How would you remaster the wizard?

[R3st8]

Ascalaphus wrote:

I think NerdOver9000's idea would be great if you do adventuring days with an absolute ton of encounters, but it's not really good if you have shorter days with a few big encounters that all need big guns. Because their solution really really reduces the amount of spells available per encounter. And in a severe or extreme encounter, you need more than that.

I think the solution is rather in bumping up the focus spells a bit in power, so they sit in between your cantrips and your highest level spells.

It would also be very simple to implement since all you need to do is add the new focus spells and get their balance right, one way to do this is just give each type of wizard the most iconic spells of his school as a focus spell:

evocation - magic missile > fireball > disintegration

conjuration - temporary tool > summon animal > teleport

transmutation - humanoid form > elemental form > dragon form

illusionist - minor image > invisibility > phantasmal killer

enchanter - charm person > heroism > suggestion

divination - detect magic > true strike > true seeing

necromancer - false life > animate dead > could kill

abjuration - mage armor > resist energy > repulsion

Note: yeah I suck at balancing things maybe someone can do better

[Calliope5431]

R3st8 wrote:

Ascalaphus wrote:

I think NerdOver9000's idea would be great if you do adventuring days with an absolute ton of encounters, but it's not really good if you have shorter days with a few big encounters that all need big guns. Because their solution really really reduces the amount of spells available per encounter. And in a severe or extreme encounter, you need more than that.

I think the solution is rather in bumping up the focus spells a bit in power, so they sit in between your cantrips and your highest level spells.

It would also be very simple to implement since all you need to do is add the new focus spells and get their balance right, one way to do this is just give each type of wizard the most iconic spells of his school as a focus spell:

evocation - magic missile > fireball > disintegration

conjuration - temporary tool > summon animal > teleport

transmutation - humanoid form > elemental form > dragon form

illusionist - minor image > invisibility > phantasmal killer

enchanter - charm person > heroism > suggestion

divination - detect magic > true strike > true seeing

necromancer - false life > animate dead > could kill

abjuration - mage armor > resist energy > repulsion

Note: yeah I suck at balancing things maybe someone can do better

It's honestly not an awful idea, and focus spells (2-action ones that is) are already very close to this. You can see the design in focus spells for druid and sorcerer:

Pulverizing cascade (advanced elemental spell for waves druid), dragon breath (advanced focus spell for draconic bloodline sorcerer) -> 5d6 base + 2d6 per level

Likewise, stone druid has stone lance, which is single-target but 6d6 base + 2d6 per level. So fireball roughly fits. It's 6d6 base + 2d6 per level as an AoE.

I'd be curious to hear from other people who have played blaster druids to see if this would be too strong.

(oh and regarding mage armor - unfortunately it's an all-day spell that is a replacement for armor runes, so it probably wouldn't work)

[NerdOver9000]

R3st8 wrote:

Ascalaphus wrote:

I think NerdOver9000's idea would be great if you do adventuring days with an absolute ton of encounters, but it's not really good if you have shorter days with a few big encounters that all need big guns. Because their solution really really reduces the amount of spells available per encounter. And in a severe or extreme encounter, you need more than that.

I think the solution is rather in bumping up the focus spells a bit in power, so they sit in between your cantrips and your highest level spells.

It would also be very simple to implement since all you need to do is add the new focus spells and get their balance right, one way to do this is just give each type of wizard the most iconic spells of his school as a focus spell:

evocation - magic missile > fireball > disintegration

conjuration - temporary tool > summon animal > teleport

transmutation - humanoid form > elemental form > dragon form

illusionist - minor image > invisibility > phantasmal killer

enchanter - charm person > heroism > suggestion

divination - detect magic > true strike > true seeing

necromancer - false life > animate dead > could kill

abjuration - mage armor > resist energy > repulsion

Note: yeah I suck at balancing things maybe someone can do better

I really like this idea. I would rather have wizards be Thematic rather than all be basically play the same. I'd rather group the schools by theme (Fire, Ice, ect.) rather than the old spell schools, but if you decided to stick with that this would work great.

[Squiggit]

I think part of any update to the wizard though should really consider what a wizard is.

The class is, imo, kind of in a bizarre place because many of its defining features are deeply self referential... or not necessarily good things (at least in the context of the broader rules).

You can say that wizards are an int-based arcane caster with a spellbook... but having a Spellbook is just a limitation, it's not something that really defines you in a positive (as in active) way. The spellbook is just a thing in your bag that regulates your options.

You can say that mages are an iconic fantasy archetype, but the D&D wizard is really bad at emulating anything other than a D&D wizard, so it's not really good at fulfilling that space either. Often when you see someone trying to emulate a mage from a video game or novel or tv show, it's not the wizard they get pointed to.

Maybe it's the arcane spell list then? But what does the arcane list do? A little bit of everything, except healing (its buffs and debuffs are kind of limited in scope too, not that it can't but some premium ones are outside its reach). But neither 'a little bit of everything' nor 'not healing' are really useful identities per se either.

... Not having a strong identity isn't necessarily bad. Classes like the Fighter are generic too... but one key difference is that the Fighter is designed and encouraged to specialize, while the Wizard largely can't.

There's also the opposite problem. While the Wizard is fairly generic, it's also not entirely generic. There are certain things a Wizard needs to do, or can't do, in order to be a Wizard that prevent it from being quite as freeform as the Fighter either.

The result is a sort of uncanny valley where the class is too specific to emulate or enable a wide variety of archetypes, but too generic to really stand on its own as something other than a reference to what it's always been.

[Arachnofiend]

Biggest thing the wizard needs is more strong feats that push a theme. Convincing Illusion is great for dedicated illusionists, if similar stuff existed for other themes people would feel a lot better about the class.

I do like the idea of letting the wizard cast "real" spells as focus spells too.

[Calliope5431]

Yeah the D&D wizard is this bizarre hodge-podge of things (as is the arcane list in general, let's be honest here).

I think one of the goals of the remastered wizard was to tightly focus, a la kineticist. The problem is that the class was balanced around being a bizarre hodge-podge and less around tight mechanical focus and thematic consistency, and so you wind up with thematic consistency in your school slot and still have total anarchy in your other slots.

Personally, I'd love to see more "themed" casters. So you get an entire class (or subclass) that's just "necromancy". And another that's just "pyromancer" (this is, admittedly, just fire kineticist). Or another that's the archetypal "enchanter". And you give them stuff to compensate for not having the entire arcane list.

You get the idea. You could totally roll it all into wizard by ruthlessly segregating spells into themes, and banning wizards from taking the entire kitchen sink. Or only allowing universalists access to the kitchen sink at the cost of vastly reduced total power, if you wanted to keep the option of "jack of all trades hodge-podge caster" alive. Make it like fighter/kineticist in terms of feat and subclass design.

But right now, you're not playing Merlin. You're not playing Circe. You're not playing a Clark Ashton Smith necromancer, or a Dr. Faustus-style diabolist (a tragically underrepresented concept might I add). You're playing a wizard from Jack Vance's Dying Earth series, which most people haven't read.

[Arachnofiend]

I do think some amount of generalization is preferred for the wizard; you should be able to push towards a specialization but I don't like the idea of being locked into one. I feel like the Schrodinger's Wizard is basically the class fantasy here; you're the genius caster, the one with true mastery of the magical arts through rigorous study who always knows what the solution is and can pull it out of your magical hat. Limitations and strictly controlled themes feels more the purview of classes like the Sorcerer and Psychic.

[R3st8]

Squiggit wrote:

I think part of any update to the wizard though should really consider what a wizard is.

The class is, imo, kind of in a bizarre place because many of its defining features are deeply self referential... or not necessarily good things (at least in the context of the broader rules).

You can say that wizards are an int-based arcane caster with a spellbook... but having a Spellbook is just a limitation, it's not something that really defines you in a positive (as in active) way. The spellbook is just a thing in your bag that regulates your options.

You can say that mages are an iconic fantasy archetype, but the D&D wizard is really bad at emulating anything other than a D&D wizard, so it's not really good at fulfilling that space either. Often when you see someone trying to emulate a mage from a video game or novel or tv show, it's not the wizard they get pointed to.

Maybe it's the arcane spell list then? But what does the arcane list do? A little bit of everything, except healing (its buffs and debuffs are kind of limited in scope too, not that it can't but some premium ones are outside its reach). But neither 'a little bit of everything' nor 'not healing' are really useful identities per se either.

... Not having a strong identity isn't necessarily bad. Classes like the Fighter are generic too... but one key difference is that the Fighter is designed and encouraged to specialize, while the Wizard largely can't.

There's also the opposite problem. While the Wizard is fairly generic, it's also not entirely generic. There are certain things a Wizard needs to do, or can't do, in order to be a Wizard that prevent it from being quite as freeform as the Fighter either.

The result is a sort of uncanny valley where the class is too specific to emulate or enable a wide variety of archetypes, but too generic to really stand on its own as something other than a reference to what it's always been.

If you ask me what the identity of the wizard is I always saw the wizard as being the counterpart of the hero's journey, Usually stories have warriors as heroes and some times assassins, the hero would usually be gifted supernatural items by a supernatural ally like how Arthur got Excalibur, The reason for that is that we as humans don't have supernatural abilities and so in old stories whenever someone had supernatural abilities it was due to a external source, Merlin was born from a incubus which makes him a cambion(half demon) or demon blood sorcerer, Morgan le Fay well the moniker "le Fay" means "the fairy" and she is inspired by the Mórrigan which is a Irish/Celt goddess, Gandalf is basically either a angel, oracle or at least a angel blooded sorcerer and some would say even a priest but he not a pathfinder wizard, Circe the Enchantress is the daughter of the god Helios so more like demigod than a wizard, the Iconic Faust would be a Witch or Warlock, the closest thing we have to the intelligence based pathfinder wizard in real life are the early alchemists both from from Europe and Asia and even then there are still some religious connotations.

But why is that? that is because the wizard is not a human granted power but instead a humanized god, yes you heard that right the image we have of a wizard is basically all supernatural creatures who where mistaken by humans, But that is why the wizard is good, in the past humans would try to fly and be burned by the sun untill the plane was invented, in the past humans would never reach the moon until a man walked there and planted a flag, the wizard represents humanity's progress, our ability to develop to the point where we can perform roles that used to be exclusive to gods, angels, demons and fairies, if The hero's journey is to save the world and go back to living as a human but wizard's journey is to slowly shed his humanity via knowledge until he becomes Nethys, and that is why the wizard cant have a narrow identity because it represents our future potential to step into the territory of gods and demons by means of knowledge.

Its the duality of the old myths where man was a fallen child of god in need of redemption in contrast with the new modern reality where men is a constantly evolving beast that can one day reach the heights of Zeus and Thor if they don't destroy themselves and their own planet before it happens.

[Calliope5431]

R3st8 wrote:

If you ask me what the identity of the wizard is I always saw the wizard as being the counterpart of the hero's journey, Usually stories have warriors as heroes and some times assassins, the hero would usually be gifted supernatural items by a supernatural ally like how Arthur got Excalibur, The reason for that is that we as humans don't have supernatural abilities and so in old stories whenever someone had supernatural abilities it was due to a external source, Merlin was born from a incubus which makes him a cambion(half demon) or demon blood sorcerer, Morgan le Fay well the moniker "le Fay" means "the fairy" and she is inspired by the Mórrigan which is a Irish/Celt goddess, Gandalf is basically either a angel, oracle or at least a angel blooded sorcerer and some would say even a priest but he not a pathfinder wizard, Circe the Enchantress is the daughter of the god Helios so more like demigod than a wizard, the Iconic Faust would be a Witch or Warlock, the closest thing we have to the intelligence based pathfinder wizard in real life are the early alchemists both from from Europe and Asia and even then there are still some religious connotations.

The real-world wizard is derivative from several intertwined traditions. I really appreciate your bringing up of the alchemist, since that's a big one (but it's its own class). Another would be your classic fusionist wise woman in the Dark Ages, who one day will go to pray at the sacred grove and the next walk into a church and ask for some "magic bread" if you please. Which is a blending of three classes that PF splits off into their own things: druid, witch, and cleric (or maybe oracle).

But another still is the concept of the "magus", plural "magi". The learned sage, who first shows up in the Western canon with the ancient Greek philosophers and the Persian wise men. You see these sorts of people showing up all the time in the medieval literature - whether they're drawing from the technology of Ancient Rome, the philosophies of the Ancient Greeks, or the works of Arabic mathematicians and physicians.

They're often university-educated (at least in the high/late middle ages) and they're proto-Enlightenment figures: Thomas Aquinas, John Wycliffe, and the like who use reason to analyze the world. Later on of course you get the figures of the scientific revolution: Galileo looking through his telescope, Kepler and his orbits, Leonardo and his implausible devices.

D&D/PF wizards are essentially playing thaumaturgical Galileo or Aquinas. So I think it's fair to say they can be specialized, or they can be polymaths. Leibnitz was a polymath, integrating engineering, philosophy, and mathematics, but Newton wasn't - he just did physics. Ditto Galileo - you don't find him doing much theorizing about the nature of Being.

[R3st8]

Thinking about it vancian magic is from Jack Vance's Dying Earth which has some weird mixture of magic and science so really dnd and pathfinder wizards have always been similar to hyper-advanced scientists, A stock character that is used to explain away things.

How do we revive the dinosaurs? A scientist did it with genetics and a mosquito in a amber

How do we travel to the past? A scientist built a time machine

In a fantasy setting you just swap scientists for wizard and machine for artifact and you are golden, If you think about it Rick from Rick and Morty is a scientist but he might as well be a wizard.

[Jonathan Morgantini]

Removed a harassing post. You are allowed to disagree. However, you are NOT allowed to harass those you disagree with.

[Tangorin]

I would remake focus spells do that they can be used in lieu of cantrips, and make current theses level 1 feats so that you could grab multiple of them, say blending and spell substitution.

[R3st8]

Tangorin wrote:

I would remake focus spells do that they can be used in lieu of cantrips, and make current theses level 1 feats so that you could grab multiple of them, say blending and spell substitution.

A lot of people think the focus spells need improvement and to be honest is probably the best way to improve the class, Even if everything else fails a good focus spell alone can save a bad class.

[Argonar_Alfaran]

Wizard's whole shtick is to cast spells, they should be better at it than all other casters, who can cast spells and do some other magical things on top. Wizards whole chassis should be built around their spells.

First:
Let's improve the apparent goal of the "prepared for everything" play style that is intended and encouraged by Paizo themselves.
Make sure that the prepared silver bullet actually hits, when it counts.
Give every Wizard the following Class Feature on Level 1:

"just as planned":
Reaction
Trigger: A leveled attack spell missed an opponent (failure, not crit failure) or a leveled saving spell was successfully saved against (not critically)
You knew your opponent would react this way and are perfectly prepared for this situation. You adjust the triggering spell in the last second to counter your target's defense. Improve the degree of success by one in your favor for one target only. (Turning a failure into a success for attack spells or a success into a failure for saving spells). Now your enemies are aware of your shenanigans, so this trick won't work again. (Can't be used for 10 minutes)

Second:
Schools should not be limiting, but rewarding.
Get rid of the limit on the fourth spell slot, instead reward the wizard for casting spells from their school. They should actually want to cast those spells instead being forced to use them. For the school of mentalism this could be something like "Whenever you cast a school spell, choose a target within 30 feet, it is off-guard until the end of your next turn".

Third:
Focus Spells need to be useful and compliment the playstyle of the school, not feel like a cheap after thought. Their power needs to be somewhere between cantrip and leveled spells.

Fourth:
Make the Arcane Thesis count more.

For example: Metamagical Experimentation gives one first level feat and an additional daily metamagic of half the player's level? I'm sorry what?

Change the new Spellshape theory so that at higher levels Wizards can combine two spellshapes (make a feat for that)
Game Breaking? No it's still 3 actions. But it makes the wizard feel like he can do something nobody else can. Maybe even add an exclusive spellshape or two on higher levels. Like making area effects cross shaped or something.

Now I'm sure adding multiple buffs at the same time is a balancing act and those things need to be balanced with buffs for other schools, focus spells and arcane thesis, but I'm sure it can be done- This is the direction I'd want them to go.

[Ascalaphus]

R3st8 wrote:

Ascalaphus wrote:

I think NerdOver9000's idea would be great if you do adventuring days with an absolute ton of encounters, but it's not really good if you have shorter days with a few big encounters that all need big guns. Because their solution really really reduces the amount of spells available per encounter. And in a severe or extreme encounter, you need more than that.

I think the solution is rather in bumping up the focus spells a bit in power, so they sit in between your cantrips and your highest level spells.

It would also be very simple to implement since all you need to do is add the new focus spells and get their balance right, one way to do this is just give each type of wizard the most iconic spells of his school as a focus spell:

evocation - magic missile > fireball > disintegration

conjuration - temporary tool > summon animal > teleport

transmutation - humanoid form > elemental form > dragon form

illusionist - minor image > invisibility > phantasmal killer

enchanter - charm person > heroism > suggestion

divination - detect magic > true strike > true seeing

necromancer - false life > animate dead > could kill

abjuration - mage armor > resist energy > repulsion

Note: yeah I suck at balancing things maybe someone can do better

I love the straightforwardness of this idea. Of course with the switch from schools to curriculums the actual selection of spells would have to change, but there are a couple of good ideas in this list;

- Evocation; yes, giving real big ticket spells through focus points, means you're doing a blast at full volume every encounter. That definitely hammers home the point that you went to this school for blasting.

- Enchantment: at first I was "meh, charm person". But giving incapacitation spells as focus spells actually does an interesting job of making them much more viable, since they auto-heighten. It still won't be enough to do get through bosses (since those are usually above your level) but it means an enchanter is reliably able to threaten lieutenant-grade enemies.

On the whole, by having pretty powerful focus spells in your school/curriculum, it really puts a major spotlight on it and sets you wide apart from the other courses you could have signed on for.

[Ascalaphus]

Coming back to another thing that's been mentioned before: the wizard's role apart from being a spellcaster.

Looking at fantasy writing, wizards "know stuff". That's a big part of their identity. They studied, they read books, they're curious. Sometimes they're a young apprentice, but very often they're an older mentor to a younger brawny hero.

PF1, wizards were nominally not a skill monkey class, with only int+2 skill points per level vs the rogue's 8+int. But rogues weren't likely to invest heavily in int, and wizards would. Also, all knowledge skills were intelligence based. So in a particular niche, wizards de facto were skill monkeys.

PF2 kinda left them in the cold there. There are still a fair amount of Int skills (Craft and Society are very handy in actual adventures) but two of the most important "know stuff" skills, Religion and Nature, were handed over to Wisdom. On top of that, Arcana got split up into Arcana and Occultism and IMO that's a very narrow divide. Whether a particular check is going to be one, or the other, or both, is very arbitrary for adventure writers. Of course the pool of skill feats has to be divided among them.

Wizards still get to be trained in a lot of skills, but that's kinda where it stops. Which isn't good enough in PF2, since the DC for checks goes up as if you were going to continue becoming Expert/Master/Legendary. This is a big part of why being Int based is not long term satisfying. You get a nice start but gradually wither.

So here's what I think wizards need:
- More skill upgrades. More than most classes, doesn't have to be quite as many as rogues. But enough that you feel that the extra skills from high Int aren't being wasted.
- More Int skill feats to choose from, that are as good as Bon Mot, Terrified Retreat and Scare to Death.

[Tyr Thorn]

Honestly I think making the existing 1st rank focus spells into focus cantrips and then letting you prepare one of the new school spell as your focus spell would be pretty fun. Of course you'd need to slap a once per 10 minutes per target on some of the focus cantrips and most likely limit how high a rank of spell your prepared focus spell could be.

[R3st8]

Ascalaphus wrote:

I love the straightforwardness of this idea. Of course with the switch from schools to curriculums the actual selection of spells would have to change, but there are a couple of good ideas in this list;

- Evocation; yes, giving real big ticket spells through focus points, means you're doing a blast at full volume every encounter. That definitely hammers home the point that you went to this school for blasting.

- Enchantment: at first I was "meh, charm person". But giving incapacitation spells as focus spells actually does an interesting job of making them much more viable, since they auto-heighten. It still won't be enough to do get through bosses (since those are usually above your level) but it means an enchanter is reliably able to threaten lieutenant-grade enemies.

On the whole, by having pretty powerful focus spells in your school/curriculum, it really puts a major spotlight on it and sets you wide apart from the other courses you could have signed on for.

To be fair my train of thought was the following: What sort of evoker can't blast people lets give him fireball, What sort of enchanter can't charm people lets give him charm person, What sort of necromancer can't rise the dead lets give him animate dead and so on.

[Themetricsystem]

If I had a magic wand to change things the change I'd make would impact far more than just the Wizard but here is what I'd do:

Provide a Focus Pool that starts and also caps at 3 points to ALL Player Characters regardless of Class. I see absolutely no interesting design space in the "power" of increasing the size of a Focus Pool, it takes up valuable space in the rules for practically no reason and the benefit now that Refocusing is easier than ever is fairly minimal while also only ever having the effect of punishing low-level PCs so they can't to their Class/Role/Specialization defining thing.
Print a half dozen general use Focus Point uses that take the place of SOME of the things Hero Points are currently supposed to be used for but usually AREN'T because they are best reserved to save your life. These would be things that ALL Characters can do without special training.
Provide each Class with ways to spend Focus Points, NOT just Spells, that are unique to that Class.
Give each Spellcaster a Focus Cantrip much like how the Bard gets one, which is arguably the best Spell in the entire game system when all things are considered, that ties into either the overall flavor of the Class or their chosen Class "Path/Specialization" such as a unique one for each Bloodline, Patron, Curse, School, etc. These would mostly be in addition to the existing Focus Spells and not to subsume them.

Heavily flavored/specialized Casters deserve an always usable unique iconic thing they can always do and it should be useful to them and the party in my opinion. It shouldn't be something that is competitive for dealing damage versus a reasonable weapon or x-level/tier Spell but leaving the unlimited use stuff for Casters to simply fall to the same shared groups of existing Cantrips makes Casters play more samey than I think is healthy for table variation.

[R3st8]

Themetricsystem wrote:

If I had a magic wand to change things the change I'd make would impact far more than just the Wizard but here is what I'd do:

Provide a Focus Pool that starts and also caps at 3 points to ALL Player Characters regardless of Class. I see absolutely no interesting design space in the "power" of increasing the size of a Focus Pool, it takes up valuable space in the rules for practically no reason and the benefit now that Refocusing is easier than ever is fairly minimal while also only ever having the effect of punishing low-level PCs so they can't to their Class/Role/Specialization defining thing.

Each type of system has its strong points, first edition was strong at simulation while 2e is strong at balance, Giving full focus points that replenish every fight would be gamey but I think that is a strong point of second edition, Maybe if it embraces the video gamey aspect it could make the system even more enjoyable that it already is.

[Cyder]

I like the idea of school spells being a flexible focus spell. I would be happy with the much narrower range of school spells if a school spell could always be cast as a focus spell.

I would even be happy for wizards to be 3 slot casters with school spells being to be cast as focus spells.

As far as other roles for a wizard, I agree there is nothing in the wizards skill or feat kit that lends itself to intelligence. Arcana should auto increase as it does for inventors makes no sense it doesn't. I would also have more feats that use recall knowledge - maybe recall knowledge on an enemy gives it a -1 or 2 status penalty on save versus your next spell on it or weakness to the damage - something that makes using recall knowledge worth it as a wizard. As it is a Bard or sorc with Bon Mot can do that for mental spells effectively.

I would make spell substitution a baseline feature rather than a thesis and maybe give some feats to support thesis as wizards advance. A thesis should continue to shape the wizard.

Right now I feel like wizards are a half baked class that's whole identity is spells... which is super weak as a focus since they really can't do much more with them then other classes. A high level bard can get 4 slots per rank, change some spells each day and have expert in bardic lore - they are way more effective spell caster than a wizard without ridiculously poor defences or perception.

Wizards should have good defences (saves) as they should experiment with magic. Have you ever seen how quickly a chemistry teacher can react to an unexpected explosion? I have they had faster reflexes than the class who were still trying to comprehend the 'bang.'

They should have legendary will from hours spent studying tomes all night, good fortitude from pulling those all night study sessions before exams and good reflex for getting out of the way when magic goes wrong.

[Evan Tarlton]

I'd give them Legendary in Will saves. I'd also give them more skills. 3 or 4 + Int. There's a strong argument to be made for the schools to give access to spells off of the Arcane list. IIRC, the druid is the only other full caster class that lacks a way to get spells from other lists without having to multiclass. Bards have Impossible Polymath (level 18, admittedly), clerics have spells from their god/s, oracles have Divine Access, psychics have Oscillating Wave, sorcerers have their Bloodlines, and witches have Lessons.

[Calliope5431]

Evan Tarlton wrote:

I'd give them Legendary in Will saves. I'd also give them more skills. 3 or 4 + Int. There's a strong argument to be made for the schools to give access to spells off of the Arcane list. IIRC, the druid is the only other full caster class that lacks a way to get spells from other lists without having to multiclass. Bards have Impossible Polymath (level 18, admittedly), clerics have spells from their god/s, oracles have Divine Access, psychics have Oscillating Wave, sorcerers have their Bloodlines, and witches have Lessons.

The fact that wizards, sorcerers, and witches don't get the same Will save progression as bards is somewhat inexcusable. At the very least, they should get master the same time as cleric does. It's just weird that barbarians get it before the wizard does.

[YuriP]

I'm afraid that designers seeing this remove the legendary in Will from bards because it's easier.

For other side the only martial who gets legendary in Fortitude is the Barbarian because it's the big muscle guy/girl so I can understand that legendary in a save is for very specialized class like barbarian with fortitude and psychic with will but this isn't explain why bards get it.

[Deriven Firelion]

YuriP wrote:

I'm afraid that designers seeing this remove the legendary in Will from bards because it's easier.

For other side the only martial who gets legendary in Fortitude is the Barbarian because it's the big muscle guy/girl so I can understand that legendary in a save is for very specialized class like barbarian with fortitude and psychic with will but this isn't explain why bards get it.

Nerf the class people love to make the weaker classes look better?

Be more fun to give casters Legendary Will saves like they should have.

[Blave]

Quite frankly, I'd much rather see all casters getting master in reflex or fort at high level than legendary will

[YuriP]

I don't disagree but knowing what Paizo made until today...

[Deriven Firelion]

Blave wrote:

Quite frankly, I'd much rather see all casters getting master in reflex or fort at high level than legendary will

Doesn't really fit the class fantasy in my opinion. If they were doing specialty clerics or further specializing bloodlines, might be fun.

For raw caster fantasy handling power with the mind and force of personality, they should have the very highest will saves.

[R3st8]

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Blave wrote:

Quite frankly, I'd much rather see all casters getting master in reflex or fort at high level than legendary will

Doesn't really fit the class fantasy in my opinion. If they were doing specialty clerics or further specializing bloodlines, might be fun.

For raw caster fantasy handling power with the mind and force of personality, they should have the very highest will saves.

Yep kicking someone out of your mind sounds like something a experienced old mage would do.

[Calliope5431]

Yeah I'm really fine with either fix to save progression - I say legendary in Will saves because it's something bard, oracle, and psychic (the other full casters) already have, not to mention investigator and thaumaturge.

As noted previously, I'd make sure they at least get master in Will sooner. Getting master at the same time rogue and swashbuckler does and after barbarian, champion, magus, cleric, and druid do is just absurd. You can't tell me that all of those classes are more "thematically appropriate" for Will saves than the wizard, witch, and sorcerer. The wizard's Will save progression should not be as good as the fighter's from levels 3-16.

[Squiggit]

Calliope5431 wrote:

You can't tell me that all of those classes are more "thematically appropriate" for Will saves than the wizard, witch, and sorcerer. The wizard's Will save progression should not be as good as the fighter's from levels 3-16.

IDK 'uniquely iron will' is a trope commonly associated with martial characters in fiction. Spellcasters and spellcaster adjacent characters are the subject of a lot of temptation stories too. There's nothing about the wizard or witch that really links to willpower at all except that it was their good save in 3.5/PF1.

[Calliope5431]

Squiggit wrote:

Calliope5431 wrote:

You can't tell me that all of those classes are more "thematically appropriate" for Will saves than the wizard, witch, and sorcerer. The wizard's Will save progression should not be as good as the fighter's from levels 3-16.

IDK 'uniquely iron will' is a trope commonly associated with martial characters in fiction. Spellcasters and spellcaster adjacent characters are the subject of a lot of temptation stories too. There's nothing about the wizard or witch that really links to willpower at all except that it was their good save in 3.5/PF1.

I might have to disagree with you there. After all, in Fellowship of the Ring , it wasn't Gandalf who was seduced by the ring - he was much too clever. Tempted, yes, but seduced, never. It was the fighter, Boromir. Gandalf wins a mental duel with the Balrog in Moria. Later on, Pippin (maybe a rogue?) winds up looking into the Palantir, and Pippin's mind gets crushed by Sauron.

Likewise, Merlin is Arthur's spiritual advisor in The Once and Future King . Arthur's the quintessential fighter/champion, but he's the one who gets seduced and ensorcelled by Morgan Le Fae. Lancelot is the one who commits adultery with Guinevere. The wizards are the ones with willpower in that story.

And then there's the 3.5 and PF 1e legacy of high Will saves. Because balance demands that wizards are good at something and because they don't get compensated for not having good Will saves with any other class features like high hit points or good AC or good weapon proficiencies or higher damage than martials or anything like that. Their chassis is just...sad.

[YuriP]

Err! Gandalf wasn't the best example once its almost like a demigod but even him doesn't used its will to resist the ring temptations but its intelligence and knowledge to think "Oh s&*! this is the The One Ring if I hold it I'm lost. But these hobbits was able to hold it as it was nothing so let me use them to transport and destroy the ring".

It's more like as Gandalf as legendary at Arcana was used its RK to get info about the ring before get it.

Morgan La Fae seduced Arthur because he was the King not Merlin. Also Merlin have defensive spells to detect and block many spells so wasn't easily to enchant him due its magical abilities not due its will power.
"It was the fighter, Boromir"..."Lancelot is the one who commits adultery with Guinevere". Well thats why fighters don't get strong Will saves! :D kkkk

Quote:

And then there's the 3.5 and PF 1e legacy of high Will saves. Because balance demands that wizards are good at something and because they don't get compensated for not having good Will saves with any other class features like high hit points or good AC or good weapon proficiencies or higher damage than martials or anything like that. Their chassis is just...sad.

That's the real reason why casters get high Will due the lack of other 2 saves and AC.

Anyway I agree that Wizard chassis is way too fragile and its need a lot of compensation to justify this. Something that it currently doesn't have.

So I don't think that Wizard chassis that needs to be boosted but its magical power and versatility. I don't think that we get an arcane bard is the most fun option here.

[Blave]

Since we are no longer rolling for HP at level up and are throwing various traditions out of the window anyway, how about giving Wizards 7 HP per level? Still keeps them below martials in HP. And especially in overall defense with their low proficiencies and all, but every little bit helps.

The other 6 HP classes could probabaly also use this since all of them have not only the worst HP but also the worst defensive proficiencies of all classes.

[Megistone]

Calliope5431 wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

Calliope5431 wrote:

You can't tell me that all of those classes are more "thematically appropriate" for Will saves than the wizard, witch, and sorcerer. The wizard's Will save progression should not be as good as the fighter's from levels 3-16.

IDK 'uniquely iron will' is a trope commonly associated with martial characters in fiction. Spellcasters and spellcaster adjacent characters are the subject of a lot of temptation stories too. There's nothing about the wizard or witch that really links to willpower at all except that it was their good save in 3.5/PF1.

I might have to disagree with you there. After all, in Fellowship of the Ring , it wasn't Gandalf who was seduced by the ring - he was much too clever. Tempted, yes, but seduced, never. It was the fighter, Boromir. Gandalf wins a mental duel with the Balrog in Moria. Later on, Pippin (maybe a rogue?) winds up looking into the Palantir, and Pippin's mind gets crushed by Sauron.

On the other hand, Saruman... not to mention the other istari, who lose focus of their mission even sooner. Now, technically they aren't wizards, but they are definitely one of the main sources for the wizard trope.

[YuriP]

Blave wrote:

Since we are no longer rolling for HP at level up and are throwing various traditions out of the window anyway, how about giving Wizards 7 HP per level? Still keeps them below martials in HP. And especially in overall defense with their low proficiencies and all, but every little bit helps.

The other 6 HP classes could probabaly also use this since all of them have not only the worst HP but also the worst defensive proficiencies of all classes.

Why give wizards 7 HP when Bards, Druids, Clerics and Oracles already get 8 HP?

As I said the wizard problem is in its "glass" part but in the lack of "cannon" part.

[Arachnofiend]

Calliope5431 wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

Calliope5431 wrote:

You can't tell me that all of those classes are more "thematically appropriate" for Will saves than the wizard, witch, and sorcerer. The wizard's Will save progression should not be as good as the fighter's from levels 3-16.

IDK 'uniquely iron will' is a trope commonly associated with martial characters in fiction. Spellcasters and spellcaster adjacent characters are the subject of a lot of temptation stories too. There's nothing about the wizard or witch that really links to willpower at all except that it was their good save in 3.5/PF1.

I might have to disagree with you there. After all, in Fellowship of the Ring , it wasn't Gandalf who was seduced by the ring - he was much too clever. Tempted, yes, but seduced, never. It was the fighter, Boromir. Gandalf wins a mental duel with the Balrog in Moria. Later on, Pippin (maybe a rogue?) winds up looking into the Palantir, and Pippin's mind gets crushed by Sauron.

If you look at wizards who are the protagonists of their stories and not the advisor for a martial you start getting people like Faust, so...

[Kaspyr2077]

Squiggit wrote:

Calliope5431 wrote:

You can't tell me that all of those classes are more "thematically appropriate" for Will saves than the wizard, witch, and sorcerer. The wizard's Will save progression should not be as good as the fighter's from levels 3-16.

IDK 'uniquely iron will' is a trope commonly associated with martial characters in fiction. Spellcasters and spellcaster adjacent characters are the subject of a lot of temptation stories too. There's nothing about the wizard or witch that really links to willpower at all except that it was their good save in 3.5/PF1.

What you're describing for martials is "grit," and it's a classic component of heroic fantasy to be able to endure and overcome attacks. Of course, in a game, there has to be a chance of failure, and we simulate that with rolls of dice, modifified by various traits. We have to determine which kind of character is best at overcoming which kinds of challenge in order to set up traits in the rules.

Nimble characters, like Rogues, are probably going to be best at getting out of the way of things - a Reflex save. Characters known for being tough, like Barbarians, are probably going to be pretty good at overcoming purely physical demands. That leaves mental challenges. There is one class with no inherent physical ability at all, but uses nothing but the power of their mind to shape and manifest immense eldritch forces. I bet they would be pretty good at understanding and resisting unnatural fears, temptations, and illusions. Heck, I think the name of the class means "Wise."

[Blave]

YuriP wrote:

Blave wrote:

Since we are no longer rolling for HP at level up and are throwing various traditions out of the window anyway, how about giving Wizards 7 HP per level? Still keeps them below martials in HP. And especially in overall defense with their low proficiencies and all, but every little bit helps.

The other 6 HP classes could probabaly also use this since all of them have not only the worst HP but also the worst defensive proficiencies of all classes.

Why give wizards 7 HP when Bards, Druids, Clerics and Oracles already get 8 HP?

As I said the wizard problem is in its "glass" part but in the lack of "cannon" part.

Oh, I would totally be up for all classes getting at least 8 HP per level. I doubt it would break anything. But that might be too radical a change to be realistic.

[Temperans]

Here is how I would fix them:

1) Get rid of thesis, yeah people like them but I think that's a drain on what wizards can get.

2.a) Each schools gets one school themed focus spell, cantrip, or passive at level 1 at no cost (Equivalent of Bard/Druid getting their muse/order).

2.b) Keep the 8 schools and add the elemental schools as well as the subschools.

2.c) Illusion gets lingering composition on illusion spells. Evocation gets dangerous sorcery. Enchantment treats spell level as 2 higher for incapacitation effects. Abjuration gets shield that does not break on a reaction. Transmutation can increase their ability mod by 1. Divination gets a bonus when doing rerolls (very thematic).

2.d) Give schools higher level powers.

3) Add more feats that require a specific school or modify a specific set of spells also make sure the level is appropriate. Non of this 10th+ level for something that should be 6th.

4) Prepared casters can prepare a spell using a metamagic feat by increasing the spell slot used, the action cost of these spells do not increase. Wizards can get feats that let them prepare spells with more metamagic or reduce the cost. Yes this means wizards can heavily modify spells; No I do not think that's bad; No I do not think spontaneous should get an added benefit they already can cast the spell needed when needed.

5.a) Wizards should have the ability to craft and upgrade their bonded object without spending feats.

5.b) Make familiars stronger, and if needed make it an option between. Bonded object and familiar.

5.c) Add school familiars. The new witch familiar abilities seem like a poor version of the wizard's school familiars.

6) Finally, and most important of all. If DC scales with level, to hit scales with level, weapons scale with level (sort of), cantrips scale with level, focus spells scale with level, then why don't spell slots also scale with level?

A level 1 focus spell will scale from spell level 1 to spell level 10, all while being renewable with a 10 minute rest. So why does a level 1 spell slot gets stuck at level 1? Make spells slots scale with level just like everything else that is not based on an item.

[Lightning Raven]

Squiggit wrote:

Calliope5431 wrote:

You can't tell me that all of those classes are more "thematically appropriate" for Will saves than the wizard, witch, and sorcerer. The wizard's Will save progression should not be as good as the fighter's from levels 3-16.

IDK 'uniquely iron will' is a trope commonly associated with martial characters in fiction. Spellcasters and spellcaster adjacent characters are the subject of a lot of temptation stories too. There's nothing about the wizard or witch that really links to willpower at all except that it was their good save in 3.5/PF1.

Harry Dresden, my favorite wizard by far, would start with Legendary at level 1 for sure.

A lot of spellcasting involves imposing one's will upon the world, I think it wouldn't be crazy giving all spellcasters better progression than other characters on this aspect.

[Unicore]

A cool feat for the wizard would be for them to have a way to use spells to counteract the magical abilities of creatures and monsters.

I like that the wizard is vulnerable to magic, except gets very good at figuring out how to completely shut down enemy casters, but that does leave them very vulnerable to dragon's breath and other such abilities. Instead of having specific spell solutions to those, I think around 12th level it would make sense for wizards to be able to use spells to counteract anything with a magical trait.

[R3st8]

Lightning Raven wrote:

Harry Dresden, my favorite wizard by far, would start with Legendary at level 1 for sure.

A lot of spellcasting involves imposing one's will upon the world, I think it wouldn't be crazy giving all spellcasters better progression than other characters on this aspect.

Speaking of Harry we also have Harry Potter who is kinda of a sorcerer but also kind of a wizard since people study magic in that world, remember the scene where Snape teaches his how to get Voldemort out of head.

[wegrata]

Ascalaphus wrote:

R3st8 wrote:

Ascalaphus wrote:

I think NerdOver9000's idea would be great if you do adventuring days with an absolute ton of encounters, but it's not really good if you have shorter days with a few big encounters that all need big guns. Because their solution really really reduces the amount of spells available per encounter. And in a severe or extreme encounter, you need more than that.

I think the solution is rather in bumping up the focus spells a bit in power, so they sit in between your cantrips and your highest level spells.

It would also be very simple to implement since all you need to do is add the new focus spells and get their balance right, one way to do this is just give each type of wizard the most iconic spells of his school as a focus spell:

evocation - magic missile > fireball > disintegration

conjuration - temporary tool > summon animal > teleport

transmutation - humanoid form > elemental form > dragon form

illusionist - minor image > invisibility > phantasmal killer

enchanter - charm person > heroism > suggestion

divination - detect magic > true strike > true seeing

necromancer - false life > animate dead > could kill

abjuration - mage armor > resist energy > repulsion

Note: yeah I suck at balancing things maybe someone can do better

I love the straightforwardness of this idea. Of course with the switch from schools to curriculums the actual selection of spells would have to change, but there are a couple of good ideas in this list;

- Evocation; yes, giving real big ticket spells through focus points, means you're doing a blast at full volume every encounter. That definitely hammers home the point that you went to this school for blasting.

- Enchantment: at first I was "meh, charm person". But giving incapacitation spells as focus spells actually does an interesting job of making them much more viable, since they auto-heighten. It still won't be enough to do get through...

Slightly off topic, but related to incapacitation. I was thinking about a condition like 4e bloodied, that lowered your effective level. Like at 75% health you'd get bloodied 1, and it would reduce your level by 1 for incapacitation effects. Would allow martials to do their thing and support casters in a really meaningful way.

[rainzax]

Kekkres wrote:

I would have made them baseline 4 prepared slot casters and given them the ability to spontaneously cast spells from their curriculum, so they always have their thematic spells online but without otherwise containing them [snip]

+1

[Calliope5431]

Unicore wrote:

A cool feat for the wizard would be for them to have a way to use spells to counteract the magical abilities of creatures and monsters.

I like that the wizard is vulnerable to magic, except gets very good at figuring out how to completely shut down enemy casters, but that does leave them very vulnerable to dragon's breath and other such abilities. Instead of having specific spell solutions to those, I think around 12th level it would make sense for wizards to be able to use spells to counteract anything with a magical trait.

That's a really cool idea, actually. Though you of course would have to find some way to balance it with action economy, it has a lot of potential.

Quote:

Nimble characters, like Rogues, are probably going to be best at getting out of the way of things - a Reflex save. Characters known for being tough, like Barbarians, are probably going to be pretty good at overcoming purely physical demands. That leaves mental challenges. There is one class with no inherent physical ability at all, but uses nothing but the power of their mind to shape and manifest immense eldritch forces. I bet they would be pretty good at understanding and resisting unnatural fears, temptations, and illusions. Heck, I think the name of the class means "Wise."

Yeah this. Also, the wizard has nothing else. Maybe it fits your class conception for wizards to be feckless with no self-control and an inability to conduct mental combat, and you really deeply want them to suck at Will saves. But the fact of the matter is that they do have good Will saves...at the end. They're better at Will saves than the fighter by level 17. They're better at Will saves than the kineticist by level 17. It's just that their overall save progression is behind every other class in the game.

Again, they need to be good at something , and if they're not good at saving throws, HP, AC, and weapon proficiencies, I question what you can actually give them.

[Pronate11]

Honestly, I kinda feel like theres too many classes with legendary will already. There are two classes with legendary fort saves (not including monk), three with legendary reflex, and 5 with legendary will. Thats probably fine as it is, but if we add all spellcasters, that would be 10 with legendary will, five times as much as fort and literally half of the classes. That would make will saves from monsters way worse than any other save at higher levels, and would either make those abilities much weaker than intended, or would make the half without legendary will saves a lot more miserable. So if we don't give legendary will to every full spellcaster, why would we give it to the wizard instead of the druid or cleric? When I think "Iron will" I think of a stalwart defender of the faith, or someone with a deep spiritual confection with something (be that the divine or nature) far more than I think of a mage siting in his tower. I might even put sorcerer as a better contender for legendary will than the wizard, as they're bloodlines would either give them the will power of a powerful being, or would temp them to the point where they have experience resisting temptation. It's just not something that a wizard should have over almost any other spell caster.

[Calliope5431]

Pronate11 wrote:

Honestly, I kinda feel like theres too many classes with legendary will already. There are two classes with legendary fort saves (not including monk), three with legendary reflex, and 5 with legendary will. Thats probably fine as it is, but if we add all spellcasters, that would be 10 with legendary will, five times as much as fort and literally half of the classes. That would make will saves from monsters way worse than any other save at higher levels, and would either make those abilities much weaker than intended, or would make the half without legendary will saves a lot more miserable. So if we don't give legendary will to every full spellcaster, why would we give it to the wizard instead of the druid or cleric? When I think "Iron will" I think of a stalwart defender of the faith, or someone with a deep spiritual confection with something (be that the divine or nature) far more than I think of a mage siting in his tower. I might even put sorcerer as a better contender for legendary will than the wizard, as they're bloodlines would either give them the will power of a powerful being, or would temp them to the point where they have experience resisting temptation. It's just not something that a wizard should have over almost any other spell caster.

Yeah I know. That's the issue.

Which is why I might recommend giving wizards master in Reflex (and sorcerers in Fortitude) or something instead. Or doing the same thing as clerics and druids. And giving them master proficiency in Will saves at a level before 17 but no legendary proficiency. They already get master, why not give it to them at a level where they'll actually appreciate it? Clerics and druids already get better armor and HP than wizards, there is NO justifiable reason (from a balance perspective, I'm not talking about thematics, which we could argue about all day and not reach a conclusion on) to give them earlier Will saves when all 3 classes are full casters. The primal and divine lists are on-par with the arcane list in terms of usefulness, even if the arcane list has more spells on it. Primal is probably better. It's not like the wizard is super overpowered compared to druid/cleric RIGHT NOW, so why would it be if it got the same Will save progression they did?

Bottom line is that "there are too many classes with good saves, so let's take that problem out on the wizard" isn't really fair, and overhauling saves for everyone else is a ton of work. So the easiest fix is to boost the wizard somehow.

[R3st8]

Unicore wrote:

A cool feat for the wizard would be for them to have a way to use spells to counteract the magical abilities of creatures and monsters.

I like that the wizard is vulnerable to magic, except gets very good at figuring out how to completely shut down enemy casters, but that does leave them very vulnerable to dragon's breath and other such abilities. Instead of having specific spell solutions to those, I think around 12th level it would make sense for wizards to be able to use spells to counteract anything with a magical trait.

This makes me picture a scene where a rogue apprentice tries to kill his mentor just to have the spell bounce back as the old man laugh "you are a hundred years too young to mess with me kid", but for dispel, counterspell and reflecting to be the wizard's "thing" we would need those feature to be significantly improved specially now that schools aren't a thing anymore.

Oh and for the people saying wizards don't strike you as having legendary will keep in mind that being a level 20 wizard in golarion is harder than getting a doctorate, and if you don't think that takes a lot of willpower remember some people would jump in front of cars to avoid taking those tests.

[Argonar_Alfaran]

I disagree with some takes on what will reflects and that wizards shouldn't have legendary in it.

Will is not really a representation to show if a person can be tempted or not, otherwise bad individuals with high will would hardly exist. It rather shows if a person can be manipulated against their will. There's a huge difference between "Be my servant and I'll grant you power" vs "Do as I command, because my magic says so". This is further supported by effects like Color Spray having a will save, which means will represents not only the mind, but a manipulation of all senses (other than pain, which is fortitude) as well.

In popular media there's two kinds of characters that display strong will
Main Protagonists and Wizards. The former because they often have plot armor and need to show how awesome they are, but those don't exist in TTRPGs. The latter because "those simple tricks won't work on me". If said character is not a wizard but another caster instead, that's most likely because wizards don't exist in that universe and the archetype in it's whole representation is already an amalgamation of Wizard and <insert other class>

I don't see why Sorcerers should have a higher will than wizards. Their powers are intuitive and they can manifest certain effects because they are in their blood. They are basically all X-Men. They come in all shapes and forms, they can be simple minded or strong willed.

Bards, who are already legendary, I have a very hard time finding any logical explanation for them to have a high will. Then again that class has never made much sense to me and seems like a relic from the past. I can see that for a Captain America type of character, but that is not really the typical bard for me.

Clerics and Druids already have a very high will due to their main attribute being wisdom. But that is as far as it should go, their resistance comes from their conviction and their conviction comes from their tradition.

Now Wizards need to understand everything they learn. So as the supposed knowledge guys, they need something that represents the "I know what this is, this isn't gonna work" factor. You can still play a booksmart scaredy cat by completely dumping wisdom, but there should still be a notable difference between the clueless Fighter and the clueless Wizard. And eventually every Wizard should come to a point where he is not manipulated easily.

Besides that yes wizards need a strong will to even finish their studies.