| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be clear, my PFS wizard archetypes into magic warrior because I love the flavor of the character, not because there were no feats I wanted to take as a wizard. I have played an Abjurer, an illusionist, a Conjurer, a necromancer and a evoker. I have used meta magic, spell blending, and spell substitution theses. I have played 2 free archetype wizards and the rest with no variant rules. The PFS wizard is the only one not to take level 2 and 4 wizard class feats. It is strongly misleading to insist that there is only one way to build a fun and effective wizard.
I think that “capstone feats” are way over done in AP back matter. Too many classes have levels with only 2 or 3 feat options, including the wizard. At the same time, some levels of wizard are stacked with good options and retraining and double dipping at other levels is pretty common across classes. Too many good options can also become a problem if it leads into extreme overspecialization and not covering basic things the class needs to do. Even so, I think the “wizards have no good feats” complaint gains traction because level 2 and 4 are light on good options, but those are really the levels where players create character identity, so getting better options there is a good goal.
Edit:
Also the success and utility of a good wizard is always going to be determined by the campaign parameters. This is true of almost every class. You change the build based upon the theme and the tone of the campaign. Saying classes or class options are universally bad because they have niches is really not that productive. A giant barbarian in Abomination Vaults is not a great build choice. A spirit barbarian in that campaign is much better. That is not the typical analysis of those instincts in a general sense but it is true in a pretty tight dungeon crawl with a lot of spookiness to it.
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.
The problem is that a lot of this was permissible in 1st Edition and it broke the game when you did so, meaning Paizo basically nuked it from oblivion to make sure it won't break the game anymore, and replaced it with...basically nothing of substance.
Regarding metamagics, Empower, Maximize, Quicken, Dazing, etc. are all nixed from the game. The only one that stayed is Quicken, and it's relatively minor in effect until later in the game, where you need to double-buff or want to try a wombo-combo with a not-so-high level spell, and honestly, compared to PF1, Quicken Spell got buffed (whereas before it was only spells 4 levels or lower that you can prepare/cast in that highest slot as a Swift Action). You could also mix and match these metamagics, so long as you had the spell levels available. Granted, it introduced metamagic cheese, but that's an issue with the system making it possible, and less of the system itself. Now, all we have for general metamagic is Reach, Widen, and Quicken. The rest is class-specific, in which case they're basically just class-exclusive metamagics. The worst part is, they could have kept Empower, Maximize, Dazing, etc. in this game, and they have all of the mechanics to make it work in this edition without breaking the game. Have Empower only work on spell levels 2 levels lower than your highest, have Maximize only work on spell levels 3-4 levels lower than your highest, and have Dazing include the Incapacitate trait for Stunned/Slowed 1. Pretty easy and balanced stuff, and also maintains value for lower level blasting spells.
You also had bonus spell slots based on your primary modifier. Those are gone now. There is now less opportunity to be diverse due to Paizo wanting spellcasters to literally be 15 Minute Adventurers by way of slaughtering spell slots (because seriously, preparing 5 Fireballs is probably overkill, whereas preparing a Haste or Slow or Time Jump is probably more prudent and a better use of your resources.) And no, I'm not going to count "Ring of Wizardry" as a solution, simply because that's only for specific classes, and because it requires access to an Uncommon Item to acquire. Really, the amount of spells a Wizard had wasn't really what made them overpowered, it was because they accessed them earlier, had the strongest spell list, and had no parity/ridiculous manipulation behind their spells. Wand of Cure Light Wounds? I'll just Summon a creature that can cast it as a Spell-Like Ability at-will. It wasn't because he could do this 8 times a day, it was the fact this could be done at all.
I also absolutely dislike your claim of "Counterspell Wizards are OP," because first, you are listing a specific example where being able to witness how an enemy fights literally tells you what tactics to bring. Not only is this a specific advantage of the Wizard class (assuming you get to prepare before-hand), but of Counterspell in general, since you will both know what spells are going to being cast (meaning you know what to prepare/learn), as well as what levels they are being cast (so you know what slots will be good for Dispel Magic and what slots will be better with other spells). Saying that a specific example in a specific AP is why a specific build of Wizard is good does not translate to it being functional in standard play because these are not typical circumstances of standard play, these are hand-picked, ideal circumstances of play.
When you come across an enemy spellcaster in typical circumstances of standard play, you likely won't know what spells they have (unless they are specific ones, or are common ones you also happen to use), and you won't have the capability to prepare slots to specifically counteract them (unless you are Spontaneous, in which case that's another point against the Wizard class). Even if you do, they could either cast other spells (that you might not have prepared against), do other tactics (like use focus spells, make melee attacks, etc.), or be of a completely different tradition that you cannot learn of or prepare for (in either case, your build does nothing helpful for the encounter).
Secondly, this comes across as no other Wizard types being feasible, in which case that is a talltale sign of bad class design, because that also means Scroll Wizards are bad, Wand/Staff Wizards are bad, and Familiar Wizards are bad (though there is absolutely no saving that last one, Paizo dug their grave with it during the playtest). The factor that the only good Wizard is one that Counterspells should be telling enough that the Wizard needs more to it than just "I counteract enemy spellcasters sometimes. If my dice aren't trash. And they're also Arcane spellcasters."
I haven't looked through the rules for complex crafting in a while, or crafting in general for that matter, but would a Skilled...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 checked those out.
I know you can 4 scrolls of the same kind in 4 days. If you have downtime, you can churn out a lot of lower level scrolls cheaply by spending extra days to reduce the cost. It does require sufficient downtime.
It is my understanding that your crafting acts as earned income equal to your level and skill proficiency. So you reduce the cost by that amount. Lower level scrolls are often very cheap, so you can churn them out for half price with a higher level crafting very, very easily and cheaply.
If you're a level 11 master crafter making a bunch of slow scrolls, you can churn out 4 for half-price very quickly. Or flies. Makes scrolls a very good use of your coin. As a wizard with intel as your main stat, crafting comes easily to you.
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:
** spoiler omitted **...
You don't need to cast all that often as you gain levels. You need to apply pressure when necessary.
As a caster I rely on focus spells a lot at higher level in mook battles. My druid may drop one chain lightning. change into dragon form next round and enter melee. Use a breath weapon. Maybe drop a tempest surge. I'd be surprise if the fight isn't over by that time.
Then in boss battles I usually debuff and let the martials tear them apart. One slow spell a round. A higher level sorcerer with slow as a signature spell can use slow all day. Wizard would have to memorize slow multiple times to do the same.
Then drop a magic missile to finish someone off and mix in other heals or what not, win easily.
The problem I see with the wizard is having a bunch of spell slots with 50% fail rates isn't a particularly worthwhile ability. Your spell slots aren't as effective as martials for damage and certain high value debuffs are what you use over and over and over again.
A good nearly no cost focus spell that does some damage in mook battles or some other effect is much better than a spell slot you use and are done with.
You never feel bad using a focus spell to do something like you do when a spell slot does nothing.
Wizard's like, "Gee, I have six highest level spell slots."
Monster succeeds on save.
Sorcerer casts slow for the 8th time in a day and drops a damaging focus point spell he gets back nearly every fight and the creature succeeds on its save and is still slowed for 1 round and he does half damage. He shrugs. I'll refocus for 10 minutes and be all good again.
Spell slots are not as valuable as they once were. A good focus spell is every bit as good as a spell slot.
Once the wizard locks in his spell slots if he takes Spell Blending or Staff Nexus, he can't change it until the next day. Where the sorcerer is casting slow or magic missile or fireball or synesthesia while being arcane all day at higher level.
Then give the sorcerer a staff or wand and he has free slots to blow off for mook battles that don't matter.
I've never run short of slots in this game at higher level.
At least when it comes to counterspell, you can just cherry pick the spells worth counterspelling in the first place. Not like there are that many of them.
Given that the summoning spells require you to have metagame knowledge of the bestiary anyway, may as well extend that to counterspell considerations too.
I'm surprised to see endorsements for staff thesis though. I figured it was wholly worthless since it is at best 1-2 level-2 slots which is pretty pointless. Not like you need nexus to get maximum usage out of the best stave spells in the game anyway (true strike and imaginary object).
Honestly, with how little you need lower level slots in general you can probably fully get away with a flexible blending wizard and roll with 1/1/2/.../4/4 by blending away those soon to be useless school slots. Not like blending those slots away reduces your flex repertoire either.
To be clear, my PFS wizard archetypes into magic warrior because I love the flavor of the character, not because there were no feats I wanted to take as a wizard. I have played an Abjurer, an illusionist, a Conjurer, a necromancer and a evoker. I have used meta magic, spell blending, and spell substitution theses. I have played 2 free archetype wizards and the rest with no variant rules. The PFS wizard is the only one not to take level 2 and 4 wizard class feats. It is strongly misleading to insist that there is only one way to build a fun and effective wizard.
I think that “capstone feats” are way over done in AP back matter. Too many classes have levels with only 2 or 3 feat options, including the wizard. At the same time, some levels of wizard are stacked with good options and retraining and double dipping at other levels is pretty common across classes. Too many good options can also become a problem if it leads into extreme overspecialization and not covering basic things the class needs to do. Even so, I think the “wizards have no good feats” complaint gains traction because level 2 and 4 are light on good options, but those are really the levels where players create character identity, so getting better options there is a good goal.
Edit:
Also the success and utility of a good wizard is always going to be determined by the campaign parameters. This is true of almost every class. You change the build based upon the theme and the tone of the campaign. Saying classes or class options are universally bad because they have niches is really not that productive. A giant barbarian in Abomination Vaults is not a great build choice. A spirit barbarian in that campaign is much better. That is not the typical analysis of those instincts in a general sense but it is true in a pretty tight dungeon crawl with a lot of spookiness to it.
No. It isn't true of every class.
I can beat this game with martials, a healer, and a few spells like slow, synesthesia, and magic missile over and over and over again.
Waiting for the wizard to memorize some right spell is completely unnecessary in PF2. Martials are so good in this game that enemies have no way to counter martials. None whatsoever. Martials can beat everything you throw at them and more.
Which is why the old PF1 paradigm of having to counter monster abilities is gone. Back in PF1 a wizard was needed to counter enemy casters because martials had weak saves, not much of a means to counter invis or fly or mind blank, and spells like wind wall or the mobile version completely made archers useless.
That isn't this edition. In this edition martials have excellent saves, fast movement, lots of invis counters, and can absolutely wreck just about everything thrown at them.
So waiting for Mr. Wizard to change out a spell slot isn't necessary. Mr. Wizard does nothing special any more. He's a class that has lost its importance due the loss of power and the change in the paradigm of the game.
Martials don't need Mr. Wizard any more. Which is why Mr. Wizard should be built with that in mind so he can do more stuff that doesn't involve what Mr. Wizard used to do. Each class is fairly self-contained now. The group tactics are helpful to win, but not spells.
Trip is the god maneuver now. Anything that can active reaction attacks and abilities.
Anything that can take actions is king.
Mr. Wizard is just one of many caster options to take actions. Not the best at it, not the worst. Problem is there are a lot of casters that can take actions and do other things like Mr. Bard who can still cast that slow or synesthesia, while boosting the entire party's hit chance or reducing every monster defense with a single action ability while casting a spell.
Mr. Sorcerer has a lot of focus points, can pick up a spellbook to change out spells, and grab heal as an Arcane caster while also using staves and scrolls to extend his casting without the limitation of being locked into prepared spells.
An imperial sorcerer can give someone a 10 minute haste for 1 focus point. Pretty nice.
You don't need a wizard like you did in PF1. Spell slots that fail 40 to 50% of the time if they land at all with the incap trait aren't that powerful.
At least when it comes to counterspell, you can just cherry pick the spells worth counterspelling in the first place. Not like there are that many of them.
Given that the summoning spells require you to have metagame knowledge of the bestiary anyway, may as well extend that to counterspell considerations too.
I'm surprised to see endorsements for staff thesis though. I figured it was wholly worthless since it is at best 1-2 level-2 slots which is pretty pointless. Not like you need nexus to get maximum usage out of the best stave spells in the game anyway (true strike and imaginary object).
Honestly, with how little you need lower level slots in general you can probably fully get away with a flexible blending wizard and roll with 1/1/2/.../4/4 by blending away those soon to be useless school slots. Not like blending those slots away reduces your flex repertoire either.
Do you ever find counterspell useful. It's a hard roll against a boss DC as it is. If Counterspell were automatic, then it would be worthwhile.
And often the target of the spell like a martial is already going to have a good save anyway.
For AoE spells shadow siphon is a better option.
I haven't found much use for counterspell. Seems like a waste of a spell slot.
No offense to you Deriven, I know you have a lot of fun playing PF2 and I think that is totally awesome. But I am pretty sure I would not enjoy playing with any group that is out to "beat this game with martials, a healer, and a few spells like slow, synesthesia, and magic missile over and over and over again."
I play this game to have fun with my friends, and we enjoy cat and mouse adventures. We enjoy going off script and coming up with ideas that are more about story telling than winning a game. Especially because the GM can always beat you. The adventure writer can beat you. Accidentally turning the game into a competition against other players can lead to everyone losing the game.
From the description of your preferred game play, it is exceedingly clear that a sorcerer with a strong focus spell provides everything you are looking for out of a caster in PF2. Awesome! I am glad that class is so rewarding for you, although I recommend trying a psychic sometime as well. It is a lot of fun, very effective and I think it would do all the things you need out of a caster as well.
The PF2 wizard is a very good problem solver and problem maker in groups that like creative dynamic game play. It accomplishes this with spell slots. Spell slots in PF2 have been pretty well tuned to a pretty high level and there is only so much wiggle room on options to make spell slot spells more powerful. Most of them involve interacting with your team mates tactically. I take it as a point of pride that people would say things like "you are listing a specific example where being able to witness how an enemy fights literally tells you what tactics to bring" about the wizard player in my Fist of the Ruby Phoenix campaign because I agree, the player made an exceptionally well fitting character for the campaign based upon our session 0 discussion about what kind of campaign it would be. I always want my players to feel like their characters are good fits into the world they are playing in, and I put a lot of time and effort into doing the same with my characters. I do have a wizard in PFS where the story is more "prepare for anything," but it is prepare for anything within the context of a scenario where you get a lead in story and usually time to learn about where you are going and what you are doing before you get there. I 100% agree that a party that does not enjoy taking their time getting to encounters, doing their research, asking around about the challenges that might be ahead is not a party where a player is likely to have a lot of fun with a wizard. I just don't think the game needs it to be. There are a bunch of other casters that can fit well in that party and everyone will have a great time. I don't think every class needs to be a good fit for every campaign.
Do you ever find counterspell useful. It's a hard roll against a boss DC as it is. If Counterspell were automatic, then it would be worthwhile.
And often the target of the spell like a martial is already going to have a good save anyway.
For AoE spells shadow siphon is a better option.
I haven't found much use for counterspell. Seems like a waste of a spell slot.
It's fairly niche, but since monsters rarely heighten their utility like escaping with dimension door or the like, you just blow a slightly higher slot and just not care about the roll. Just read through the bestiary, mark the stuff you don't want to deal with and leave it at that. For damage, yes, shadow siphon is all you'll ever need.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
A giant barbarian in Abomination Vaults is not a great build choice.
Having seen/played/run through abomination vaults three times with giant barbarians (and three times without) this is definitively not true at all.
We enjoy going off script and coming up with ideas that are more about story telling than winning a game.
I mean so do lots of people, and nothing about making the wizard more or less frustrating for the people who have problems with it would change that. Mechanically effectiveness and storytelling capability being mutually exclusive is a very tired false argument.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A giant barbarian in Abomination Vaults is not a great build choice.Having seen/played/run through abomination vaults three times with giant barbarians (and three times without) this is definitively not true at all.
We enjoy going off script and coming up with ideas that are more about story telling than winning a game.I mean so do lots of people, and nothing about making the wizard more or less frustrating for the people who have problems with it would change that. Mechanically effectiveness and storytelling capability being mutually exclusive is a very tired false argument.
Did they just not take giant's stature? The maps of that AP are so small to navigate with a large creature. I guess if they weren't into the becoming a Giant it could work out ok, and I guess the folks I have seen play giant instinct all tend to like the "be big" approach.
Edit: I didn't mean that the wizard was choosing narrative ability over mechanical ability. I was saying that the mechanical abilities of the current PF2 wizard are very well suited for a style of narrative play that is connected with trying to figure out what "script" the enemy is trying to run, and forcing them to go off it. As opposed to a style of play that is about the party just trying to decide what the script is going to be without really knowing what the enemy is going to try to do, and sticking to that script no matter what.
They took giants stature and used it fairly frequently, occasionally they chose not to when it was inconvenient.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You don't need Giant's Stature to do the extra damage. Main time Giant's Stature becomes good is when you get Whirlwind Attack. Most of the time you just crush things for damage.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
SpellSub is weird because it's best when you can find out about an encounter in advance but not too far in advance.
The idea of it is very cool, because it targets one of the biggest weaknesses of the Wizard in having the wrong spells prepared... but the sweet spot you need for it doesn't get hit all that often from my experience. Most encounters either don't have enough forewarning to let you SpellSub at all, or are telegraphed well enough you can just use the normal preparation feature to fix your spell loadout.
And, indeed, given that we know Wizards are balanced around the latter assumption, SpellSub kind of works contrary to the idea of the class. Time pressures often aren't set up properly to enable it too, either too quick or too slow.
I really like the idea of it, but like so many wizard features your GM has to take extra steps and go out of their way to make it good for you in a way that other options and other classes just don't.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really dislike and find no value in the argument that a class is ok if a campaign is run in a very certain tupe of way because every table is different and most classes work fine no matter the kind of campaign it is without extra GM help.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are two major changes I would make to Wizard. Both are probably hot takes.
1. Preparing. Spells. Is. Horrible. At least as it is implemented. I have literally never, in my entire 25 years of playing tabletop RPGs, ever encountered someone who felt "Oh yeah. I LOVE doing the spreadsheet accounting to figure out if I need 2 of this, and 1 of that, and 3 of those prepared, and 1 of each of these three spells...". This actually sort of goes for every prepared caster, but we are talking about wizard here.
Honestly, Wizard needs something similar to the 1E Arcanist method of preparing spells. It is literally so good and simple that DnD stole it for it's implementation of wizard.
Paizo is sitting on a good mechanic for wizard spellcasting and what's better is no one can even accuse them of stealing the idea, because they are the one who came up with it.
2. Spellcasting accuracy is god awful. The last game I DMed, there were two fighters in the party. There were several times in the campaign where the fighters would regularly be making one action attacks that did more average damage than a two action cantrip, and had +7 better to hit on the attack than the wizard.
This was +4 from proficiency, +1 from weapon rune, and +2 from flatfooted at early levels, and later levels it was +2 proficiency, +3 rune, +2 flat footed.
That's a 35% better chance to hit and crit. The difference is so large the shock is like a slap to the face to see it in action. This wouldn't be so bad if the chance to hit for the wizard was still pretty good, but it is not. The wizard would often be rolling to hit with a 50% chance or less to land the spell attack. This doesn't even get into the abysmal odds of getting a monster to fail it's save, particularly a boss, and god forbid the spell has the incapacitate tag.
People like to succeed, they don't like to fail. I would rather Paizo nerf spell effects and increase the odds of the spells taking effect, if they consider increasing the odds of hitting to be too unbalanced, than leaving it as it is.
To be fair, Spell Substitution has it's uses. Just not in the way it is often presented. The real strength of spell substitution is not that you can change spells to affect weaknesses on the fly. The main benefit is that you can prepare all (or most) slots as combat spells and switch them out for utility spells, when the need arises. Because you almost always have 10 minutes to spare out of combat, but never in combat (or before combat).
That is especially useful on early levels, where slots are rare any you only want to prepare spells like Jump, Spider-Climb, Charm, Mending, Air Bubble, Lock, Invisibility and so on, when you actually need them and not on the slim chance that you might need them. That is also true for the later spell ranks with things like fly or Dimension Door. So basically the spells you'd normally buy as scrolls, so effectively it's a money saver.
But it's definitely not the Silver Bullet provider.
My experience with it is that it can be both of the things. Like I agree that the key use is memorizing the powerful spells that you want to fire off first thing, but you don’t need to over do it with those spells, because once you have 4 or 5 combat spells you want to cast in any encounter, you are almost certainly going to have time after that encounter to realign what spells you have memorized. So if you cast your fireball spell, a true strike and an acid arrow, you will very likely have time to move things around to get those back. That is a common, “everyday” usage of spell substitution. But it was a fantastic thesis for the slithering, for outlaws of Alkenstar, and Age of Ashes. Many campaigns give you tasks you want to complete by the end of the day, but time to ask around about them, or time to poke around the outside of the encounter space before going in. That is especially where the subbed in utility options have proven, in practice, to be useful. A lot of it is stuff that scrolls can eventually cover, which is why I tend to favor spell blending now over spell substitution, but if you hate scrolls, spell substitution would be pretty great.
It's pretty far from bad. Not an opinion, but a provable fact.
What possible reason would you come up with to show the sorcerer as bad? I would love to hear it.
Your first statement feels like you're not up for an actual conversation but just want to hear reasons to argue against them, making me almost not respond.
I'm not interested in a protracted argument but thought you'd be at least interested in hearing my reasons.
Arcane Sorcerer:
Wizards get effectively an extra highest level slot from Arcane Bond and can further their higher level slot advantage with Spell Blending.
Wizards have much greater flexibility. Today we're travelling overland and I want lots of travel spells. Tomorrow we're fighting ghosts so I can memorize Ghostly Weapons and Magic Missile. The day after we're going to troll land so I'll take some acid and fire spells.
I really enjoy editing my daily spell list based on knowledge and current part composition. Spontaneous casting in general feels much less flexible, almost stifling to me. While I understand many folks are quite fond of it, over the fully Vancian memorize Spells etc, it always feels like a big downgrade to me in actual play.
While Charisma provides some immediate options via demoralize and diplomacy in social situations, int provides you with crafting which can be a significant wealth increase via downtime. It's also provides benefits in more situations. Society is frequently useful in social situations with Arcana and Occultism being useful recall knowledge skills for both monsters and magical things. A good lore really helps flesh out what a character's good at (both mechanically and flavorfully) and crafting even comes up frequently with mechanical devices as an alternative to thievery.
Divine Sorcerer:
The divine list sucks (although is clearly getting at least a little better with the remaster and RoE cantrips). It's full of situational condition removal that's particularly bad for a spontaneous caster. Clerics get ~4 extra max level slots to make up for this but the divine sorcerer is just not good.
Primal and Occult Sorcerers get compared to Druid and Bard and come up lacking there as well. Bard isn't really a fair comparison since they are generally agreed to be notably above the curve.
Druids gets wisdom which helps with will saves, initiative, and several useful skills. They get strong focus spells, medium armor. They don't even need a spellbook, they can just freely choose from the whole primal list every day.
Compared to the Wizard, Sorcerer's do get a faster fort progression which is nice, advancing with the Witch at level 5 to Expert although they pay for it with a slower reflex progression.
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really dislike and find no value in the argument that a class is ok if a campaign is run in a very certain tupe of way because every table is different and most classes work fine no matter the kind of campaign it is without extra GM help.
*[Investigator has entered the chat]*
Seriously though, this class is pretty much gutter swill if your GM isn't specifically tailor-making the campaign to suit the needs of your class abilities or providing a bunch of opportunities to do your thing, otherwise, you just end up feeling like a nerfed Rogue who has to waste a bunch of time in order to try and get some extra damage once or perhaps twice per combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's pretty far from bad. Not an opinion, but a provable fact.
What possible reason would you come up with to show the sorcerer as bad? I would love to hear it.
Your first statement feels like you're not up for an actual conversation but just want to hear reasons to argue against them, making me almost not respond.
I'm not interested in a protracted argument but thought you'd be at least interested in hearing my reasons.
Arcane Sorcerer:
Wizards get effectively an extra highest level slot from Arcane Bond and can further their higher level slot advantage with Spell Blending.
Wizards have much greater flexibility. Today we're travelling overland and I want lots of travel spells. Tomorrow we're fighting ghosts so I can memorize Ghostly Weapons and Magic Missile. The day after we're going to troll land so I'll take some acid and fire spells.
I really enjoy editing my daily spell list based on knowledge and current part composition. Spontaneous casting in general feels much less flexible, almost stifling to me. While I understand many folks are quite fond of it, over the fully Vancian memorize Spells etc, it always feels like a big downgrade to me in actual play.
While Charisma provides some immediate options via demoralize and diplomacy in social situations, int provides you with crafting which can be a significant wealth increase via downtime. It's also provides benefits in more situations. Society is frequently useful in social situations with Arcana and Occultism being useful recall knowledge skills for both monsters and magical things. A good lore really helps flesh out what a character's good at (both mechanically and flavorfully) and crafting even comes up frequently with mechanical devices as an alternative to thievery.
Divine Sorcerer:
The divine list sucks (although is clearly getting at least a little better with the remaster and RoE cantrips). It's full of situational condition removal that's particularly bad for a...
Your points about the wizard are valid. If you value those abilities, the wizard has them.
I'll break down why I prefer the sorcerer since this is more of a personal preference disagreement.
First, some context. My group creates parties based on roles. Combat healer is one of the roles we consider mandatory in a group. In PF1 this was usually a cleric or oracle or another divine caster. In PF2 that much focus on healing is unnecessary, so I prefer a class that can heal and do other things.
You don't always want to play a bard or druid, though they are fine as combat healer. Once you played one, you know how to build them optimally.
I don't care for the witch, though my buddy prefers the fervor witch as a combat healer class.
I have done an oracle. They aren't bad. One of my other buddies likes oracles for a combat healer type of role.
I don't like clerics. Boring feats and a boring class. Their healing font is usually overkill.
I tend to do sorcerer or druid for combat healer.
Occult, Primal, or Divine sorcerer all work. Divine list as you stated sucks or as I see it is far too limited for most campaigns. I prefer a primal sorcerer because the primal list has lots of blasting and interesting attack spells while healing. I usually do Elemental or Fey because of fun focus spells. Occult isn't bad either as I like Shadow or Harrow sorcerer focus spells. Occult spell list is also a high quality list.
Basically, the sorcerer lets me fill the combat healer role while doing lots of other things with flexible build options.
-------
Now why do I prefer the arcane sorcerer.
I prefer spontaneous casting to prepared casting as my group doesn't take non-combat that seriously. So we handwave travel or the like. Whether you get there by walking, horse, or magic isn't relevant.
I prefer the Imperial or Dragon sorcerer which are the arcane offerings, though the Genie is looking interesting to me.
Mechanical reasons:
1. I like to pick up a high value spell like synesthesia or heal as an arcane sorcerer with the level 8 crossblooded feat.
2. Arcane Evolution provides me a spellbook that adds one arcane spell of my choice per day to my list. So if I need a particular spell for a day, I can obtain it and add it to my repertoire.
3. I like Dragon focus spells because I get what is in essence a free fly spell or blast spell for a focus point for one or more times per 10 minutes. I like Imperial because I like having a floating skill, the ability to extend a haste or blink to 10 minutes, or use Arcane Countermeasure to reduce a possible incap spell to something lower or just reduce the damage of a spell with a reaction and a focus point. All those spells have proven useful to me.
4. Spontaneous casting: Since I already have my one extra spell from Arcane Evolution to account for trolls and I don't care about noncombat travel too much, I prefer to be able to spontaneously cast my spells with signature spells allowing heightening as needed.
High value heightened spells:
Slow: Slow is an extremely powerful spell. I take this as a sig spell. I can either chain cast this single target on a boss or heighten it to level 7 to AoE cast it on mooks. If you land slow, the battle is often over before it starts.
Dispel Magic: This is another spell like I to take as a sig spell. This allows me to use my slots to clear off enemy spells if needed that I can height at will or use in any open slot.
Magic missile is my usual level 1 sig spell. It's nice to be able to finish something if needed.
I like to be able to use a slot to keep casting the same spell if that is the spell that works the best or you want to land it. As a wizard casting that spell slot you have with a single spell you can't cast again or maybe one other use with Arcane Bond once per day and having the enemy save SUCKS.
Whereas I can chain cast a spell over and over up to 4 slots, more if a signature spell I can use in higher level slots, to make sure something sticks. So if I have to keep a creature slowed or synesthesia on them, I can do that quite a bit as a sorcerer. Even as an arcane sorcerer I usually pick up synesthesia at level 8 with crossblooded. It's too good to pass up.
Sorc is also good for setting up a synesthesia or other spell because both Demoralize or Bon Mot are one action activities based on charisma. So I can build up Diplomacy or Intimidate to be a good face man for social situations and to hit a creature with them before I launch a spell on them.
I can also build up intelligence if I want to craft scrolls or build up Arcana Skill. I rarely do as an Arcane sorcerer because I don't really need to do it. A decent staff or wand and I have enough extra casting to do the job.
Focused ability boosts: I focus my ability boosts on Dex, Con, Wis, and Cha. Keeps them all on high value stats.
That's why I rate the sorcerer a much better choice than the wizard. I've built quite a few sorcerers. They perform in combat, the primary focus of my particular group, much better than the wizard. Having four slots to spend four high value combat spells as needed is something the wizard can't much compete with in battle.
I don't see the value of having an extra highest level slot. If I'm level 10 and I have 3 slots, a fourth spell blended 5th slot, and an arcane bond, who cares if I need to cast slow 4 times to make the boss battle easy.
All this talk of spell slots the wizard has is something I haven't found to be true because the wizard's slots are set and don't change. The sorcerer can cast the spell he needs a bunch of times from four choices on demand.
The sorcerer has what I refer to as effective versatility. Whereas the wizard has what I call theoretical versatility. In theory, they could match the sorcerer, but in practice they do not.
Spell substitution is good in theory just like most of the PF2's Wizard's anything. But in actual practice, well more often than not its not needed and if it is needed than waiting 10 minutes is usually too late or its just there to save time (not waiting until morning for utility).Now this is something I have to strongly disagree with. There's a huge difference between waiting 10 minutes or till the next day. I don't think neither the GM nor the martials would play along very often, when the caster always wants to wait another day to solve the next obstacle, especially when each party member has to overcome it and the martials already did, or if it is an optional one.
Yeah. That is not happening unless there is some absolute need to wait. If the wizard can't change spells in 10 minutes or a few 10 minute breaks, then we're going in unless that spell is absolutely positively going to change things substantially. We're not waiting a day just so the wizard can be slightly more effective for personal reasons.
The sorcerer has what I refer to as effective versatility. Whereas the wizard has what I call theoretical versatility. In theory, they could match the sorcerer, but in practice they do not.Well, if the focus of the game is combat, then obviously spontaneous casting is going to be way better than prepared casting, since it's whole shtick is being flexible on the fly, while prepared casting is flexible in the long run. The game is meant to have 3 parts, Combat, Exploration and Downtime. If one or two parts of the trio fall flat, then that will affect the way certain elements will work. It's fine when your table likes to play that way, but that is why the different options exist.
I agree that the wizard needs some love for many reasons. But as I said before, turning him into a semi spontaneous caster or even pseudo sorcerer is not what I would like to see. What I also don't want to see is certain elements of the class being changed in a way that there again are good and bad options. Instead I would like to create new options and elevate existing options so that we can have the concepts like the Minion Commander, the Spell Tinkerer, the Artifact Wielder (aka Crafter/Magic Item user), the Mentalist, the Anti Mage, the Jack of all Trades and many more. I want all those options not only viable, but not depending on the same 2 or 3 mandatory feats or spells.
This is also my answer to the previously asked question about what the wizard should be from a conceptional point of view: Casters that understand magic better than any other class with allows them to do stuff with spells, that nobody else can. (not more powerful stuff, unique stuff)
As for the spontaneous Wizard, there is already the option of the Flexible Spellcaster archetype. If that is too weak or not appealing to play, that is a whole different topic in my opinion and should be separated from the discussion of the Wizard class. Obviously any changes for the wizard would affect that archetype as well though...
I don't know why they came up with this Exploration and Downtime three parts things for what old school gamers like myself look at as role-play material. I guess it codified something we were all doing since the beginning.
For old school players like my group, creative thinking and not rules dictate downtime and exploration. So we prefer to handle it often without rolls unless it is something simple like Diplomacy or Stealth rolls.
If one my players comes up with a really cool exploration or downtime method of solving a problem, I'm not going to fail them because they missed a skill roll. The creativity of someone's idea is more important than the rolls or the spells or what not.
When I started playing these games, creativity was rewarded with success, not stifled by excessive rolling. I understand some groups aren't interested in this type of play, so its easier to solve an issue with a spell or a skill roll. I'm not going to bug them about as not everyone wants to be heavily engaged mentally in the game. A few rolls and they're happy.
But at least three of the players in my group are used to solving things with creative ideas. I reward those ideas with automatic success. If the lie to the guard is so good that I can't deny it, it's going to work. If the player comes up with a great idea like sliding the portable hole under the door to gain entry as my buddy did years ago, then it's going to work.
A big part of the fun of tabletop RPGs is creative roleplay that isn't necessarily decided by rolls. You let it work because the idea is so cool and works so well in a story that it works.
I imagine this is part of why Raving Dork lets familiars do more than the rules would indicate. Because he wants to make familiars fun for his players and encourage them to use them creatively.
That's how I view downtime. So if a wizard player likes being the guy who comes with a great spell for travel or handling an issue, then their personal preference dictates class preference over mechanical advantages.
I have a player right now making a lot of inferior mechanical decisions to have more fun with his RP options. I roll with it as a DM and create situations for him to shine without trying to punish him for weaker mechanical decisions.
The sorcerer has what I refer to as effective versatility. Whereas the wizard has what I call theoretical versatility. In theory, they could match the sorcerer, but in practice they do not.Well, if the focus of the game is combat, then obviously spontaneous casting is going to be way better than prepared casting, since it's whole shtick is being flexible on the fly, while prepared casting is flexible in the long run. The game is meant to have 3 parts, Combat, Exploration and Downtime. If one or two parts of the trio fall flat, then that will affect the way certain elements will work. It's fine when your table likes to play that way, but that is why the different options exist.
I agree that the wizard needs some love for many reasons. But as I said before, turning him into a semi spontaneous caster or even pseudo sorcerer is not what I would like to see. What I also don't want to see is certain elements of the class being changed in a way that there again are good and bad options. Instead I would like to create new options and elevate existing options so that we can have the concepts like the Minion Commander, the Spell Tinkerer, the Artifact Wielder (aka Crafter/Magic Item user), the Mentalist, the Anti Mage, the Jack of all Trades and many more. I want all those options not only viable, but not depending on the same 2 or 3 mandatory feats or spells.
This is also my answer to the previously asked question about what the wizard should be from a conceptional point of view: Casters that understand magic better than any other class with allows them to do stuff with spells, that nobody else can. (not more powerful stuff, unique stuff)
As for the spontaneous Wizard, there is already the option of the Flexible Spellcaster archetype. If that is too weak or not appealing to play, that is a whole different topic in my opinion and should be separated from the discussion of the Wizard class. Obviously any changes for the wizard would affect that archetype as well though...
I made the wizard spontaneous and it did not fix them with my group. They seemed to have become a more flexible sorcerer with bad focus spells and feats and intel as a main stat.
I'm really not sure what they can do to make the wizard something worth playing from the viewpoint of an optimizer. I'm lost at this point. Maybe leave it for that handful that like the way the class plays and aren't worried about mechanical advantages. My group will ignore the wizard for this edition like they did the fighter in PF1 as other than a dip class.
Every edition seems to have a few classes that are bottom tier classes some play because they enjoy the concept and the playstyle. Wizard will be that class in PF2.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Besides the obvious like... actually decent focus spells, I think this thread does a good job laying out how to fix the wizard.
All we have to do is look at the gap between people who think wizards are strong and at people who think wizards are weak:
The people who are praising the wizard the most are the ones who have GMs that go out of their way to make the Wizard good. We see players talking about having plenty of scrolls, lots of extra spells in their books, and ample foreknowledge of what's to come to maximize their ability to prepare. Under these optimized, almost white-room conditions, the wizard is actually quite effective.
The people criticizing the wizard the most are the ones who don't have GMs bending over backwards to accommodate them and are playing closer to the baseline of the class. A wizard who only knows two spells per level, doesn't have a staff, and doesn't know what they're going to encounter tomorrow struggles to maintain relevancy.
... So I think a good step in improving it is bringing these extremes closer together. The remaster is doing part of this actually, by adding a few extra spells to your spellbook and apparently buffing magical shorthand to make learning spells easier.
Another suggestion I've seen on the forum is spell sub as something you can do quicker but with a cooldown. If you could substitute on the fly with a frequency or some other limitation, then wizards could experience more of that 'silver bullet' gameplay even if they aren't lucky enough to have a GM spoon feeding them encounter lists like some players here do and without relying on awkward 'see the enemy then back off for ten minutes' scenarios that aren't always plausible.
It's not a perfect solution and doesn't address deeper problems with the Wizard, like concerns over feats, character flavor, or the fundamental problems with Vancian casting, but it does highlight how to make the clas look good.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Besides the obvious like... actually decent focus spells, I think this thread does a good job laying out how to fix the wizard.
All we have to do is look at the gap between people who think wizards are strong and at people who think wizards are weak:
The people who are praising the wizard the most are the ones who have GMs that go out of their way to make the Wizard good. We see players talking about having plenty of scrolls, lots of extra spells in their books, and ample foreknowledge of what's to come to maximize their ability to prepare. Under these optimized, almost white-room conditions, the wizard is actually quite effective.
The people criticizing the wizard the most are the ones who don't have GMs bending over backwards to accommodate them and are playing closer to the baseline of the class. A wizard who only knows two spells per level, doesn't have a staff, and doesn't know what they're going to encounter tomorrow struggles to maintain relevancy.
I dislike that you paint the GMs who actually follow the guidelines of the game as "going out of their way to make the Wizard good" or "bending over backwards to accomodate them".
A GM who does not allow a Fighter to get Runes will likewise greatly hamper the efficiency of the PC.
Does not mean the Fighter class is bad.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
A GM who does not allow a Fighter to get Runes will likewise greatly hamper the efficiency of the PC.Does not mean the Fighter class is bad.
I feel like this comparison really undermines the point you were trying to make, because these aren't equivalents and trying to make them sound as such is pretty disingenuous.
Its relatively easy for a good-faith GM who isn't giving due consideration to a Wizard player to accidentally limit the classes playability in a number of ways.
This the same as just not giving out runes, which are a fundamental expectation for literally every class and the game math assumes both access and use.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even when the GM is friendly, the wizard doesn't shine as far as I have seen.
At higher levels there have been tons of times where I've chain casted slow or synesthesia to make winning easy. The wizard has trouble doing that from their slots compared to a spontaneous caster with signature spells.
It is so rare you need more than 2 or 3 high value spells to win 99% of fights. So being able to chain cast those high value spells is much more valuable than having a bunch of different spells. The wizard ends up slotting those spells a bunch of times just to keep up.
The only place I've seen the wizard clearly shine is downtime or exploration where changing out spells can be done easily and they can use spells a spontaneous caster would never make to do things like spy or make a magic mailbox or cast a telepathic bond. They're good if you want to use a roleplay sort of spell to integrate in some interesting wrinkle to your plans. Not necessary, but can add a cool element to your downtime.
All that being said, Spell Substitution should be a class feature. Having to take a thesis when you get only one to do something a wizard should be able to do as a basic class feature is a hard to understand design choice. Wizard's have had a Spell Substitution equivalent for over a decade of 3E and PF1 and now it gets turned into this single thesis that locks you in? Just doesn't make much sense.
|
|
It is beyond me why this thread continues at this point. No offense meant to those participating but ... the ink on the Remaster changes has been dry since before they even announced that it was happening and none of these suggestions are doing anything other than maybe recycling overblown hype in anticipation of the final changes that we already pretty much know are minor and far less sugary/sweet than what is being requested.
I get that it's kinda disappointing that there wasn't a public call to action for specific criquiqes, suggestions, and feedback in advance of the Remaster let alone a playtest but since they mentioned that the books are already done and off to the printer this whole thread strikes me as "hoping in one hand" and I think most of us know how the rest of that adage goes.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is beyond me why this thread continues at this point. No offense meant to those participating but ... the ink on the Remaster changes has been dry since before they even announced that it was happening and none of these suggestions are doing anything other than maybe recycling overblown hype in anticipation of the final changes that we already pretty much know are minor and far less sugary/sweet than what is being requested.
I get that it's kinda disappointing that there wasn't a public call to action for specific criquiqes, suggestions, and feedback in advance of the Remaster let alone a playtest but since they mentioned that the books are already done and off to the printer this whole thread strikes me as "hoping in one hand" and I think most of us know how the rest of that adage goes.
The point of this thread in particular was ask how would YOU remaster the Wizard.
Pointing out the book is already printed is... you know, irrelevant.
A GM who does not allow a Fighter to get Runes will likewise greatly hamper the efficiency of the PC.Does not mean the Fighter class is bad.
I feel like this comparison really undermines the point you were trying to make, because these aren't equivalents and trying to make them sound as such is pretty disingenuous.
Its relatively easy for a good-faith GM who isn't giving due consideration to a Wizard player to accidentally limit the classes playability in a number of ways.
This the same as just not giving out runes, which are a fundamental expectation for literally every class and the game math assumes both access and use.
I also hope that the work done on recalling knowledge, and possibly a revisiting of how to help the GM understand that there are expectations on them to help make the game fun for everyone (and advice for how to do that) helps alleviate the pain points of a class that some players are having frustration with.
(Not in response to old man robot) I really don’t think it makes any sense, even if you believe in a meta analysis that there are only a few spells worth casting in PF2, to push for wizards to be more like another class that is already good at spamming the same 5 or 6 spells with all of their slots. Like if you believe the problem is that there are not enough good spells, it just doesn’t make sense to be talking about class design at all.
Edit: I did suggest in the beginning of this thread that it might be more productive for this to be a homebrew thread if the OP was mostly interested in soliciting player ideas for ways the wizard could be changed to fit the expectations of individual players.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its relatively easy for a good-faith GM who isn't giving due consideration to a Wizard player to accidentally limit the classes playability in a number of ways.
This the same as just not giving out runes, which are a fundamental expectation for literally every class and the game math assumes both access and use.
P564: "The scroll’s rarity matches the spell’s rarity."
If your GM is not making 'common spell' scrolls as easily available as runes or heck even basic swords, then they are not meeting "a fundamental expectation for literally every class" either.
Now I agree that a well-meaning GM coming from a different game where magic items are rarer might not be as *familiar* with PF2E rules and settings expectations for consumable magic items as they are for, say, regular equipment. PF2E is a high-magic-item setting. Not every GM is used to that. But once the PF2E setting is understood, there should be no such limitations. For games where scrolls are not readily available, the analogy Raven Black is pointing out is true; the wizard is getting ganked not by the rules, but by a table-based GM fiat directly comparable to a GM withholding runes...or even just withholding longswords. Because 'like runes and longswords' is exactly the commonality the game assumes for (most) scrolls.
This is not limited to just the disruption of scrolls in rewards.
There are a number of points which were talked about upthread which can be susceptible to a high degree of table variance that impact Wizard performance more than many classes.
Hell, its not even particular table variance, it can be session variance which can be altered by party make up.
Get the most out of a Wizard, you just need a lot more cooperation from a GM than most other classes ask for or would even need. Which is an ask, not an expectation.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I dislike that you paint the GMs who actually follow the guidelines of the game as "going out of their way to make the Wizard good" or "bending over backwards to accomodate them".
Inadvertently I think this helps highlight the tension I'm talking about:
You consider things like well spaced downtime, reasonable access to foreknowledge, and freedom to choose gear to be implicitly core guidelines of the game. Instinctively it makes sense, we want to take these extra steps for our players, but it's important to recognize that they are extra. Premade adventures can be haphazard on all fronts, so it's not like we have clear indications that Paizo intends for us to run it one way or not the other.
A GM who does not allow a Fighter to get Runes will likewise greatly hamper the efficiency of the PC.
That's a fairly poor point of comparison though.
Runes are a baseline expectation of the game's math and even the wizard will want some. There is no baseline expectation for how many extra spells a wizard should get in their spellbook, nor for many of the other points of contention brought up here. That is, in fact, the point of the observation in the first place.
It is beyond me why this thread continues at this point. No offense meant to those participating but ... the ink on the Remaster changes has been dry since before they even announced that it was happening and none of these suggestions are doing anything other than maybe recycling overblown hype in anticipation of the final changes that we already pretty much know are minor and far less sugary/sweet than what is being requested.
I get that it's kinda disappointing that there wasn't a public call to action for specific criquiqes, suggestions, and feedback in advance of the Remaster let alone a playtest but since they mentioned that the books are already done and off to the printer this whole thread strikes me as "hoping in one hand" and I think most of us know how the rest of that adage goes.
I mean realistically outside of playtests (and even then for the most part) 99% of anything anyone says on these forums will have zero impact on what Paizo does. It's more about having a conversation for its own sake than actually trying to create meaningful change.
It is beyond me why this thread continues at this point. No offense meant to those participating but ... the ink on the Remaster changes has been dry since before they even announced that it was happening and none of these suggestions are doing anything other than maybe recycling overblown hype in anticipation of the final changes that we already pretty much know are minor and far less sugary/sweet than what is being requested.
I get that it's kinda disappointing that there wasn't a public call to action for specific criquiqes, suggestions, and feedback in advance of the Remaster let alone a playtest but since they mentioned that the books are already done and off to the printer this whole thread strikes me as "hoping in one hand" and I think most of us know how the rest of that adage goes.
Are you sure nothing has been integrated? This thread to me is venting until we see the final remaster. We don't know what all is in there. Maybe a few ideas did get incorporated.
This is hardly the first thread calling out wizard problems. Threads of this kind have been made since PF2 was released. I would hope the Paizo designers have listened to some of the complaints.
At least a re-design of some of the focus spells would be nice.
If the wizard comes out with minor, useless changes to focus spells and class features, I guess they intend it to be the lame class of this edition. I guess the threads will continue until they really fix it with maybe an Unchained book or something.
I still hold out hope the witch and wizard will get some substantial improvements. We just haven't seen them yet because the Remaster isn't out.
I don't think a GM needs to bend over backwards to accommodate wizards because plenty of APs do it already. Outside of Age of Ashes and Extinction Curse I haven't seen "gauntlet of surprise encounters" as the default. APs are notoriously reluctant to put time pressure on you in my experience. And if you can identify a specific encounter where preparing a different spell will shine, you can often just go try another door instead to round out your adventuring day.
Whether you get foreshadowing of an encounter can vary between GMs, but there are a lot of player options that can provide you that Intel, and many of them are wizard options.
It doesn't have anything to do with the GM. It is dependent on the group and the individual playing the wizard.
Some people like the wizard style of play and being able to change spells to solve problems. They don't care about focus spells or class abilities. They want to sift their spell list for interesting ways to solve problems. The wizard can do this and if the group is willing to work with them, then they can have a decent time playing a wizard.
From my perspective, I'd like the wizard to get better focus spells and some small upgrades in the chassis like Spell Substitution being a class feature. That's about as much as is needed to make them a very playable class. Better feats might help too, but doubt they change their feats too much in the remaster.