I wish we, as a community, would move away from arguments around population and consensus. We don’t have the data, and claims towards what group-level opinions are in one way or another, doesn’t do anything.
It’s not just productive.
The only voice any of us can really speak to is our own. We don’t have the hard numbers to say otherwise.
Naturally we can talk about observable discourse, but we really should stop trying to turn those into arguments from the majority.
I never use those arguments myself.
Wasn't pointed at you! You just happened to post right before I posted the above!
My particular issue with the grief about the wizard is when it omits the strengths of the class. I had to bring up how they do factually have the most slotted spells per-day when you account for things like the feat which gives you two scrolls every day among other things.
Yeah but that's kind of another white room ideal. Like yeah, wizards have more slots than anyone else, but even though our psychic has 3 fewer top level slots (when you account for drain bond) and two fewer at every other level, they're lasting a lot longer casting shatter mind twice per fight before even touching a slotted spell while our wizard wonders who even approved augment summoning.
I had to bring up how they do factually have the most slotted spells per-day when you account for things like the feat which gives you two scrolls every day among other things.
Well, don't account for it then. My wizard doesn't have it. And won't have it. Now what? I play it wrong? Should I be glad that because of this hypothetical thing I wouldn't be able to even build my current wizard with the new rules (and it seems for now all analogues would be just worse)? Why do you think this could be even remotely close to a real argument?
Oh, my bad. I must have misinterpreted it, but to answer the question, I guess they do play-test it, but I don't know how the play-test went, so I can't tell if it's a problem with the play-test, measurement method, data interpretation, etc. for instance I vaguely recall there was a graphic showing that the wizard has the greatest variance in satisfaction with a group thinking its great and one thinking its bad, that could be a hint that there might be a difference between how these people played the play-test, it could be a difference in play style or lets suppose for a second that the its the gm, if you play with a great gm that you knew for years you would have a different experience than someone who played with a random group of people in the web and a noob gm, depending on the result it could hint at many possible solutions, it could be that the wizard class is too reliant on a good gm or a good party or a good player etc. and there is also the issue that many players who suffered under the tyranny of 1e god mages for years would have a bias, the general feeling i have is that the devs did not realize they synergy between different nerfs would be so great.
If I had a player who was desperate to play a caster's caster, but was never using scrolls, and the rest of the party was tending to hoard their wealth to buy new weapon runes almost exclusively, I think I would be very tempted to use Automatic Bonus Progression, and then give casters extra spell slots every day. I think I would give 1 of the highest rank, 2 of the second highest rank, 3 of the 3rd, all the way down. This would be pretty close to how much wealth can expand the casting options of a caster. This will have a greater impact for wizards, clerics, druids, and witches than sorcerers and other spontaneous casters, since they would have more flexibility about what could go in those slots, but most spontaneous casters have other options than casting spells from slots that they tend to do a lot of in combat, so it really only would be the sorcerer that might feel a little restricted by it. Then again, most people play sorcerers to cast the same couple of spells as often as possible, so those players probably weren't rushing to get a ton of different scrolls in the first place.
The book keeping would be absolutely ridiculous for that many daily slots.
Unless the wizard player wants his party throwing stuff at him for taking 60 minutes of real time making daily preparations, he's never going to prepare different spells in those slots, let alone different spells depending on the current situation.
Also there's no way people can afford that many staff, wand and scroll equivalents of slots every single ingame day, as the rules are written right now, even if they spend all their gold on just those items.
It is probably not something I would do for a one shot high level adventure, no. It would be too much book keeping for most players to jump in past level 5 or 6 and have to remember that many spell slots on a new character, but if you started from first level, it is only ever 1 more spell per rank, and you learn your spells and what each one can do.
As far as affordability, even at level 20, all the extra spell slots as scrolls would cost 10,112 if you used all of them. Every encounter your character should be getting 12,250 gp of treasure. Even if your GM was incredibly cruel and only giving you treasure that you had to sell at half value, you could afford this number of scrolls every day that you have at least 2 encounters.
And the real truth is, you are almost never going to have a day where you cast close to this many spells, but with scrolls alone, it is very easy for a wizard to have this many spells that they can cast in a day where they really need more of them and they want to feel like they are never going to run out. Like, a rank 6 scroll costs 300 gp. A level 20 wizard should never enter any encounter where firing off a rank 6 slow, chain lightning or feeblemind spell is beyond their reach for the day (yes a rank 6 chain lightning spell is not a great choice for a level 20 wizard, but it is better than a rank 10 electric arc so it felt like a decent rank 6 reflex targeting example, especially with its 500ft range and ability to target any number of creatures). So the wizard could pass on the 1 extra rank 9 spell to grab 10 more rank 6 spells if they noticed that their GM was really tending to throw longer days at them.
And this really is about the level of versatility that using scrolls consistently adds to the wizard and lets them pretty much have every single 1st level, 2nd level and 3rd level spell they know available to them with the cost of 1 action. There is absolutely no reason for a wiard to unprepared to cover any common out of combat spell/situational spell that is 3 or more ranks lower than the wizards top spell slots.
This is why I don't understand when players of wizards are complaining about the "silver bullet" problem. Like, yes, my wizards often recognize that there is a spell I could have learned, or could have bought a scroll of that would have been perfect and I just don't have it right now, but that is probably the high grade silver bullet, and the low grade silver bullet that I do have memorized or on a scroll in my scroll bandolier (not really necessary any more) is better than doing nothing.
And doesn't this apply to any caster really? Yes, it probably can, but wizards are the intelligent, prepared, spell slot casting class. If they are not spending their resources to be intelligent, prepared, and ready to cast spells from spell slots, they are very much not playing the class to its own strengths.
The book keeping would be absolutely ridiculous for that many daily slots.
Unless the wizard player wants his party throwing stuff at him for taking 60 minutes of real time making daily preparations, he's never going to prepare different spells in those slots, let alone different spells depending on the current situation.
Also there's no way people can afford that many staff, wand and scroll equivalents of slots every single ingame day, as the rules are written right now, even if they spend all their gold on just those items.
Right about now, I feel like the PF 1e wizard makes a dramatic entrance waving his big bushy beard and entirely ridiculous heap of spell slots. Really. It was worse before. Especially since you could buy magic items like scrolls and wands on top of those slots, too.
Quote:
And doesn't this apply to any caster really? Yes, it probably can, but wizards are the intelligent, prepared, spell slot casting class. If they are not spending their resources to be intelligent, prepared, and ready to cast spells from spell slots, they are very much not playing the class to its own strengths.
I do have to take issue there. If you walk into a typical dungeon, no, you're just not going to know what you're facing inside. Especially since scouting isn't really a thing anymore (instead, it just provides +1 to init, and for good reason, it's a great way to get your rogue killed if done in the vein of editions past).
But back on track - I think that wizards having more spells (maybe not that absurd heap of scrolls - do recall that it takes an interact action for every scroll you want to pull out and that's EXPENSIVE) isn't an awful idea.
But really it is bad adventure design if the party is never able to have any senes at all of what is waiting for them in any dungeon ahead. I am not saying every party should be given blue prints of the dungeon and stat sheets for every creature, but Paizo is very good with its dungeon ecologies. monsters don't usually just appear out of nowhere with no one having any clue of what, when or where. Rumors, witness accounts, tracks, places where creatures eat, sleep, and generally do their daily lives leaves evidence.
Again, somethings should be a surprise to the party, but if everything is always a surprise then dungeons won't feel like places that belong in the game world.
And spending 1 action to have exactly the right spell is not a deal breaker. It is often an inconvenience, but it is rarely that punishing. Yes, it does mean occasionally that there will some rounds a wizard might move, take cover and grab the right scroll, but every character has rounds where they have do sub-optimal actions, and that is the tactical game of PF2. What is my best course of action? I don't understand why "it takes an action to grab a scroll" suddenly invalidates "wizards not having the right spell slot available to them is player choice not to use their resources to have spells to cast."
Sure some people just hate vancian casting. Well, that is the premise of PF2 wizards and is the tradition of this style of role playing game. Is the player really wanting to play a wizard in this game if they hate the idea of preparing spells based upon challenges that the adventure ahead my pose to them? It feels like maybe there is confusion or a miscommunication of expectations if players really want to play a wizard but don't want to engage with the mechanics of wizardry in the game. Like maybe they want to play a harry potter-esque character and so wizard seemed to be the exact right choice, but they really were more interested in the fantasy of being born with magic in their blood and learning to harness the power of their ancestors. Or maybe they really want to play an esoteric scholar who finds the exact right magical artifact to solve a problem and is more of a thaumaturge than a wizard. If the player is shocked and horrified to learn that wizards in Golarion cary spell books and memorize the spells that they are going to cast in a day, then a very fundamental communication error has occurred in the session 0/preparation to play the game.
Right about now, I feel like the PF 1e wizard makes a dramatic entrance waving his big bushy beard and entirely ridiculous heap of spell slots. Really. It was worse before. Especially since you could buy magic items like scrolls and wands on top of those slots, too.
I'm pretty sure streamlining was one of the design goals of the second edition. Just because things were worse in the past, doesn't mean it has to go into that direction again.
Unicore wrote:
It is probably not something I would do for a one shot high level adventure, no. It would be too much book keeping for most players to jump in past level 5 or 6 and have to remember that many spell slots on a new character, but if you started from first level, it is only ever 1 more spell per rank, and you learn your spells and what each one can do.
As far as affordability, even at level 20, all the extra spell slots as scrolls would cost 10,112 if you used all of them. Every encounter your character should be getting 12,250 gp of treasure. Even if your GM was incredibly cruel and only giving you treasure that you had to sell at half value, you could afford this number of scrolls every day that you have at least 2 encounters.
And the real truth is, you are almost never going to have a day where you cast close to this many spells, but with scrolls alone, it is very easy for a wizard to have this many spells that they can cast in a day where they really need more of them and they want to feel like they are never going to run out. Like, a rank 6 scroll costs 300 gp. A level 20 wizard should never enter any encounter where firing off a rank 6 slow, chain lightning or feeblemind spell is beyond their reach for the day (yes a rank 6 chain lightning spell is not a great choice for a level 20 wizard, but it is better than a rank 10 electric arc so it felt like a decent rank 6 reflex targeting example, especially with its 500ft range and ability to target any number of creatures). So the wizard could pass on the 1 extra rank 9 spell to grab 10 more rank 6 spells if they noticed that their GM was really tending to throw longer days at them.
And this really is about the level of versatility that using scrolls consistently adds to the wizard and lets them pretty much have every single 1st level, 2nd level and 3rd level spell they know available to them with the cost of 1 action. There is absolutely no reason for a wiard to unprepared to cover any common out of combat spell/situational spell that is 3 or more...
Even a player that started at level 1 isn't going to prepare 82 spells per day quickly out of a list of a couple 100. Especially not if he should adjust for the dangers ahead. With scrolls, wands and staves it's different, because those spells are fixed, you only track the charges.
Also it's not only about LV20 but for each level getting there. The math looks actually way better on LV20 than it should (you know the end of the game, where people don't spend too much time), because there are no LV10 scrolls to be added in the math. Let's use LV 18 and suddenly you are supposed to make those 12,250 with only 5200 per encounter, most of which are suggested to be items and consumable, so let's halve that and voila that's only 2600 now. If you spend all treasure on every level just on consumables, you aren't going to have any permanent items at all. No armor, no armor runes, no relics, no apex item, no staves, etc. and that's not even including gold for fluff items or "retirement money".
That and you can't replace those scrolls once you leave town until get back to it, that is of course if you started from a settlement with level 9 scrolls to begin with. And once a scroll is used, it's gone, whether it was useful or not. Additionally a scroll only has one spell, while each slot can fill any spell from the book. So to have a similar experience as a wizard with the above mentioned amount of slots, you'd need at least 4 to 5 times the scrolls and simply use only a fraction of them each day, because that is what a wizard could prepare in theory.
Also keep in mind that a wizard can't have that many scrolls at hand and most likely has to retrieve those "silver bullets" from the backpack, which takes 2 actions instead of the 1 action that is often brought up in discussions. 2 actions per scroll! Now are there workarounds for that particular problem? Yes. Can a consumable focused character like that be fun? Yes. Is it the solution to the problem? Not if every wizard has to play like that.
Does this affect all casters the same? No, because spontaneous don't have this problem and other prepared casters all have something else besides casting spells. The wizards don't. Do wizards get more money to encourage that playstyle? No. Yes wizards are supposed to be intelligent and prepared. Wasting all of their money on expansive consumables that you might not even need is not intelligent, it's stupid. (again we aren't talking some of their money, ALL of it)
It feels like maybe there is confusion or a miscommunication of expectations if players really want to play a wizard but don't want to engage with the mechanics of wizardry in the game...
On the one hand, you're right about confusion and different expectations. From both this thread and the locked one, I got a very strong "100 players, 110 opinions of how the Wizard class should function" impression.
On the other hand, isn't that exactly the sort of difference of opinion that fora are here to explore? I mean it's very true that if Alice wants the Wizard to represent "best combat blaster" while Bob wants the wizard to represent "best intellectual delver into obscure knowledge", no choice of wizard "main theme" on Paizo's part is going to please both Alice and Bob. But the fora are here precisely so Alice and Bob can talk to each other. So in that respect, it's totally okay for us all to be voicing *different* asks, hopes, or expectations for Wizard Remastered.
Just so long as we recognize that Paizo isn't going to be able to please all of us. ;)
Maybe a different way to approach the issue is to just set aside mechanical issues and ask: what should the wizard's *theme* be? Should it be best caster? Most powerful blaster? Knower of things others don't know? 'Bag Of Tricks' caster? Something else? How does it's theme differ from the Sorcerer's theme? Consider it a bit of a challenge/question to all the regulars here: forget mechanical complaints for the moment. What do you see as the wizard classes' unique, distinctive theme?
Right about now, I feel like the PF 1e wizard makes a dramatic entrance waving his big bushy beard and entirely ridiculous heap of spell slots. Really. It was worse before. Especially since you could buy magic items like scrolls and wands on top of those slots, too.
I'm pretty sure streamlining was one of the design goals of the second edition. Just because things were worse in the past, doesn't mean it has to go into that direction again.
Oh that was totally my point. The PF 1e implementation of spellcasting was an appalling nightmare of complexity, and I NEVER want to see it again. So yeah don't do the "give them more spell slots in an escalating chain" thing.
Quote:
Prying eye is a level 5 spell.
And therefore unusable by 50% of wizard PCs, yes, and punitively expensive at levels 9-11 in any case. Probably even less useful given most campaigns don't go past level 8. Also, you can dispel it and your GM may argue that now that it's shown up the monsters start prepping for you, but that's beside the point.
Quote:
Maybe a different way to approach the issue is to just set aside mechanical issues and ask: what should the wizard's *theme* be? Should it be best caster? Most powerful blaster? Knower of things others don't know? 'Bag Of Tricks' caster? Something else? How does it's theme differ from the Sorcerer's theme? Consider it a bit of a challenge/question to all the regulars here: forget mechanical complaints for the moment. What do you see as the wizard classes' unique, distinctive theme?
The arcane list lends itself towards Bag of Tricks. There's not really a thematic way to do it unless you want to hack off hundreds of spells.
Its basically a more thought out versinon of my ramble from a few pages ago.
The overal concept is remaster the wizard in the same vein as the current remaster project, so there won't be anything overly crazy in there (like throwing out vancian casting or some such). Anything not mentioned is probably meant to stay unchanged.
The overall idea is to open up some of the Wizards pain points and enabled answers to them, without increasing the power level of the class too much.
Basic Gist:
Arcane School reworked
- Curriculum spells redesigned
- Curriculum bonus spell slot removed
- School spells removed
- Lore skill added to each
Wizard Class features reworked
- Arcane Bond class feature removed
- Spell slots per rank increased, as per updates to Table 3–19: Wizard Spells per Day.
- New class feats introduced
- Existing focus spells broken out into separate feats.
Right about now, I feel like the PF 1e wizard makes a dramatic entrance waving his big bushy beard and entirely ridiculous heap of spell slots. Really. It was worse before. Especially since you could buy magic items like scrolls and wands on top of those slots, too.
I'm pretty sure streamlining was one of the design goals of the second edition. Just because things were worse in the past, doesn't mean it has to go into that direction again.
Unicore wrote:
It is probably not something I would do for a one shot high level adventure, no. It would be too much book keeping for most players to jump in past level 5 or 6 and have to remember that many spell slots on a new character, but if you started from first level, it is only ever 1 more spell per rank, and you learn your spells and what each one can do.
As far as affordability, even at level 20, all the extra spell slots as scrolls would cost 10,112 if you used all of them. Every encounter your character should be getting 12,250 gp of treasure. Even if your GM was incredibly cruel and only giving you treasure that you had to sell at half value, you could afford this number of scrolls every day that you have at least 2 encounters.
And the real truth is, you are almost never going to have a day where you cast close to this many spells, but with scrolls alone, it is very easy for a wizard to have this many spells that they can cast in a day where they really need more of them and they want to feel like they are never going to run out. Like, a rank 6 scroll costs 300 gp. A level 20 wizard should never enter any encounter where firing off a rank 6 slow, chain lightning or feeblemind spell is beyond their reach for the day (yes a rank 6 chain lightning spell is not a great choice for a level 20 wizard, but it is better than a rank 10 electric arc so it felt like a decent rank 6 reflex targeting example, especially with its 500ft range and ability to target any number of creatures). So the wizard could pass on the 1
...
1 extra spell slot of the highest rank probably is exceedingly generous for ABP. Generally when I play a wizard, I spend 25 to 50% of my wealth on scrolls. The only permanent items I really need are armor runes and skill boosting items. Rarely do the skill boosting items require immediate investment. When I get a big chunk of gold, I look for a permanent item that I want my character to have that I can afford, and then I spend everything else on scrolls. I never feel like my characters are behind on wealth. In reality, at higher levels, this probably more closely amounts to the same thing as the 1 extra spell slot of the top-rank slot -1, cascading down everyday. I think that will much more closely line up with your numbers. The added flexibility of having them as spell slots instead of scrolls is a boost, but I will usually have at least one (often quite a few more) of every single level -3 or level-4 spell that my wizard knows, which will often be almost all of the common ones and most of the uncommon ones too. By level 10 level 1 and level 2 spell slots really should feel pretty much unlimited if you want your wizard to be a tool box caster.
A bag of holding is a very cheap way of holding a bunch of scrolls in reserve. The exact rules on wearing scrolls is not well defined. I have never had a problem with GMs letting me have about 2 bulk of scrolls worn if I am not wearing any toolkit. That is 20 scrolls, which you can readjust after an encounter. 20 extra spells at an action away, and 200+ 2 actions away feels pretty fair and reasonable. The trick here is that playing a wizard does require a lot more preparation from the player than most other casters. That is something that seems intentional to me, but also something that could probably be better communicated. The flavor and lore text of the wizard is certainly getting changed, so we will probably have to wait to see how effectively that text represents the actual mechanics of the class.
I actually agree with most of the folks who say that the real stumbling block of the wizard in PF2 is the Arcane tradition.
What really is the arcane tradition? Where does this power come from in the world? And what makes it unique? It is not coming from the gods. Is it magic pulled from a specific plane? I don't think so. Sometimes it seems like it is magic pulled from creatures but not consistently and even the most arcane power focus creature in the game, the dragon, is now being pulled away from being arcane only, so arcane magic is not even "the stuff dragons are made of" anymore. The Occult tradition has massively stepped on the toes of the arcane tradition narratively, stealing away all the "mysterious power" elements of arcane magic. Like what are the arcane secrets of the universe and how are they really different from the occult secrets of the universe? or the primal secrets of the planes and how they are all connected?
I really hope that the section of the core rule book talking about the traditions of magics does a good job filling in the giant chunk of lore that is now a confusing mess from secrets of magic.
Narratively we have the essences, but the arcane list never really was a good representation of matter and mind when it had to include spells from every school of magic. Traditions and the fixed schools were a bad fit from the start of PF2. We will see what the new spell lists look like in the remastery and where there is room to give the arcane tradition a lore that feels as powerful, interesting and purposeful as the other 3 traditions.
I actually agree with most of the folks who say that the real stumbling block of the wizard in PF2 is the Arcane tradition.
What really is the arcane tradition? Where does this power come from in the world? And what makes it unique? It is not coming from the gods. Is it magic pulled from a specific plane? I don't think so. Sometimes it seems like it is magic pulled from creatures but not consistently and even the most arcane power focus creature in the game, the dragon, is now being pulled away from being arcane only, so arcane magic is not even "the stuff dragons are made of" anymore. The Occult tradition has massively stepped on the toes of the arcane tradition narratively, stealing away all the "mysterious power" elements of arcane magic. Like what are the arcane secrets of the universe and how are they really different from the occult secrets of the universe? or the primal secrets of the planes and how they are all connected?
I really hope that the section of the core rule book talking about the traditions of magics does a good job filling in the giant chunk of lore that is now a confusing mess from secrets of magic.
Narratively we have the essences, but the arcane list never really was a good representation of matter and mind when it had to include spells from every school of magic. Traditions and the fixed schools were a bad fit from the start of PF2. We will see what the new spell lists look like in the remastery and where there is room to give the arcane tradition a lore that feels as powerful, interesting and purposeful as the other 3 traditions.
Personally I always liked the idea as Arcane being the one for people that really understood magic.
Divine magic is granted by a god.
Primal tapping into natural power.
Occult by some weird entities.
Arcane is the one for people that have none of that. They tap it by willpower and understanding and shape it themselves.
1 extra spell slot of the highest rank probably is exceedingly generous for ABP. Generally when I play a wizard, I spend 25 to 50% of my wealth on scrolls. The only permanent items I really need are armor runes and skill boosting items. Rarely do the skill boosting items require immediate investment. When I get a big chunk of gold, I look for a permanent item that I want my character to have that I can afford, and then I spend everything else on scrolls. I never feel like my characters are behind on wealth. In reality, at higher levels, this probably more closely amounts to the same thing as the 1 extra spell slot of the top-rank slot -1, cascading down everyday. I think that will much more closely line up with your numbers. The added flexibility of having them as spell slots instead of scrolls is a boost, but I will usually have at least one (often quite a few more) of every single level -3 or level-4 spell that my wizard knows, which will often be almost all of the common ones and most of the uncommon ones too. By level 10 level 1 and level 2 spell slots really should feel pretty much unlimited if you want your wizard to be a tool box caster.
A bag of holding is a very cheap way of holding a bunch of scrolls in reserve. The exact rules on wearing scrolls is not well defined. I have never had a problem with GMs letting me have about 2 bulk of scrolls worn if I am not wearing any toolkit. That is 20 scrolls, which you can readjust after an encounter. 20 extra spells at an action away, and 200+ 2 actions away feels pretty fair and reasonable. The trick here is that playing a wizard does require a lot more preparation from the player than most other casters. That is something that seems intentional to me, but also something that could probably be better communicated. The flavor and lore text of the wizard is certainly getting changed, so we will probably have to wait to see how effectively that text represents the actual mechanics of the class.
Like I said, such a character can be fun and as you can see, it also requires a certain grade of lose interpretations and freedom granted by the GM. Such a character is missing out on a lot of unique and fun permanent items though, it shouldn't be the required or be the norm to make the class playable.
The real question for me though is: In this scenario, what exactly do you need the wizard for?
A Witch, Sorcerer or even Druid can basically do all of that in addition to the specialized stuff of their own class. Better yet, even a dedication or trick magic item are enough so that higher level martial classes can cheaply cast most of the low level scrolls, especially the utility ones, if they are all meant to come from scrolls.
Why is any of that an argument for the wizard being fine, as it currently is designed? Many of the wizards feats are actually meta magic feats, they don't work well with scrolls. The same goes for the arcane thesis "Improved Familiar Attunement" that also doesn't work well with scrolls, if have to pull them from your inventory (regardless of one or two actions are required). So not only is there not a great synergy, it actually feels more like punishment.
I actually agree with most of the folks who say that the real stumbling block of the wizard in PF2 is the Arcane tradition.
What really is the arcane tradition? Where does this power come from in the world? And what makes it unique? It is not coming from the gods. Is it magic pulled from a specific plane? I don't think so. Sometimes it seems like it is magic pulled from creatures but not consistently and even the most arcane power focus creature in the game, the dragon, is now being pulled away from being arcane only, so arcane magic is not even "the stuff dragons are made of" anymore. The Occult tradition has massively stepped on the toes of the arcane tradition narratively, stealing away all the "mysterious power" elements of arcane magic. Like what are the arcane secrets of the universe and how are they really different from the occult secrets of the universe? or the primal secrets of the planes and how they are all connected?
I really hope that the section of the core rule book talking about the traditions of magics does a good job filling in the giant chunk of lore that is now a confusing mess from secrets of magic.
Narratively we have the essences, but the arcane list never really was a good representation of matter and mind when it had to include spells from every school of magic. Traditions and the fixed schools were a bad fit from the start of PF2. We will see what the new spell lists look like in the remastery and where there is room to give the arcane tradition a lore that feels as powerful, interesting and purposeful as the other 3 traditions.
I think the stumbling block is not being afforded strong features outside of their spell slots. Make them 3 slot casters and give them powerful subclass/class features independent of limited or consumable resources
Narratively we have the essences, but the arcane list never really was a good representation of matter and mind when it had to include spells from every school of magic. Traditions and the fixed schools were a bad fit from the start of PF2. We will see what the new spell lists look like in the remastery and where there is room to give the arcane tradition a lore that feels as powerful, interesting and purposeful as the other 3 traditions.
Wait, do you think they're going to downsize the arcane list? Or just expand the fluff?
Because yeah I agree the arcane list is a grab-bag and that's sort of always been its thing. I'm not sure it's really fixable though short of an overhaul of the entire magic system.
I missed the discussion on rituals and haven't read every post between now and then, but what if certain spells had something like:
Out of Combat Casting: If your character has the Out of Combat casting feat this spell may be cast out of combat as a downtime activity. This type of casting doesn't require the spell to be prepared.
You've now given the Wizard a cool feat and a new use for those utility spells that might otherwise go unappreciated but ensured that it has the same limitations as resourceless healing.
Narratively we have the essences, but the arcane list never really was a good representation of matter and mind when it had to include spells from every school of magic. Traditions and the fixed schools were a bad fit from the start of PF2. We will see what the new spell lists look like in the remastery and where there is room to give the arcane tradition a lore that feels as powerful, interesting and purposeful as the other 3 traditions.
Wait, do you think they're going to downsize the arcane list? Or just expand the fluff?
Because yeah I agree the arcane list is a grab-bag and that's sort of always been its thing. I'm not sure it's really fixable though short of an overhaul of the entire magic system.
I have no more insight about what the final spell lists will look like than anyone else. It is unlikely they shake it up too much, but they could change the flavor of some "necromancy" spells (for an example) to make them feel less like they are spells that just belong in a "spirit" or "life" essence tradition. Like where in mind or matter does false life fit the way the flavor text is currently written?
Why is any of that an argument for the wizard being fine, as it currently is designed? Many of the wizards feats are actually meta magic feats, they don't work well with scrolls. The same goes for the arcane thesis "Improved Familiar Attunement" that also doesn't work well with scrolls, if have to pull them from your inventory (regardless of one or two actions are required). So not only is there not a great synergy, it actually feels more like punishment.
My argument for why this style of play best suits wizards is because it fits the lore and flavor of the wizard first and foremost. Starting every combat with a scroll of slow in hand is a good idea for most casters, true, at least until that hand will be holding a staff that can fulfill a similar purpose until it is spent. They also are an INT class so they really should be capable of crafting the scrolls themselves relatively easily.
There are not great staves for wizards, largely because of the way the staves were built around schools that had iconic spells that wizards couldn't even cast. Hopefully the wizard remastery and magic item rework will help make school staves way more useable by wizards, because I fully acknowledge that some players just don't want to use scrolls at all.
The wizard still has the most spell slots, so having feats that work well with spell slots is fine, because you mostly use scrolls to provide yourself extra castings and to keep your spell slots free to cast the spells that you want to cast the most often. Scrolls are the answer to all spell casting, but an answer to "but having the silver bullet spell ready when you need it is impossible!" You don't have to have the silver bullet memorized. Even 2 actions to have exactly the right spell to solve a problem is not that big of a deal.
Also, you can use most metamagic feats with scrolls. Yes, sometimes the action cost is a big deal, but it seems a pretty small cost compared to sitting around blasting with cantrips over and over again instead of casting good spells from spell slots instead. Even just starting with one scroll in hand every encounter will really open up how often you can cast spells from spell slots and make you feel freer to so so.
Staff of Illusion is pretty great for wizard, and Staff of Divination is great if they are using attack rolls. But those are great for anyone who can utilize those spells, really.
There are not great staves for wizards, largely because of the way the staves were built around schools that had iconic spells that wizards couldn't even cast. Hopefully the wizard remastery and magic item rework will help make school staves way more useable by wizards, because I fully acknowledge that some players just don't want to use scrolls at all.
The wizard still has the most spell slots, so having feats that work well with spell slots is fine, because you mostly use scrolls to provide yourself extra castings and to keep your spell slots free to cast the spells that you want to cast the most often. Scrolls are the answer to all spell casting, but an answer to "but having the silver bullet spell ready when you need it is impossible!" You don't have to have the silver bullet memorized. Even 2 actions to have exactly the right spell to solve a problem is not that big of a deal.
It's really fascinating to observe the "running out of spells" mentality across RPGs. Players (and this is a generalization, don't jump on me if it doesn't fit your table...) seem to be rather miserly with resources - oftentimes having a cushion that FAR exceeds the one they probably need in comfort. I've seen players using cantrips at level 18 to "save the slots" rather than just chuck a 5th level cone of cold , which they have in SPADES. Heck, you could grab scrolls, staves or wands of 5th level cone of cold for a paltry sum of 1,500 gp.
Nor do you see PCs often try for kill-them-before-they-can-blink alpha strike tactics. Instead, high level spells are often expended in later rounds, which is FAR more inefficient since killing things before they can hurt you back saves on resources.
I don't think the metamagic feats are very good at the moment. Reach Spell and Quicken Spell are probably the best metamagic feats in the game. Reach Spell makes it so you don't have to move to use a touch spell or increase range to attack keeping you from getting hammered from 30 foot auras while still being able to buff or toss a spell in.
Reach Spell is a very worthwhile feat this edition. Very usable.
Quicken Spell is still very powerful, but one time a day. I don't usually take it due to the one time a day, but two spells in a round is a very powerful ability.
Extend Spell is good as well, though it is only a Sorcerer Imperial focus spell. Not sure why they made Extend Spell so limited but it should have been a general metamagic feat for all given it is a buffing spell. So putting Extend Spell on a bloodline with the Arcane list, one of the worst buffing lists, was one of those "Why did the designers take one of the best buffing metamagic feats and put it on an arcane sorcerer single bloodline with second word buffing spells?" Doesn't make good sense.
Bards Harmonize and Lingering Song are good as well. But that is very class ability specific.
Metamagic feats aren't very attractive in this edition. I think every caster player loved Metamagic in PF1. Now barring a few metamagic feats, it's a why bother to take it feat in this edition. It's another exampled of the layered reduction in power for casters that hit the wizard harder than other classes because other classes received better class ability compensation for the massive overall nerf to magic.
Metamagic with scrolls in this edition? Maybe in the opening round of a battle. If you have to draw a scroll, your metamagic action is used unless it's a one action spell.
It feels like maybe there is confusion or a miscommunication of expectations if players really want to play a wizard but don't want to engage with the mechanics of wizardry in the game...
On the one hand, you're right about confusion and different expectations. From both this thread and the locked one, I got a very strong "100 players, 110 opinions of how the Wizard class should function" impression.
On the other hand, isn't that exactly the sort of difference of opinion that fora are here to explore? I mean it's very true that if Alice wants the Wizard to represent "best combat blaster" while Bob wants the wizard to represent "best intellectual delver into obscure knowledge", no choice of wizard "main theme" on Paizo's part is going to please both Alice and Bob. But the fora are here precisely so Alice and Bob can talk to each other. So in that respect, it's totally okay for us all to be voicing *different* asks, hopes, or expectations for Wizard Remastered.
Just so long as we recognize that Paizo isn't going to be able to please all of us. ;)
Maybe a different way to approach the issue is to just set aside mechanical issues and ask: what should the wizard's *theme* be? Should it be best caster? Most powerful blaster? Knower of things others don't know? 'Bag Of Tricks' caster? Something else? How does it's theme differ from the Sorcerer's theme? Consider it a bit of a challenge/question to all the regulars here: forget mechanical complaints for the moment. What do you see as the wizard classes' unique, distinctive theme?
I would like the wizard to have something they do that isn't done much better by some other class.
The reality is the PF2 sorcerer was really well done this edition. It's the only 6 hit point caster class I can't really complain about because they have so many great build options.
Witch and wizard are both meh.
Sorcerer is a well done 6 hit point caster class with a huge amount of role versatility and on demand flexible casting ability with great feats and mostly useful focus spells.
They even have a high value stat like Charisma as their casting stat to set up spells using Intimidate and Diplomacy for Bon Mot.
When you're looking over those six hit point caster classes wanting to play a "pure" caster and you look at what is offered by the witch and wizard, then you look at the sorcerer and it's a no brainer which one is better for the vast majority of levels.
I rarely see anyone on these forums complaining about the sorcerer because those players are too busy having fun playing their character because their feat and class abilities feel great.
Sorcerer players are in the party room laughing it up dancing and getting drunk with the bards, druids, oracles, and clerics. They even let the summoners and magus in the party room because they're doing well. The kineticist...they let him in because he looks like a caster and is an absolutely amazingly designed class.
The wizard and witch are in the corner somewhere muttering to themselves, "Why did this happen to us? What did we do to deserve this?"
The answer is the wizard and witch were too powerful for too long so now they gotta be on the bottom for a while, until the designers figure out what they have to do to make these guys worth playing in the new PF2 game with all their powerful toys taken away. Wizard and witch were both top tier classes in PF1. The wizard was basically the number one class in D&D and PF for the entirety of the game until now.
I even remember playing wizards and toughing out those crap low levels back in 1st edition and 2nd edition and 3rd edition D&D just to have the power at mid to high level. Now the low levels are slightly better than they used to be, but the higher levels are massively weaker than they used to be.
That's the funny thing to me. People complain about low level casters in PF2, but low level was worse in nearly every edition of D&D/PF before PF2. But it's the upper levels that don't feel so good now and makes the lower levels feel worse. You hit about 5th level in every previous edition of these d20 games as a wizard and it just kept getting better. Now it's meh.
Sorcerer is a well done 6 hit point caster class with a huge amount of role versatility and on demand...
It's always interesting to see different opinions. I like the wizard but find the sorcerer nearly unplayably bad.
Yeah it's an interesting comparison. I'd guess sorcerer is stronger overall (my two cents, take it for what it's worth) but wizard has a slightly higher spell loadout with drain arcane bond, which can get sort of silly when you factor in things like staff nexus or spell blending, since they turn relatively worthless low-level spells into powerhouses.
Losing out on dangerous sorcery hurts blasters a lot, though. I have built multiple wizards as half-elves purely to steal it via multitalented.
Really, I'd be happier if wizard had flexible casting. It would make it much less obviously bad.
My argument for why this style of play best suits wizards is because it fits the lore and flavor of the wizard first and foremost. Starting every combat with a scroll of slow in hand is a good idea for most casters, true, at least until that hand will be holding a staff that can fulfill a similar purpose until it is spent. They also are an INT class so they really should be capable of crafting the scrolls themselves relatively easily.
Why should the wizard be at a disadvantage just because "it fits the lore and flavor". Which other class has to take penalties because of other reasons than game mechanics and balance? The answer is none. Also not everybody will share this opinion that every wizard shall be a scroll wizard. Every player should imagine their own wizard and playing multiple shouldn't result in playing the same character all the time.
Make some feats to support that style of play and maybe a thesis. But don't make it a justification for weaknesses. Btw. starting combat with a scroll in hand means the party is always ambushing the enemy, which is not how most encounters will come up.
Crafting scrolls needs downtime and tools. You always need to provide half of the cost as materials (good luck finding those in the wild) and it takes several days to create them. You create them in batches of 4, which means for the same amount of money, you get 300% less diversity into your daily spell repertoire. Also as the crafter of the group, you will often be busy creating other items for the party. And then again there's the point about not every wizard should need to be a crafter.
Quote:
There are not great staves for wizards, largely because of the way the staves were built around schools that had iconic spells that wizards couldn't even cast. Hopefully the wizard remastery and magic item rework will help make school staves way more useable by wizards, because I fully acknowledge that some players just don't want to use scrolls at all.
There are quite a few options, not all of them are based around the schools. And then there are custom staves.
Quote:
The wizard still has the most spell slots, so having feats that work well with spell slots is fine, because you mostly use scrolls to provide yourself extra castings and to keep your spell slots free to cast the spells that you want to cast the most often. Scrolls are the answer to all spell casting, but an answer to "but having the silver bullet spell ready when you need it is impossible!" You don't have to have the silver bullet memorized. Even 2 actions to have exactly the right spell to solve a problem is not that big of a deal.
Wizards have the most slots along with Sorcerers. And since you don't need to know a spell to cast it (it only has to be on the spell list), Sorcerers actually benefit more from scrolls than wizards, because now they can broaden their limited spell repertoire. Also casters with less slots would have the highest benefit of increasing the number of spells cast per day. For a 3-slot caster, one scroll is a 33% improvement, whereas for a wizard that is a 25% improvement. (20% for the highest available slot)
In general scrolls are useful for tool spells and emergency spells. Not for silver bullets, because they are stuck on their level, while you and your enemies advance. Since Silver bullets aren't highly effective anyways, taking 2 actions to draw one is too much of a cost. A cost that is better invested into casting 2 spells of "normal effectiveness".
So no, I don't see wizards benefiting from scrolls more, they actually benefit less. It would be a different story, if wizards had feats that supported made casting better or gave them ways to manipulate spells in ways, no other class can. Something that also would fit the lore and flavor of the class and would actually make a strong point for casting more spells via consumables. This is something that has been asked for in the this and the other wizard thread, an improvement to their chassis and feats that gave them unique benefits for casting spells.
Quote:
Also, you can use most metamagic feats with scrolls. Yes, sometimes the action cost is a big deal, but it seems a pretty small cost compared to sitting around blasting with cantrips over and over again...
In theory yes, but in reality no, unless you can just stand there for 2 whole rounds without moving and using any defensive actions at all. (one of those 2 rounds you are doing nothing btw.)
If you are casting cantrips (without being forced to), you are most likely trying to save slots. If you try to save slots, surely you aren't going to waste consumables. You use up your renewable resource first and only then the one that costs money second.
There's one very important detail hidden here btw. People don't complain that they are losing fights, because they fall back to cantrips. They say that the class feels weak compared to others and that they don't feel the contribution. Yes not activating a scroll on a fight and then (almost) losing because of it is bad. Activating a scroll on a fight that will be won anyways just so the wizard can feel better is even worse.
The real question for me though is: In this scenario, what exactly do you need the wizard for?
A Witch, Sorcerer or even Druid can basically do all of that in addition to the specialized stuff of their own class. Better yet, even a dedication or trick magic item are enough so that higher level martial classes can cheaply cast most of the low level scrolls, especially the utility ones, if they are all meant to come from scrolls.
Oh, yes, this. Absolutely. It makes no sense in the least to pretend that all of the casters' implements have any more influence for wizard than for anyone else. Every caster can play like this. So, classes must be compared as is, without scrolls and staves. Or the other way around: all classes should be compared including them. But saying that wizards are somehow better than other classes because of them is rubbish.
Yeah I honestly didn't realize the raw power of scrolls until I started doing the math on them. They're priced at 1/10 of a wand (if not lower, wands of 8th rank spells cost 15k gp whereas 8th rank scrolls are only 1.3k), which is shockingly cheap.
scrolls per wand, equal spell rank:
Number of scrolls you can get of a given spell rank for the price of 1 wand of the same spell rank:
Especially for blasters (whose wands become pretty useless as they level up, vs. control spells which retain their value if they're not incapacitation), that's a great deal. There are usually about 10 encounters per level, and according to "Treasure for New Characters"
https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=587
you get about enough treasure to purchase a wand of your highest spell rank - 1 per level (so if you're level 12, your highest spell rank is 6th, you get 1.9k gp leveling to 13, which is more than enough to afford ten scrolls of 5th rank spells costing 150 gp apiece or 1.5k gp total). So you can cast 1 spell of your highest rank - 1 each and every encounter at level 12.
At level 13, same story. Your max spell rank is now 7th rather than 6th. Leveling to 14 you'll get 2.9k gp, and ten scrolls of 6th rank spells cost 300 gp apiece, 3k total.
Always opening with a cone of cold (you start combat with a scroll drawn obviously) at level 12? Yeah, I'd take that. Ditto starting every combat at level 13 with a chain lightning . Not that it's restricted to wizards, as other people have said. But yeah, it's worth it. It deals more damage than an on-level druid focus spell - pulverizing cascade is 11d6 at level 12 (lower than cone of cold's 12d6), and 13d6 ~ 45.5 at level 13 (lower than chain lightning's 8d12 ~ 52)
And as a wizard, you have an extra spell slot of every spell rank you can cast over and above the druid to boot. The druid can of course use scrolls too, but you've got Drain Bonded Item, scroll savant, and bond conservation so you still have more slots overall. Blasting with scrolls isn't bad.
Tl;dr having a big pile of spells at the very least makes you competitive with blaster druid, and Scroll Savant plus Drain Bonded Item (and maybe Bond Conservation) give you a huge pile of spells to work with.
Yeah I honestly didn't realize the raw power of scrolls until I started doing the math on them. They're priced at 1/10 of a wand (if not lower, wands of 8th rank spells cost 15k gp whereas 8th rank scrolls are only 1.3k), which is shockingly cheap.
** spoiler omitted **
Especially for blasters (whose wands become pretty useless as they level up, vs. control spells which retain their value if they're not incapacitation), that's a great deal. There are usually about 10 encounters per level, and according to "Treasure for New Characters"
https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=587
you get about enough treasure to purchase a wand of your highest spell rank - 1 per level (so if you're level 12, your highest spell rank is 6th, you get 1.9k gp leveling to 13, which is more than enough to afford ten scrolls of 5th rank spells costing 150 gp apiece or 1.5k gp total). So you can cast 1 spell of your highest rank - 1 each and every encounter at level 12.
At level 13, same story. Your max spell rank is now 7th rather than 6th. Leveling to 14 you'll get 2.9k gp, and ten scrolls of 6th rank spells cost 300 gp apiece, 3k total.
Always opening with a cone of cold (you start combat with a scroll drawn obviously) at level 12? Yeah, I'd take that. Ditto starting every combat at level 13 with a chain lightning . Not that it's restricted to wizards, as other people have said. But yeah, it's worth it. It deals more damage than an on-level druid focus spell - pulverizing cascade is 11d6 at level 12 (lower than cone of cold's 12d6), and 13d6 ~ 45.5 at level 13 (lower than chain lightning's 8d12 ~ 52)
And as a wizard, you have an extra spell slot of every spell rank you can...
Scrolls are a decent item. Easy to make. One of the few times crafting isn't a bad use for.
Yeah I honestly didn't realize the raw power of scrolls until I started doing the math on them. They're priced at 1/10 of a wand (if not lower, wands of 8th rank spells cost 15k gp whereas 8th rank scrolls are only 1.3k), which is shockingly cheap.
** spoiler omitted **
Especially for blasters (whose wands become pretty useless as they level up, vs. control spells which retain their value if they're not incapacitation), that's a great deal. There are usually about 10 encounters per level, and according to "Treasure for New Characters"
https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=587
you get about enough treasure to purchase a wand of your highest spell rank - 1 per level (so if you're level 12, your highest spell rank is 6th, you get 1.9k gp leveling to 13, which is more than enough to afford ten scrolls of 5th rank spells costing 150 gp apiece or 1.5k gp total). So you can cast 1 spell of your highest rank - 1 each and every encounter at level 12.
At level 13, same story. Your max spell rank is now 7th rather than 6th. Leveling to 14 you'll get 2.9k gp, and ten scrolls of 6th rank spells cost 300 gp apiece, 3k total.
Always opening with a cone of cold (you start combat with a scroll drawn obviously) at level 12? Yeah, I'd take that. Ditto starting every combat at level 13 with a chain lightning . Not that it's restricted to wizards, as other people have said. But yeah, it's worth it. It deals more damage than an on-level druid focus spell - pulverizing cascade is 11d6 at level 12 (lower than cone of cold's 12d6), and 13d6 ~ 45.5 at level 13 (lower than chain lightning's 8d12 ~ 52)
And as a wizard, you have an extra spell slot of every spell rank you can...
Scrolls are a decent item. Easy to make. One of the few times crafting isn't a bad use for.
I haven't looked through the rules for complex crafting in a while, or crafting in general for that matter, but would a Skilled (Crafting) famailiar (with things like manual dex, independant, etc) be able to help you take advantage of the Cooperative Crafting and Quick Setup feats?
Help you churn out a bunch of low-level scrolls per day?
I have tried to play a scroll using bard, since they have so little spell slots, but their action economy is too tight to make it work. Plus they get good enough weapon proficiencies that it is hard not to invest in being competent with a weapon. The cleric is kind of in the same boat. Casters who get saddled with specific party responsibilities that require 1 or 2 actions per round don't tend to be good tool box/encounter solving casters. They tend to be support casters. Support casting is fine. I am not hating on support casting, but it is not the same thing as being a problem solving caster.
I have played an Oracle and definitely fell into that support role boat. Between maybe getting to fire off my focus spell once an encounter, I was otherwise doing party support.
I only had a very brief opportunity to play a psychic, but it was a lot of fun. It was not about casting spells from spell slots though. I was a tanky tangible dream psychic so it was amped shield, move into position attack with a weapon, then unleash psyche and imaginary weapon almost every encounter. Very effective damage output although we never had an encounter last more than 3 rounds so I never felt the draw backs.
Each caster in PF2 plays differently and a lot depends upon what you want to do. It is much harder in PF2 to bend a class that doesn't have the mechanics you are looking for around a character concept that feels like it is supposed to be X class. If you have a character concept that is not just blatantly covered by a vanilla class mechanic, then you have to really think through what you want your character to do each round of an encounter AND what they are going to be doing outside of combat, then find class mechanics that support those ideas.
We really have no idea what the sorcerer is going to look like remastered yet. It is hard to imagine the class as a whole changing much, and it seems like the delay is just mostly about making the shift around dragon lore and maybe some of the other bloodlines connected to creatures that needed the dust to settle around them before having a class connected to that lore, but I don't really want to speculate on what could or could not change because I was caught by surprise by how much is changing with other classes. I tend to take sorcerer as an archetype far more often than as a base class, whether that is for martials or casters, same with the witch.
Blasty druids are all reflex saves and some fort saves. They play a little bit with the puzzle-nature of PF2 encounters in that they can do a lot of different damage types, but not usually that flexibly around saves. Often times, they really do it best by shapeshifting into a dragon form or other creature form that does the right damage type with attacks, and then you are not casting spells for the rest of the encounter. I had a little fun with my high level druid, but limited encounter spaces really, really limit their effectiveness. If your encounters feature a lot of small rooms and the only large encounter spaces you get are filled with people you are trying not to hurt, you are pretty much just using horrid wilting and chain lightning off your whole spell list. Neither of those really do much to target different weaknesses. Not having true strike limits your single target blasting options.
It is pretty enlightening to me that many people's biggest complaints about the wizard appear to be that they want the wizard to be less of the "just cast regular spells class" (from spell slots or items) and more of the "use one of the other cool toys of pathfinder second edition more effective." I can understand where that is coming from, but we also need a class that is just putting all of its power budget into getting you spells and ways to play with those spells. Wizard has some really good options for feats that play with this. I would like to see more as well, but I think the hate fest on wizard feats is misdirected because they look boring on paper, but are fun in play. There are some misses (I am not sure what form retention was really supposed to accomplish, 10 minutes is just not enough time to be worth losing 2 spell ranks on. Hopefully it is getting fixed in the remastery). I am guessing that level 2 and level 4 are specifically the areas where most of the complaints about wizard feats are coming from. I have an almost impossible time passing up on conceal spell and silent spell at those levels, but I am curious what is happening there. Level 1 has very strong options though. Spellbook prodigy is incredibly helpful at lower levels. Learning spells can really be hit or miss early on and not being able to critically fail is pretty important until you can start boosting arcana. But wizards get so much out of the deception skill that is hard not to want to keep it boosted as well, so it can be nice to not need to focus all in on arcana right away but still expand your spell book. Eventually it becomes a feat to retrain into reach spell but it will really help you get to feeling like a wizard faster than any other level 1 feat. Counter spelling is campaign dependent, but it gets way too much hate. There are campaigns where wizards (and all their spell slots) can just shut down big bads, especially once you add on clever counter spell. Spending a spell slot and a reaction to have a decent chance of stealing 2 or 3 actions from a powerful enemy is amazingly effective, especially in a campaign like Fist of the Ruby Phoenix where you can watch your opposition fight in advance. Once you can reflect the spell back, still as part of the reaction, enemy casters have no fun fighting you.
Level 6 and up, you will always have a wizard feat to pick up that will make you better than your character was before. Seriously, wizard feats are very reliable. For example a blaster caster really cannot go wrong with spell penetration, advanced school (elemental tempest) or bond conservation, overwheming energy, forcible energy (a fantastic team feat that is wizard only), Bonded focus used to be pretty necessary but can now give way to something like shift spell or superior bond, Effortless concentration (or go back and get quicken spell), Infinite possibilities (or reprepare spell), and then pretty much any level 20 feat. Worst case scenario you dip into sorcerer at 2 and grab dangerous sorcerery at 4 if you are willing to pass up on reach spell, cantrip expansion, spell book prodigy, widen spell, and whatever linked focus gets replaced with.
There should be a class that is just focused on casting spells from spell slots and is not obsessed with trading them away for more powerful focus spells (there are still decent ones in the wizard schools) and class features. Both the spell blending and the spell substitution theses are very good for selling the "solve problems by casting spells at them" class theme. Even the metamagic thesis is decent if you build for it, and a lot of folks like the lots of lower level spells that become possible with staff nexus, and a lot of people just want familiars because.
It feels like half the suggestions for wizard reworks would just work better as a completely new class...with the exception of all the requests for specialist casters who get better accuracy with certain themes of spells. Like some specialist ideas might be a good idea for a class or archetype, but the accuracy suggestion just does not work well with PF2's math or encounter design. Pigeonholing yourself into only being able to cast like 3 or 4 spells ever pretty much requires Kineticist levels of class design.
In fairness wizards can be very solid just loading up on a specific spell ( fireball , cone of cold , and chain lightning are the big three for blasting, slow and confusion for hard control, 4th rank invisibility and haste for a buffer, and walls plus maybe solid fog for battlefield control) and exploiting stuff like Spell Blending or Staff Nexus to get a ridiculous pile of that specific spell. Add in spellcasting archetypes that may well let you blend their slots away, specialist wizard for more free slots, Drain Bonded Item to recharge top-level slots, and suddenly you have an unholy heap of magic. They don't HAVE to (staff nexus sort of has to, staves don't have that many top-level spells in them and you can only have the one stick) but it's a very solid playstyle.
And then there's the top-end wizard feats. Like spell combination . Spell combination is horrifying when used correctly. Combining chain lightning with itself gets you very silly blasting ("Why yes, I would like to deal 104 damage on a basic save out of an 8th level spell, thank you"), ditto combining rays with each other and then casting true strike . Or maybe you want a combo-buff so you pick up haste and 4th rank invisibility . Gets even more absurd with quickened spell so that you can toss out the equivalent of 4 spells per turn, and you can recharge them with Drain Bonded Item and bond conservation (multiple times as a universalist).
At least it probably doesn't work with multiclassing for spells on other lists...
I would frankly easily trade away focus spells and scaling cantrips on the wizard so it can triple down on being the best slotted spells spellcaster in the game
And then there's the top-end wizard feats. Like spell combination . Spell combination is horrifying when used correctly. Combining chain lightning with itself gets you very silly blasting ("Why yes, I would like to deal 104 damage on a basic save out of an 8th level spell, thank you"), ditto combining rays with each other and then casting true strike . Or maybe you want a combo-buff so you pick up haste and 4th rank invisibility . Gets even more absurd with quickened spell so that you can toss out the equivalent of 4 spells per turn, and you can recharge them with Drain Bonded Item and bond conservation (multiple times as a universalist).
At least it probably doesn't work with multiclassing for spells on other lists...
I don't think we should consider class balance based on lvl 20 feats hah. Most characters will never see them, and those that do have them for a handful of fights.
Plus not sure chain lightning is the best example, good single target damage but you miss all the bounces!
And then there's the top-end wizard feats. Like spell combination . Spell combination is horrifying when used correctly. Combining chain lightning with itself gets you very silly blasting ("Why yes, I would like to deal 104 damage on a basic save out of an 8th level spell, thank you"), ditto combining rays with each other and then casting true strike . Or maybe you want a combo-buff so you pick up haste and 4th rank invisibility . Gets even more absurd with quickened spell so that you can toss out the equivalent of 4 spells per turn, and you can recharge them with Drain Bonded Item and bond conservation (multiple times as a universalist).
At least it probably doesn't work with multiclassing for spells on other lists...
I don't think we should consider class balance based on lvl 20 feats hah. Most characters will never see them, and those that do have them for a handful of fights.
Plus not sure chain lightning is the best example, good single target damage but you miss all the bounces!
Both true! But that's sort of what Spell Combination does - murders a single target. Likewise, a double-strength horizon thunder sphere cast out of an 8th (so 2 x heightened to 6th level) deals 91 points of damage on a hit. Which is higher damage than polar ray against a level 20 target.
But anyway, Spell Blending, Drain Bonded Item, Scroll Savant, Bond Conservation, and Staff Nexus all mean that the wizard has a frankly absurd quantity of high level slots.
Math at level 10:
Spell Blending:
At level 10 as a specialist with spell blending, for instance, you've got two 1sts, two 2nds, three 3rds, five 4ths, five 5ths, and can recharge one of the 5ths via Drain Bonded Item. If you go Scroll Savant and make sure to always start off holding a scroll, that gets you another 2nd and another 3rd, and hey presto you look like a sorcerer with more slots. Add in bond conservation and you have another 3rd. Leaving you with:
1sts: 2
2nds: 3
3rds: 5
4ths: 5
5ths: 6
The sorcerer is getting
1sts: 4
2nds: 4
3rds: 4
4ths: 4
5ths: 4
Staff Nexus:
Assuming you're going for blasting at level 10, you pick up a Greater Staff of Evocation. It automatically gains 5 charges because that's how staves work. You want to use 4th level fireballs. You toss a 1st level and a 2nd level specialist slot into it, giving it 8 total charges (enough to cast 4th level fireball twice) and leaving you with (assuming Scroll Savant, Drain Bonded Item, and Bond Conservation):
1sts: 3
2nds: 4
3rds: 6
4ths: 6
5ths: 5
Compare to a sorcerer with that same Greater Staff of Evocation, who is only getting:
1sts: 4
2nds: 4
3rds: 4
4ths: 5
5ths: 4
Math at level 14:
Spell Blending:
At level 14 as a specialist with spell blending, for instance, you've got two 1sts, two 2nds, three 3rds, three 4ths, three 5ths, five 6ths, and five 7ths, and can recharge one of the 7ths via Drain Bonded Item. If you go Scroll Savant and make sure to always start off holding a scroll, that gets you another 4th and another 5th. Add in bond conservation and you have another 5th too. Leaving you with:
4ths: 4
5ths: 5
6ths: 5
7ths: 6
The sorcerer is getting
4ths: 4
5ths: 4
6ths: 4
7ths: 4
Same math applies to Staff Nexus.
Staff Nexus:
Assuming you're going for blasting at level 14, you pick up a Major Staff of Evocation. It automatically gains 7 charges because that's how staves work. You toss a 3rd level and a 2nd level specialist slot into it, giving it 12 charges (enough to cast chain lightning twice) and leaving you with (assuming Scroll Savant, Drain Bonded Item, and Bond Conservation):
4ths: 5
5ths: 6
6ths: 6
7ths: 5
Compare to a sorcerer with that same Staff of Evocation, who is only getting:
4ths: 4
5ths: 4
6ths: 5
7ths: 4
Now, sorcerers have their own ways to get a few more slots. These are:
Sorcerer Spell Slots:
-Primal evolution (feat 4, gives one extra spell of max spell rank but only to cast summon animal or summon plants or fungus , and we all know summoning spells are sort of sad)
-Divine evolution (feat 4, gives one extra spell of max spell rank but only to cast heal or harm , this one is totally solid)
-Greater vital evolution (feat 16, gives one extra spell of max spell rank and one extra spell of max spell rank - 1)
However, Greater vital evolution is really high level so it's really not a fair comparison (might as well add in Spell Combination at that point!)
We can assume that primal/divine evolution are of equal value to Drain Bonded Item, which I find to be dubious at best. They're definitely worth something , though.
Tl;dr you're stomping all over the sorcerer in terms of spell output. With spell blending you get:
Max spell rank - 3: same number of slots
Max spell rank - 2: 1 more slot
Max spell rank - 1: 1 more slot
Max spell rank: 2 more slots or 1 more slot (assuming a divine/primal sorcerer with evolution)
With staff nexus you get:
Max spell rank - 3: 1 more slot
Max spell rank - 2: 2 more slots
Max spell rank - 1: 1 more slot (assuming equivalent staff)
Max spell rank: 1 more slot or same number of slots (assuming a divine/primal sorcerer with evolution)
If you want there's also Staff Nexus Universalist with Bond Conservation. Which gets one extra spell of each rank below max spell rank - 3 (so for the level 14 example, one bonus 4th, one bonus 3rd, etc) but loses out on one spell of max rank (so one fewer 7th). It also has more flexibility since it's not constrained by spell school.
Wizards should't have to take spell blending for get sufficient power. And while sorcerers have a lot more options with their upper spells, tons really with signature spells.
Also, you can't really equate bond conservation to full value, making that actually work is super tricky and not that awesome. Scrolls cost extra actions to use.
Also, by blending away your lower slots, you give up some versatility.
That being said, spell blending is the most powerful wizard thesis.
Wizards should't have to take spell blending for get sufficient power. And while sorcerers have a lot more options with their upper spells, tons really with signature spells.
Also, you can't really equate bond conservation to full value, making that actually work is super tricky and not that awesome. Scrolls cost extra actions to use.
Also, by blending away your lower slots, you give up some versatility.
That being said, spell blending is the most powerful wizard thesis.
Scrolls don't really cost extra actions to use any more than weapons cost extra actions to use. Most GMs I know of don't default to assuming your weapons are sheathed, anyway. Just start combat holding a scroll.
As for bond conservation...eh. It just requires burning a lower-level slot before burning a higher level slot. That is pretty likely to happen during the course of a workday, and you can guarantee it by casting an all-day buff ( see invisibility , mind blank , energy aegis and tongues are premium picks, there are plenty more) at the start of the day.
But yes Spell Blending and Staff Nexus are quite solid if you want a pile of spells, and probably the best of the theses. Familiars have issues, spell substitution works FINE if you know exactly what you're facing (doesn't always happen) and metamagic...I mean, it's just not that good. But this is hardly unique to wizard. It's like saying "but I want to play a mastermind/scoundrel rogue, why is thief so much better?" Well. It just sort of is.
As for bond conservation...eh. It just requires burning a lower-level slot before burning a higher level slot. That is pretty likely to happen during the course of a workday, and you can guarantee it by casting an all-day buff ( see invisibility , mind blank , energy aegis and tongues are premium picks, there are plenty more) at the start of the day.
Bond conservation isn't that good. It takes an action for each usage, basically turning you into a turret.
Then it just gives you an extra use of your bond at -2 tour spell level. So in your above example, if the one spell you used from that spell level was tongues, that is the ONLY spell you can use drain bonded item with.
So all that work to get an extra -2 spell of limited selection is.... not great?
Why is it that whenever general problems are brought up, the counterargument are always specific feats or spells. If there's only one (two at most) feat per level, then there clearly is a problem. All options should be viable, especially in a game that takes so much pride in it's balance.
Unicore wrote:
I have tried to play...
So long story short, scrolls aren't as good for other casters, because they have something better to do with their actions in combat. That is not an argument pro scroll, but actually a confirmation that wizards have nothing. If scrolls were as awesome as mentioned, then the action economy of those classes wouldn't be relevant as their scrolls would take priority.
Same for wizard, if they had something better to do, then scrolls would not be the "fix" for their problems. Numeric buffs were not the only suggestions to improve the class. The suggestions range from new thesis' over schools/specialization with additional effects (or similar benefits) to adding more interesting and unique feats interaction with spells, like custom meta magic, interaction with spell catalysts and again new thesis'.
Calliope5431 wrote:
Yeah I honestly didn't realize the raw power of scrolls until I started doing the math on them. They're priced at 1/10 of a wand (if not lower, wands of 8th rank spells cost 15k gp whereas 8th rank scrolls are only 1.3k), which is shockingly cheap....
While it is true that scrolls are much cheaper than wands, there is one huge difference between them. Scrolls are gone after being used, wands always keep half their value, no matter how often you use them.
And you don't have to decide on what to do the until you have leveled up and thus better options: You can either
- Keep them (and thus keep using them and always choose another option later)
- Sell them at higher levels.
- Or use them as material to craft higher level wands, even of the same spell if necessary (or other magic items)
So the actual necessary amount of times a wand needs to be used to be more profitable than scrolls is half of the listed amounts (so depending on the level 5 to 8 times, instead of 10 to 15)
So the actual necessary amount of times a wand needs to be used to be more profitable than scrolls is half of the listed amounts (so depending on the level 5 to 8 times, instead of 10 to 15)
You know, I never thought about that. But you are absolutely right.
As for bond conservation...eh. It just requires burning a lower-level slot before burning a higher level slot. That is pretty likely to happen during the course of a workday, and you can guarantee it by casting an all-day buff ( see invisibility , mind blank , energy aegis and tongues are premium picks, there are plenty more) at the start of the day.
Bond conservation isn't that good. It takes an action for each usage, basically turning you into a turret.
Then it just gives you an extra use of your bond at -2 tour spell level. So in your above example, if the one spell you used from that spell level was tongues, that is the ONLY spell you can use drain bonded item with.
So all that work to get an extra -2 spell of limited selection is.... not great?
And if it's mind blank you've just blanked half the party. Ditto energy aegis . I've done both. It's quite solid.
Quote:
While it is true that scrolls are much cheaper than wands, there is one huge difference between them. Scrolls are gone after being used, wands always keep half their value, no matter how often you use them.
That's fair, actually. Though good luck persuading your GM that you can upgrade a wand of fireball into a wand of cone of cold . Still, I take your point about selling them. It's a good one.
Quote:
Why is it that whenever general problems are brought up, the counterargument are always specific feats or spells. If there's only one (two at most) feat per level, then there clearly is a problem. All options should be viable, especially in a game that takes so much pride in it's balance.
Definitely agree. Paizo should try to balance the options so that there aren't any trash ones.
In practice, ragging on one class just because some options are garbage is like complaining that sorcerers suck because you're playing a demonic one that runs around using nothing but glutton's jaws . Like, yes, it's bad, but you CHOSE to take the focus spell that gave you a Strength-based melee attack on a Charisma caster.
You can't complain that much when you die horribly to Will saves because you were pumping Strength and couldn't keep up all your saving throw stats (you gotta pump Str, Cha, Con, Dex, and Wis, good luck with that), that's at least somewhat on you. Or complain about your appalling accuracy and damage on an unarmed strike that you never get above Expert proficiency in (never mind Greater Weapon Specialization...) and cannot dedicate your primary ability boosts to. Or complain about dying horribly in melee as a character with NO ARMOR PROFICIENCY.
Speaking as someone who has ragged on wizard, though. Yeah. It needs some sort of boost.
Which sort of brings us back to the topic of the thread!
Has anyone else ever played with a wizard who uses forcible energy with a party synergized for it? It gives weakness 5 to a knowable damage type against a creature until the end of your next turn. That is much better than the slightly confusing to use Share weakness, which even under the best case scenario of not having to be adjacent to your one ally, that is still, at best just one ally. Ubiquitous Weakness is better than Forcible Energy, but it is level 20 so is going to get a lot less use.
I really don't understand the arguments of "I shouldn't have to select x thesis to feel good as a wizard." I mean, as long as their are at least 2 or 3 of those options that are really fun and playable, it is as good as any subclass options out there (sometimes better). Spell substitution is great in exploration campaigns, investigation/mystery campaigns, and in heist campaigns, and really any campaign where the party tends to instigate encounters.
Spell blending is great for the opposite, where you find yourself having to react to the unexpected. At low levels, this can be by having extra cantrip options and less spell slots, and then becomes more higher level spell slots as you advance and don't really want to cast cantrips at all anymore. Those 2 alone pretty effectively cover the necessities.
My PFS wizard is a metamagic specialist because you just never need all the spells, scrolls are a dime a dozen in society play, and you usually can get a pretty good sense of what you are going to be going up against.
A thesis that essentially gives you 2 free feats, 1 first level, but one that you can trade out like a fighter and can be up to half your level is good. I mostly switch out between conceal spell and widen spell depending upon the type of scenario it is. This character is also a magic warrior so I knew I wasn't going to be getting a lot of wizard feats anyway.
Sometimes, it can be easy to write off options that are not useful in the games that you specifically play, but those options are very useful for players who play different kinds of campaigns. I feel like familiar attunement falls into that category. For folks that really want to role play a wizard who has a familiar and give it lots of abilities, it is a good thesis that is hard to replicate with other options. It is unlikely I will ever choose it, but I can see a lot of players liking having so many of the familar powers for making their flying, talking monkey who wears clothes and steals things all the time.
My problem with wands of offensive spells is that you pretty much only use them 3 to 4 times before you want to sell them, and they are expensive to buy up front. I will use found wands until they are irrelevant, but you can never afford to buy them when the spell in them is useful.
Scrolls on the other hand can often be bought before your character can even cast the spell themselves. Having a level 2 dispel magic up your sleeve at the end of level 1 or during level 2 can be pretty awesome when a slightly higher level caster is doing Macguffiny things to the party. If you use it before you hit level 3, you buy a new one when you do. If you don't use it, before then, than you can write it into your book and then cast it as quickly as possible, because it will never be as useful to you again.
That is another huge way scrolls uniquely benefit wizards. You need to gain access to spells anyway, and so you can buy scrolls, learn the spell and still use the scroll. I guess this technically works for clerics and druids too, but GMs really never use the uncommon/rare tags with spells and access it doesn't seem like. I'd do it with a cleric or druid in PFS though anytime I got access to an uncommon spell scroll.
The issue is that most other classes have more generally viable paths that don't need a specific campaign to work. Wizards get one path and it brings them merely to par with other more versatile classes with better class chassis.
That's fair, actually. Though good luck persuading your GM that you can upgrade a wand of fireball into a wand of cone of cold . Still, I take your point about selling them. It's a good one.
Shouldn't be too hard considering you have to recast the spell anyways, even if it's just the higher version of the same spell. In the worst case scenario, where the GM won't allow it and there's no shop around, you can disassemble it
Quote:
In practice, ragging on one class just because some options are garbage is like complaining that sorcerers suck because you're playing a demonic one that runs around using...
There's a huge difference between there being only one good option and there being one bad option. Outright bad options shouldn't exist in the first place, but balancing is hard and it can happen. There could even be one or two levels with more bad options. But if there's always the best option at each level, then that is the problem. And it's somewhat ridiculous when sometimes people respond with stuff like "I don't think it's too bad, at least I can use archetype feats now". Almost making it sound like it was a feature instead of a bug.
Unicore wrote:
Has anyone else ever played with a wizard who...
The problem is, there aren't 2 or 3 good options available most of the time, otherwise we wouldn't have this discussion. That is more true for feats than for arcane thesis, but even then, the thesis are not balanced.
Spell Substitution is only good if the GM makes it good. Otherwise it's very meh. If the game has to be built around the ability for it to be good, it is not a good ability.
Meta Magic is the worst of the thesis, because you can just take those feats on your own, especially when the LV2 and LV4 feats are bad options. Since it never grants any feat above LV10 and even those on very high levels, this thesis needs an overhaul the most.
Spell Blending and Staff Nexus are extremely bad (outright useless) at early levels and become good at later levels. You just have to hope the campaign will be long enough so you actually get to see the payoff.
That leaves us with Improved Familiar Attunement, which is fine, if you want to play the minion wizard.
Pointing out X is not a problem because Y exists doesn't solve anything, because you can't take all those options at the same time and they forces the playstyles into one corner, when the other options aren't good-
