is that the number of total slots, and total high level slots allows wizards to have their cake and eat it too. A sorcerer can use higher level slots on lower level spells creating a great deal of flexibility, except for the fact that this is a waste of a slot if the spell doesn't have a worthwhile heightened effect, such as slow at 6th. You can certainly chain slows into your 4th level slots, your 5th, your 7th, 8th and 9th, but only the 3rd and 6th are a worth while consideration compared to what else could be cast there. Realistically in terms of the power of a slot and maximizing that value you are only going to be feel good about casting and want to cast the small number of known spells and the few spells that heighten well which for most slots are damage spells. Which should be the domain of spontaneous casters, not prepared ones. Because a wizard will have 6, 7 or 8 slots they can afford to cover more bases than your individual level's worth of known spells and they can do this all the way down. A wizard can hypothetically put a different spell in most of these bonus slots giving them access to more spells in a day than a sorcerer will ever know. It's not necessary and not optimal most of the time, but it's illustrative of the point. If you know what you're doing you can leverage that. There is a clear trade off and these styles of casting suit different spells. You just seem to consistently value damage and healing far above everything else, and those are better for the casters you prefer and the house rules you use. I'm also not surprised you found the wizard difficult to use when damage is a big metric you are measuring these casters by, and it's damage spells I think wizards should be worse than sorcerers at
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If “look how many times I can cast the same spell!” Is a fun thing for any player, then I would obviously recommend a spontaneous caster. If you are in love with PF2s spontaneous casting, (which is much more well done that PF1s) then convincing you that prepared casting itself is the appeal of the wizard, you are never going to agree. And that is fine. Some players really enjoy playing a character who can go from ultimate detective, to super spy, to fiery inferno AoE machine, to single target sniper, and back again at a days notice. The difference between a sorcerer and a wizard isn’t really “what happens next round?” It’s what is going to happen tomorrow. I think we can all safely say that Deriven’s group’s play style doesn’t value massively changing out spells each day after learning about the adventure ahead, especially as out of combat problem solving in his group is usually about narrative story telling and not mechanics or spell use.
If your party can never gain an edge by using spells out of combat, then using spell slots out of combat is a waste of time. If your GM lets your illusionist cast concealed spells and make deception and stealth checks to occasionally draw enemies into fighting each other leaving without a fight, or springing traps, etc, then you are going to be a lot more likely to prioritize spells like level 2 ventriloquism, multiple levels of disguise self, illusory creature, illusory object, nondetection, etc, spells you won’t all want to cast every day, or in the same quantities, but that you can plan out when planning infiltrations and heists.
I just don’t understand why “that’s not really a class that did well at my table, but am glad it has its own fans” is an acceptable attitude for a class. I am suspecting because the advantages of the PF1 wizard went way far beyond “fits well with some play styles.” Having to teach classes with a newborn is exhausting time wise, but I hope post remaster to write about how the god-wizard isn’t dead, she just became a different kind of goddess. Or maybe just title it “God-wizard is dead, long live the wizard-goddess.”
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having to teach classes with a newborn is exhausting time wise...
Congratulations, btw
|
Do you seriously NOT take player class, skill etc. selection into account when you design and GM your adventures and encounters?Where did I say I was talking about my own group? PFS and people who run unmodified APs exist and won't ever tailor to any given class, and new GMs often have trouble tailoring things. A Wizard played by a new player with a GM fresh to PF2 is going to have a bad time while a Fighter played in the same group by somebody of equal skill is going to have more fun. This disparity in experiences is bad game design and cannot be excused by saying, "But it's balanced" or "Some classes should have lower skill floors, but equally high ceilings".
Most PFS scenarios allow you to buy things after you get the mission brief. Guess who profits the most from knowing what they are going to face and buy adequate consumables like scrolls ?
Hint : not the Fighter.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do you seriously NOT take player class, skill etc. selection into account when you design and GM your adventures and encounters?Where did I say I was talking about my own group? PFS and people who run unmodified APs exist and won't ever tailor to any given class, and new GMs often have trouble tailoring things. A Wizard played by a new player with a GM fresh to PF2 is going to have a bad time while a Fighter played in the same group by somebody of equal skill is going to have more fun. This disparity in experiences is bad game design and cannot be excused by saying, "But it's balanced" or "Some classes should have lower skill floors, but equally high ceilings".Most PFS scenarios allow you to buy things after you get the mission brief. Guess who profits the most from knowing what they are going to face and buy adequate consumables like scrolls ?
Hint : not the Fighter.
I have not noticed a fighter needs to know in advance. Most of the fighters I play or have seen carry alternate weapons because that's the only thing that stops them: some kind of immunity like oozes. Or flight, which fighters eventually can obtain via magic items, archetype feats, or ancestry feats. Otherwise the fighter's schtick works all the time with a high level of efficiency. Generally a blunt weapon is best if you don't want to carry any backup. But if they carry a slashing or piercing weapon, they carry a blunt back up.
I've found martials better at taking out flying targets than casters. A monk with trip is a amazing at nuking fliers.
One of the few casters that is good at grounding fliers is the wild shape druid with trip. They are one of the few classes with a near unlimited ability to change into a fast flying creature that can keep up and land the trip knocking the flying creature out of the air for the martials to hammer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If “look how many times I can cast the same spell!” Is a fun thing for any player, then I would obviously recommend a spontaneous caster. If you are in love with PF2s spontaneous casting, (which is much more well done that PF1s) then convincing you that prepared casting itself is the appeal of the wizard, you are never going to agree. And that is fine. Some players really enjoy playing a character who can go from ultimate detective, to super spy, to fiery inferno AoE machine, to single target sniper, and back again at a days notice. The difference between a sorcerer and a wizard isn’t really “what happens next round?” It’s what is going to happen tomorrow. I think we can all safely say that Deriven’s group’s play style doesn’t value massively changing out spells each day after learning about the adventure ahead, especially as out of combat problem solving in his group is usually about narrative story telling and not mechanics or spell use.
If your party can never gain an edge by using spells out of combat, then using spell slots out of combat is a waste of time. If your GM lets your illusionist cast concealed spells and make deception and stealth checks to occasionally draw enemies into fighting each other leaving without a fight, or springing traps, etc, then you are going to be a lot more likely to prioritize spells like level 2 ventriloquism, multiple levels of disguise self, illusory creature, illusory object, nondetection, etc, spells you won’t all want to cast every day, or in the same quantities, but that you can plan out when planning infiltrations and heists.
I just don’t understand why “that’s not really a class that did well at my table, but am glad it has its own fans” is an acceptable attitude for a class. I am suspecting because the advantages of the PF1 wizard went way far beyond “fits well with some play styles.” Having to teach classes with a newborn is exhausting time wise, but I hope post remaster to write about how the god-wizard isn’t dead, she just became a different kind of...
I don't understand why you think a non-prepared caster can't do this.
I'll give an example of a sorcerer healer build I'm playing right now. A Harrow Sorcerer with maxed out charisma.
This Harrow sorcerer is playing in Agents of Edgewatch. They are the faceman for the group because skills can let you be a super spy too. She has a high Diplomacy and Deception.
Her spell load is as follows:
Cantrips (5 prepared)
1. Detect Magic (Bloodline)
2. Forbidding Ward
3. Shield
4. Telekinetic Projectile
5. Electric Arc (Adapted Cantrip)
1st level Spells (4 Slots)
1. Ill Omen (Bloodline)
2. Heal (Cross-blooded)
3. Magic Missile
4. Summons Fey
2nd level spells (4 slots)
1. Augury (BL)
2. See Invisibility
3. Remove Paralysis
4. Dispel Magic
3rd level spells (4 slots)
1. Wanderer’s Guide (BL)
2. Slow
3. Invisibility Sphere
4. Haste
4th level spells (4 slots)
1. Suggestion (BL)
2. Fly
3. Veil
4. Heroism (3rd level spell)
Then she has a focus spell for single target damage Unraveling Blast and Invoke the Harrow, an extremely versatile buff and debuff spell.
He has Occult Evolution: This allows her to pick up any spell on the occult list with the mental trait with 1 minute of time for the day. I usually pick her up Phantasmal Killer for battle. She pick up telepath, Charm, or domination as needed or with a day's rest.
So she is also the main medic with Medicine and associated feats. This class isn't a big damage dealer. She's more of a buffer, interrogator face person type who is also a doctor.
This is an example of an alternative healer using the occult list over the divine list. She's not even a mainline offensive caster as her group role is the Medic and Face Person.
I would say she brings a ton of versatility to the table mainly lacking blasting. She's great for infiltration, interrogation, a little single target damage, buffing the group, and healing.
For some reason wizard players seem to forget how good skills are in PF2, which also obviates the need to use spells for these other things.
Given this is a group game, there is little need for the wizard to switch to something else. Why would the party wait? Why? If they can just go in and don't need the wizard to change his spell load, why wait?
There is zero reason why my group would need the wizard to be a super spy, a sniper, or change their role. They would just be trying to step on the toes of another class that does what they're trying to do better rather than working within the group to make the whole group operate better.
This idea of a wizard switching spells and suddenly being better than some class with a focused stat and specific skills built up is a false theory. That was true in PF1. It isn't true in PF2. It's better to work with your group and make them better by building a character that synergizes with the group rather than tries to be everything while you expect the other group members to stand around twiddling their thumbs.
Does your group really stand there and wait for you to change out spells to accomplish some task someone in the group should be able to do better than you? Is the group built badly? Are they all fighters with a cleric and you're the only versatile caster who can do anything with skills or a ranged weapon?
For some reason wizard players seem to forget how good skills are in PF2, which also obviates the need to use spells for these other things.
Given this is a group game, there is little need for the wizard to switch to something else. Why would the party wait? Why? If they can just go in and don't need the wizard to change his spell load, why wait?
There is zero reason why my group would need the wizard to be a super spy, a sniper, or change their role. They would just be trying to step on the toes of another class that does what they're trying to do better rather than working within the group to make the whole group operate better.
This idea of a wizard switching spells and suddenly being better than some class with a focused stat and specific skills built up is a false theory. That was true in PF1. It isn't true in PF2. It's better to work with your group and make them better by building a character that synergizes with the group rather than tries to be everything while you expect the other group members to stand around twiddling their thumbs.
Does your group really stand there and wait for you to change out spells to accomplish some task someone in the group should be able to do better than you? Is the group built badly? Are they all fighters with a cleric and you're the only versatile caster who can do anything with skills or a ranged weapon?
For that the Wizard has some options, like Flexible spellcasting, Staff Nexus thesis if using one, the change spell thesis, or scroll savant. Some of them delegates on items some spells that you could or not require eventually so don't want to prepare or add to your Collection.
In addition as Int based it reinforces the "how good skills are in PF2", as it gets extra skills and languages compared to others like Charisma casters.
The Sorcerer just get 1 extra compared to the Wizard, 2 BL vs Arcana, then the Int makes difference.
Literally untouchable abilities the bard has that a caster can't even emulate with a level 10 spells.
Clearly we need to severely nerf the bard. :-)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Literally untouchable abilities the bard has that a caster can't even emulate with a level 10 spells.Clearly we need to severely nerf the bard. :-)
Or improve the wizard so they can do something untouchable as well with a focus ability.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For some reason wizard players seem to forget how good skills are in PF2, which also obviates the need to use spells for these other things.
Given this is a group game, there is little need for the wizard to switch to something else. Why would the party wait? Why? If they can just go in and don't need the wizard to change his spell load, why wait?
There is zero reason why my group would need the wizard to be a super spy, a sniper, or change their role. They would just be trying to step on the toes of another class that does what they're trying to do better rather than working within the group to make the whole group operate better.
This idea of a wizard switching spells and suddenly being better than some class with a focused stat and specific skills built up is a false theory. That was true in PF1. It isn't true in PF2. It's better to work with your group and make them better by building a character that synergizes with the group rather than tries to be everything while you expect the other group members to stand around twiddling their thumbs.
Does your group really stand there and wait for you to change out spells to accomplish some task someone in the group should be able to do better than you? Is the group built badly? Are they all fighters with a cleric and you're the only versatile caster who can do anything with skills or a ranged weapon?
For that the Wizard has some options, like Flexible spellcasting, Staff Nexus thesis if using one, the change spell thesis, or scroll savant. Some of them delegates on items some spells that you could or not require eventually so don't want to prepare or add to your Collection.
In addition as Int based it reinforces the "how good skills are in PF2", as it gets extra skills and languages compared to others like Charisma casters.
It is so easy to acquire a huge number of skills in PF2 that starting skills are irrelevant and so is intelligence. A straight out of the box character usually ends up with 2 starting skills from background and another 3 to 5 starting skills. They start with an average of 5 to 7 skills out of 15. Then incorporate ancestry feats, class feats, and general feats to expand that even further.
Then add in that intel skills are limited with charisma skills being the highest value skills with good skill feats and charisma casters generally have a big advantage in using skills to supplement their casting.
Everyone gets the same number of skill ups other than rogue or investigator.