| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think comparing modern TTRPGs like Pathfinder 2e to the wargames of Gygaxian-era Chainmail is somewhat falling in line with "DF plays the game quite differently" which will skew his opinion on the matter of wizards, spellcasting, and RK. Also, why have all of the threads just become the same conversation stretched across the General boards?Because people are too afraid to just say "Wizards should be as strong as it was when I liked playing it in older editions." and need to create obfuscated topics where they can say it in coded ways. They don't want to because they know how bad that sounds, and they know people will not agree with them.
That's really all it comes down to. It's why wizard keeps being the main focus of these threads despite wizard being middle of the pact in terms of performance, neither terrible nor exceptional. It's why every talk of casters not being able to be thematic, only ever brings up the wizard, and why when thematic flavor is added to the class, it's balked at as being a nerf. It's also why, despite it being 5 years of the wizard being the academic generalist class fantasy, people still demand it be the "casteriest caster", where in reality PF 2e just doesn't need that. Just like how fighter isn't the "Martialist Martial" and there being plenty of arguments for the validity of Barbarian, Monk, and Ranger doing their own things in the core, so to is the wizard not the greatest example of being a caster, but one style of casters imposed with the druid, cleric, bard, and sorcerer in the Core rules.
It's draining and I would have more respect if they just made a thread called "Make Wizards like they were in Pathfinder 1e" to get it out there in the open. It's what they want, and why a lot of their complaints boil down to "The wizard in this new edition plays differently from the wizard in the old edition."
Not what people want.
Just want better feats and class chassis abilities.
Some people trying to boil this down to wanting PF1 and that isn't what folks want. They want the class designed like a quality PF2 class with interesting feat options, class chassis abilities, and something that makes the wizard stand out in the same way the bard or druid do.
None of you seem able to explain why these threads don't pop up for druids or sorcerers or bards or psychics. Sorcerers lost as much power as the wizard from PF1 to PF2.
Maybe, just maybe, the build options for a sorcerer are much more interesting than the build options for a wizard.
On all these threads, the only thing I ever hear is unique to the wizard is more high level spell slots and spell versatility. Even when this is discussed it's in relation to either Spell Blending or Spell Substitution. It's usually a few slots.
No discussion of how expensive it is to build a spellbook. If the Arcane list has more useful options than the other lists and seemingly lack of knowledge that Arcane sorcs get a spellbook too and can change out spells.
It's pretty clear the wizard needs some work. Not to be as powerful as PF1, but to be interesting and powerful in the PF2 paradigm where Schrodinger's Wizard no longer exists and thus the spell versatility and spell slots aren't as valuable as in the previous edition.
So some of us just want a well built wizard using PF2 design. You see that design in classes like the bard, sorc, fighter, rogue, cleric, druid, and nearly every class but the wizard where they are still touting the same advantages as PF1 with large number of spell slots and spell versatility when the nerfs to magic make those not as valuable as they were in that edition.
Game has changed. Wizard should change with it. Not just get nerfed, then told to still play like the Arcane list is the best list, having lots of spell slots let's them win battles, and spell versatility is still their game when the Signature Spell casters have auto-heightening and end up to with 11 or 12 different spells for their top slots while the prepared wizard is hoping he memorized the right spell and it works because he only has a copy or two.
It's not hard to see the problems. And they have nothing to do with wanting a return to PF1.
And for my part I'll leave it there until I see the Remaster and if it fixes the issues I'm concerned with which is good quality wizard feats, some better impact spells on the Arcane list, and better focus spells for the curricula.
I guess for the RK fanatics, some feats to make RK better for the wizard.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think comparing modern TTRPGs like Pathfinder 2e to the wargames of Gygaxian-era Chainmail is somewhat falling in line with "DF plays the game quite differently" which will skew his opinion on the matter of wizards, spellcasting, and RK. Also, why have all of the threads just become the same conversation stretched across the General boards?
RP is a something doing free form. We do lots of RP in our game too.
What would be the point of discussing it on a forum like I want rules for RP. I don't want excessive rules for RP. RP is not something I want game designers to tell me how to do.
Combat performance is where the rules come into to play to provide a structure for resolving conflict. So measuring combat performance between classes is important for balance, which I like.
RP, I do that tailored to the game and characters. I need no help with RP. I write stories. So I tailor the RP to the individual character and game.
These forums are for discussing aspects of the game that have to do with balance and mechanics. Combat abilities of classes is based on mechanics.
I don't pay Paizo designers to tell me how to roleplay. I pay Paizo designers for a quality game system with balanced, usable combat mechanics that allow for interesting and fun conflict resolution.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, why have all of the threads just become the same conversation stretched across the General boards?
Can we consolidate our points on a singular thread? Like, your responding to my quote in which I said nothing about RP to sort of address a broad number of topics on the boards.
Roleplaying is often entirely apart from the mechanical aspects of the game and it's not something I've talked about. It's sort of the Stormwind Fallacy here: I'm saying that you place more emphasis on tactical elements in a turn-by-turn sense and overcoming the challenges in (by your standards) optimal ways; my groups don't tend towards caring that much about some sort of DPR or overall measure of effectiveness. I'm not saying "Ah, DF cares so much about the mechanics that he must be bad at RP."
What I am saying is that many parts of the game that I and my groups greatly enjoy are things that your groups would not enjoy. Where they crop up, you and your group have gone to great lengths to not engage with them or minimize them. It's going to skew your perspective on design when you approach the game from one mindset/one playstyle.
I love a bit of an old-school romp where the group wizard sends out a prying eye in the morning to scout out the area they'll be tackling in the days to come. They inform the group, make plans, have some downtime, and tackle the problem on a later date. I like when the group has two to three months of downtime to get ready for a massive event. I enjoy when the party requires a high-level item that they must craft because itcan't be bought anywhere. I love when they are compiling information about enemies they've heard about before they encounter, giving them an edge in the fights to come. I like research and planning and all of this work that takes place before swords and drawn and I measure everything in six-second intervals.
And I also like when all that planning goes entirely poorly and the players are forced to improvise and react.
I don't really care so much about combats getting solved "correctly," only that my groups enjoy when they do. I enjoy when they say, "Well, that didn't go as planned," or "Hey, that was a great idea, good play."
I don't think there's anyone who at all argues with "wizard could use more interesting feats," much the same as any class getting more interesting feats and options would be great. The argument always seems to come down to "wizards are lesser," when many times it feels like the detractors either...
A) Have a different vision of what a wizard should be.
or
B) Have a different playstyle that deemphasizes things that wizards have a natural proclivity towards.
Like, other classes can RK and even have feats and chassis that support that. I don't think wizards are currently the lords of knowledge and I'd love to see more support in that direction. They aren't even the best at crafting or Downtime, but they don't really need to invest much for their slower playstyle of preparing and planning to reward these characters. I would never say that wizards are perfect, but I wouldn't say that of any class. I certainly wouldn't say that wizards are underpowered or "a broken class" when they function just as well as every other class - which sort of seems to be the definition of balance.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
B) Have a different playstyle that deemphasizes things that wizards have a natural proclivity towards.
Sure but other classes don't have this else we would have threads about it which speaks to a problem in the design.
Also the playstyle of my group is APs and most of them don't do this without making substantial allowances for the wizard, more than any other class requires.
Wizards shouldn't need the group to run differently to be equal. I can change playstyles of most games I run to make one class seem more powerful than others but its only with the wizard I have to do it just to make it feel balanced. If I have to constantly change a game just for 1 class that is a problem with the class not with the game.
Wizards are boring, their edge is 'extra spell slots with limitations' same a sorc but they lack the flexibility of sorcs to react in the moment, instead they all but require the game to pause/overnight rest so they can be just as equal as other classes without it. Its not like wizards are doing better than sorc's when they get the overnight rest, its a requirement for them just to be equal, that is a problem with wizard design.
Much weaker spells/magic in the addition did the heavy lifting to get casters balanced which is a good thing. Wizards are the only caster that really got boring feats and class abilities.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I fully believe the amount of posts is less a strong indication of a problem in the design and more a few very active posters and the heights of previous edition wizard
Cyder, you refer to both balance and fun when referring to the wizard. Do you feel like the wizard is not balanced or not interesting? Or both?
I fully believe the amount of posts is less a strong indication of a problem in the design and more a few very active posters and the heights of previous edition wizard
And also evidence of people arguing with the minority who are complaining
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I believe the wizard is balanced on the low end of the PF2 power scale.
I think they have boring feats. Thesis are fairly boring.
Spell Substitution should be a standard class feature of the wizard so they can reorder spells in shorter time periods to account for real play time rather than wait days.
I think they need focus spells that fit their play-style. The most obvious examples being Augment Summoning should be a free action cast while you cast the 3 action summon. Evocation focus spells should all be at range. Charm school should always debuff an enemy prior to casting a charm spell or maybe increase the number charmed, something useful for the play-style.
Feats should be more attractive and interesting for the wizard. Better metamagic. More feats that build on a thesis or build on a school of magic.
I think the arcane list should have a few more unique and highly effective spells to make it stand out in battle. They should have a few spells that you want as much as a group likes having a occult caster using synesthesia or a divine or primal caster using heal.
Something that makes you go, "It sure is cool to be a wizard" in the same way it feels that way as a druid when you're using wild shape for a bunch of different stuff or a bard pumping the group up while landing synesthesia to seriously crush an opponent.
I want a reason to play a wizard to 20 that doesn't make me feel like I wasted my time while other classes are doing far cooler things with their spells and abilities.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So it's just one of these things that just goes on and on and on when it's just subjective and silly.
"Wizards feel boring," is something you can say about your experiences. I can't really disagree with your experience. "I'd like it if wizards had more interesting feats and class options." Sure! Sounds great.
"Wizards are boring," is now a statement that I can say is just wrong. I don't find them boring and their playstyle is something I enjoy. "The wizard needs more feats and features to compete." Again, I disagree - they function just fine. I mean, look at this:
I think they have boring feats. Thesis are fairly boring.
An opinion, cool. Sure, those feats can be boring, I can see that.
But then:
The most obvious examples being Augment Summoning should be a free action cast while you cast the 3 action summon. Evocation focus spells should all be at range. Charm school should always debuff an enemy prior to casting a charm spell or maybe increase the number charmed, something useful for the play-style.
We started leaning into "this is how it should be played," not "this is what I'd like to see more of." It's genuinely frustrating to have conversations with other posters like this. And I've had these conversations with you since, like, the launch of the game. You've also talked about mountains of data that you've compiled and claim to be an authority on the game. Do you not see how this is just... incredibly off-putting? How you entirely undercut the point of any conversation when you interact with people this way?
To me indeed the Wizard would be one of the funniest characters to play, which is the case for those who like all that Craft/Lore/Society stuff.
It also is one of the most moldable characters, flexible or prepared, universalist or specialist, staff user, energy manipulation or more flexible (exchanging spells on refocus), focus spells or arcane bond focused, many options.
Other classes could be subjectively better, but i.e. the Barbarian is too attached to Rage, for the Bard the muse defines so much your progress.
And seriously, the Int based skills are really funny, if you are into that stuff. It is weird as you’d want to have all, but for showing examples you can target things like maximize Arcana with Trick Magic Item and Unified Theory and Assurance so you can identify and use any magical device, and with Crafting plus Inventor plus Craft Anything you can make your own equipment with any common type magical items, when you don’t have a “magical shop” with everything makes the difference.
This at high level (about 15) but meanwhile you progress maximizing of course Int, Arcana, Trick Magic Item, training the others (expert some depending if want to use rituals requiring it), expert/master on Crafting and get Inventor at level 7-8, at which you are not bad at all and can use very well your skills.
Some focus spells would need a revision, as are not good enough to make you use one of your feats, like the 4th level evocation, the divination and abjuration are good.