Michael Sayre on Casters, Balance and Wizards, from Twitter

[Old_Man_Robot]

Recently Michael Sayre posted the below on balance, design and notably Wizards.

Michael Sayre wrote:

An interesting anecdote from PF1 that has some bearing on how #Pathfinder2E came to be what it is:

Once upon a time, PF1 introduced a class called the arcanist. The arcanist was regarded by many to be a very strong class. The thing is, it actually wasn't.

For a player with even a modicum of system mastery, the arcanist was strictly worse than either of the classes who informed its design, the wizard and the sorcerer. The sorcerer had significantly more spells to throw around, and the wizard had both a faster spell progression and more versatility in its ability to prepare for a wide array of encounters. Both classes were strictly better than the arcanist if you knew PF1 well enough to play them to their potential.

What the arcanist had going for it was that it was extremely forgiving. It didn't require anywhere near the same level of system mastery to excel. You could make a lot more mistakes, both in building it and while playing, and still feel powerful. You could adjust your plans a lot more easily on the fly if you hadn't done a very good job planning in advance. The class's ability to elevate the player rather than requiring the player to elevate the class made it quite popular and created the general impression that it was very strong.

It was also just more fun to play, with bespoke abilities and little design flourishes that at least filled up the action economy and gave you ways to feel valuable, even if the core chassis was weaker and less able to reach the highest performance levels.

In many TTRPGs and TTRPG communities, the options that are considered "strongest" are often actually the options that are simplest. Even if a spellcaster in a game like PF1 or PF2 is actually capable of handling significantly more types and kinds of challenges more effectively, achieving that can be a difficult feat. A class that simply has the raw power to do a basic function well with a minimal amount of technical skill applied, like the fighter, will generally feel more powerful because a wider array of players can more easily access and exploit that power.

This can be compounded when you have goals that require complicating solutions. PF2 has goals of depth, customization, and balance. Compared to other games, PF1 sacrificed balance in favor of depth and customization, and 5E forgoes depth and limits customization. In attempting to hit all three goals, PF2 sets a very high and difficult bar for itself. This is further complicated by the fact that PF2 attempts to emulate the spellcasters of traditional TTRPG gaming, with tropes of deep possibility within every single character.

It's been many years and editions of multiple games since things that were actually balance points in older editions were true of d20 spellcasters. D20 TTRPG wizards, generally, have a humongous breadth of spells available to every single individual spellcaster, and their only cohesive theme is "magic". They are expected to be able to do almost anything (except heal), and even "specialists" in most fantasy TTRPGs of the last couple decades are really generalists with an extra bit of flavor and flair in the form of an extra spell slot or ability dedicated to a particular theme.

So bringing it back to balance and customization: if a character has the potential to do anything and a goal of your game is balance, it must be assumed that the character will do all those things they're capable of. Since a wizard very much can have a spell for every situation that targets every possible defense, the game has to assume they do, otherwise you cannot meet the goal of balance. Customization, on the other side, demands that the player be allowed to make other choices and not prepare to the degree that the game assumes they must, which creates striations in the player base where classes are interpreted based on a given person's preferences and ability/desire to engage with the meta of the game. It's ultimately not possible to have the same class provide both endless possibilities and a balanced experience without assuming that those possibilities are capitalized on.

So if you want the fantasy of a wizard, and want a balanced game, but also don't want to have the game force you into having to use particular strategies to succeed, how do you square the circle? I suspect the best answer is "change your idea of what the wizard must be." D20 fantasy TTRPG wizards are heavily influenced by the dominating presence of D&D and, to a significantly lesser degree, the works of Jack Vance. But Vance hasn't been a particularly popular fantasy author for several generations now, and many popular fantasy wizards don't have massively diverse bags of tricks and fire and forget spells. They often have a smaller bag of focused abilities that they get increasingly competent with, with maybe some expansions into specific new themes and abilities as they grow in power. The PF2 kineticist is an example of how limiting the theme and degree of customization of a character can lead to a more overall satisfying and accessible play experience. Modernizing the idea of what a wizard is and can do, and rebuilding to that spec, could make the class more satisfying to those who find it inaccessible.

Of course, the other side of that equation is that a notable number of people like the wizard exactly as the current trope presents it, a fact that's further complicated by people's tendency to want a specific name on the tin for their character. A kineticist isn't a satisfying "elemental wizard" to some people simply because it isn't called a wizard, and that speaks to psychology in a way that you often can't design around. You can create the field of options to give everyone what they want, but it does require drawing lines in places where some people will just never want to see the line, and that's difficult to do anything about without revisiting your core assumptions regarding balance, depth, and customization.

[Ascalaphus]

I think it's an interesting analysis. He certainly has a point about perception of power on "obvious" classes like fighter (to hit) and thaumaturge (high single hit damage) versus more subtle ones (monk, bard).

But where I'm not sure I follow is in how it still seems like wizards are singled out for "rebalancing" compared to other casters.

Is the arcane list really better than the occult or primal list? Do wizards really get that much more magic per day? I don't see it. So then why do they need to be saddled with bad armor, bad saves, bad hit points and bad feats even in comparison to cleric, bard and druid?

[Old_Man_Robot]

The reason I've posted the above, apart from just circulating it on platforms other than Twitter, is, naturally, to make a response.

There are several things I would challenge in the above, however I'm only going to talk about the main one. As it is the crux of the problem with Wizards overall.

Quote:

if a character has the potential to do anything and a goal of your game is balance, it must be assumed that the character will do all those things they're capable of. Since a wizard very much can have a spell for every situation that targets every possible defense, the game has to assume they do, otherwise you cannot meet the goal of balance.

The assumption of perfect fore knowledge and prefect preparation has been an issue with Wizards since the game started. The reason this is an issue is because the game apparently assumes you have something which is largely impossible for you to have.

It has created an inverse reward structure for Wizards. The game penalizes you if you "fail" to have perfect fore knowledge of events where it rewards others for thinking ahead. Instead of being rewarded for good planning, scouting and preparation, those things are expected of them to a fault. If they don't do this, they can find themselves lock-out of meaningful interactions with encounters and feeling useless.

Also, lets face it, being able to target every defence isn't actually a hard thing to do for any caster. Its a bit harder for some than others, but its something literally every caster is capable of. My Fighter, in Stolen Fates, targets every defence for goodness sake! Every caster needs a spread of options for every defence, this isn't exclusively a Wizards domain. Divine struggles most of all in this, but its still possible. Occult and Primal largely don't have issues. They have more limited options, but if we aren't going to examine the quality of those options, merely access, then we have an issue where it feels like the burden of the cost-of-access is being too heavily applied to the Wizard.

Wizards, as a class, simply don't have the tools to engage with the system in a way the system apparently expects of them.

- If the Wizard was a knowledge class, with actual abilities which rewarded and provided benefits for RK checks, then maybe.

- If Spell Substitution was a general class feature, and had some mechanic that allowed for more than 1 spell per 10 minutes, then maybe.

- If the Wizard had some sort of foreknowledge ability which gave them clues into the encounters they might experience in the coming day, then maybe.

- If the Wizard had a wide array of useful, evergreen, focus spells which they could fall back on when preparation has failed, to get them through the encounter, then maybe.

Instead, the Wizard has or is none of these things.

On top of this, the new Curriculum spell slot change is now actively working against the vision laid out above. A toolbox caster who can "do it all" while having 25% of their spell slots no longer able to be prepared with a wide variety of spells to get the job done, is now worse at this role than before.

The Wizard simply isn't setup mechanically to be successful in the role they are being pushed into, and instead its strength is being pushed towards the player and GM working together to ensure playability.

[Old_Man_Robot]

Ascalaphus wrote:

But where I'm not sure I follow is in how it still seems like wizards are singled out for "rebalancing" compared to other casters.

Is the arcane list really better than the occult or primal list? Do wizards really get that much more magic per day? I don't see it. So then why do they need to be saddled with bad armor, bad saves, bad hit points and bad feats even in comparison to cleric, bard and druid?

This is one of my issues with it as well.

As much as the post is railing against legacy assumptions of what a Wizard is, it seems to be disproportionally levying the versatility-tax on them for those same said legacy assumptions.

[The Raven Black]

The Arcane list in PF2 is far wider than it needs to be precisely so that PF2 Wizards could still do much of the same things (thematically-speaking, not power-wise) as the PF1 Wizards.

BTW were the PF1 Wizards that much better equipped with foreknowledge of what they day's challenges were going to be ?

Or is the issue something else, like number of slots, power level of some staple PF1 spells, the Incapacitation trait, the Rarity system ...

[3-Body Problem]

The Raven Black wrote:

BTW were the PF1 Wizards that much better equipped with foreknowledge of what they day's challenges were going to be ?

Or is the issue something else, like number of slots, power level of some staple PF1 spells, the Incapacitation trait, the Rarity system ...

In a word: Yes. PF2 has dramatically cut back on the efficacy of divination as well as removing the Wizard's ability to leave spell slots unprepared and fill them once they obtain information via said divinations. The PF1 Wizard could do in a day what it takes a PF2 Wizard multiple days to do less well because they could start their day, by preparing the required number of divination spells to gather knowledge while leaving the rest of their slots unfilled, using those divination spells to gatherer the knowledge needed to be ready for the challenges ahead, and then fill their leftover slots with precisely the spells needed to best the challenges they just gathered the information about.

The PF2 Wizard has worse information-gathering tools, no ability to leave slots open for if they do get actionable information midway through an adventuring day, and their answers to the problems they do know about aren't as reliable even in their best-case scenario. On top of this, they also have fewer spell slots, and access to fewer spells to put in those slots, and the spells they do have access to are weaker.

The Wizard got nailed on multiple axes that simply don't impact any other spellcasting class to the same degree. The Cleric doesn't need to plan ahead to know that they should slot buffs and healing spells. The Sorcerer needs to plan ahead for all possible cases rather than today's specific one. The Druid isn't expected to rely solely on spells for their contribution to the party. The Bard wasn't even traditionally a full caster and had a ton of class features and skills to make them useful even with no spells prepared.

Paizo and Michael are operating under this odd assumption that they needed to nerf every aspect of the Wizard when they should have done the hard work of figuring out what nerfs were actually needed or asked the hard question, "Should PF2 even support this style of class design at all?"

[Parry]

This assumption of perfect knowledge is something of a strawman. I don't think anyone necessarily thinks that perfect knowledge is required or expected for the wizard to be effective. As someone in the reddit on this pointed out, at some point the discourse on casters shifted from "targeting not the best defense" to be effective to "it is 100% necessary to target the worst defense or you are a terrible team member."

Being broadly prepared to target multiple defenses is the goal. Specialization can be viable in certain contexts, but as for ALL 2e options, this type of overspecialization was specifically designed against. If you feel it effected the wizard, that is an artifact from previous edition as much as anything else.

[Old_Man_Robot]

The Raven Black wrote:

BTW were the PF1 Wizards that much better equipped with foreknowledge of what they day's challenges were going to be ?

Or is the issue something else, like number of slots, power level of some staple PF1 spells, the Incapacitation trait, the Rarity system ...

The problem has always been an intersectional one, so there is no one single pressure at work.

Doing the necessary work of bringing magic down from PF1 levels meant the problem had to be worked from multiple different angles, and that was exactly what was done.

The foreknowledge issue could be bypassed largely in PF1 by two primary factors:
- 1) Spells that could solve all problems without it really having to care what or who you were facing
- 2) A ton of fully enabled, level spread, spell slots which could scale to crazt amounts. Meaning that the ability to prepare a vast array of spells was always open.

Both these options are now gone, so the Wizard literally can't play how they used to.

This is fine in and of itself, if the Wizard had the tools to enable them play to their designed role in other ways. But those tools haven't materalised.

PF1 Wizards could eventually power threw all the problems they could or would ever face. This is simply not possible in PF2. And while that, overall, is a good thing, Wizards in particular haven't been given what they need to succeed in a game without them.

Its too much on Player <> GM cooperation and not enough actual class mechanics.

[3-Body Problem]

There's a lot to unpack here.

1) Michael's analysis of the Arcanist vs the Wizard is wrong. The Wizard was capable of solving problems - for lack of a better word - better than the Arcanist could but often couldn't solve as many problems per day and were far slower to act needing hours of daily preparation to do so. In a game where there was only ever one path and thus one key BBEG to defeat this did make Wizards stronger. In a game where the players are always facing multiple threats with no clear expectation that a decapitation attack against the leading force behind a threat would fix things, the Wizard was far behind the Arcanist.

In actual play which was often a mix of these two cases an optimized Wizard would overkill one or two threats per day and then rest up to do it again. The Arcanist could tackle twice, sometimes thrice as many problems in that same span but would have more challenge dealing with each threat because they weren't bringing as much raw force and as many perfect tools to bear.

2) If the design team saw that they were digging themselves a massive pit by including these broad casting traditions and allowing players to play the Batman Wizard, why did they continue with these flawed design choices?

It seems like the designers knew that per-class spell lists and narrow but thematic designs were both more fun and easier to balance when they set out to build PF2. Yet in spite of this, they chose to go the route where all casters always have access to their entire tradition and where they couldn't make any casting class that didn't reach the top rank of spells and have any effectiveness as a caster. They did this all seemingly because they wanted to support the minority of players who really enjoyed playing Batman Wizards...

I don't get why they dug themselves this pit to start with.

3) They assume that even without the same tools they had in PF1 - excellent divination spells and the ability to leave spell slots unprepared to be filled later - a Wizard would still be equally capable of being ready for anything as they were in that system. This was only ever barely true in PF1 where the theoretical spend 8 hours resting, 8 hours planning, 2 hours killing, and 6 hours chilling Wizard could be played it wasn't usually played that way outside of the CharOp boards where people were working in the realm of pure theory knowing it wouldn't and shouldn't ever see play at a real table.

They focused on something that was already more myth than reality in PF1 when designing a system where their fears couldn't happen anyway.

-----

This really shows why Paizo's team of designers needs to hire some data analysts, engineers, and an experienced in-house playtesting team. They get so caught up in solving problems at all costs - make it so Wizards can't trivialize encounters - that they forget the principle of solving said problems with as little force as possible.

Anybody can build a strong bridge that will last 1,000 years. An engineer can do it on time and under budget.

EDIT: There actually seems to be a trend where the PF2 design team ignores their own better designs around - magic items, shields, ability scores, proficiency, etc. - to do what they think the community wants them to do and it ends up being for the worse that they have done so. They so deeply fear becoming the next D&D 4e that they're making a worse game because of it.

[Old_Man_Robot]

Parry wrote:

This assumption of perfect knowledge is something of a strawman. I don't think anyone necessarily thinks that perfect knowledge is required or expected for the wizard to be effective. As someone in the reddit on this pointed out, at some point the discourse on casters shifted from "targeting not the best defense" to be effective to "it is 100% necessary to target the worst defense or you are a terrible team member."

Being broadly prepared to target multiple defenses is the goal. Specialization can be viable in certain contexts, but as for ALL 2e options, this type of overspecialization was specifically designed against. If you feel it effected the wizard, that is an artifact from previous edition as much as anything else.

The problem isn't that casters aren't utilising an array of spells to achieve their goals. Every caster should be, and from my personal table experience, is, making sure they have something that targets all defenses anyhow.

Its that the class design of the Wizard seems to overly levy this design focus on them to the point where the class is weaker than is necessary for the designed space.

Micheal is saying they design the Wizard around always having the correct solution to an encounter problem ready and prepared, because doing otherwise would lead to an unbalanced class.

The counter argument is that, in practical terms, while this is impossible the possability is there. So if the Wizard is already designed with this expectation in mind, then they should have the actual class mechanics to enable this line of play more often.

Currently, the Wizard is one of the few classes that can render themselves largely ineffective in a play session if they prepare wrong or badly. Doubly so if they manage their resources poorly. If the expectation of the Wizard is already at the point where they are assumed to have an answer to a problem, but they actually don't, the class lacks ways to compensate or enable the desired stated.

At the top end, the outcomes of Magic, have also been curtailed. "Magic bullet" solutions, don't really exist anymore. That was an intended and overall good design goal, but it has the knock-on effect that if you design a class to operate in a "Silver Bullet / toolbox" state, the game needs to expect more resource spend to allow this.

With the change to Cirriculum spells, its going to be harder for the Wizard to play in its intended space than beforem with - at the moment - no compensation or reward for doing so.

[Temperans]

I will agree with his statements that people find that classes that are consistent and have a low skill floor to generally by more powerful. I also will agree that if you can do anything than things should be balanced appropriately.

However, I disagree with his statement that wizards were expected to do everything, or that casters in recent games are "generalists that can do anything". Wizards for one was expected to make two types of spells harder to use, and Sin Magic (which has always been popular) straight up removed those spells so you could specialize. Then there is the fact that most players like to have a set theme and that theme is rarely "do anything"; The "do anything" type builds come about because of the system forcing said builds, not because people specifically prefer those builds.

Then his stance that wizards can have "any spell" and thus must be balanced as having all spells. On its face that statement is clearly false because of how spell slots work. While its true that the arcane list is wide, the wizard only has access to a small fragment of it without paying significantly for it, unlike Cleric/Druid who do get all common spells. Furthermore, as has been stated if people are given the ability to play a themed caster they will, so the game expecting perfect knowledge and preparation actively punishes people trying to play to a theme. This then become a self fulfilling prophecy where you only see generalist characters in the game that punishes specialist characters, thus the devs focus more on the generalist characters.

The whole thing ends up feeling like its saying that only wizards deserves to be punished for casters having a potential that class does not actually have. Like the term CoDzilla refers exclusively to Cleric and Druid because they know all their spells, have both damage and healing, and can generally do everything; And yet, those classes are not balanced as if they "can do anything". But the wizard who only knows 2 spells per level, does not have healing, and cannot generally do everything is expected to be perfect. This also applies to martials where the Fighter can in fact do anything because of how the multiclass system has been set up, but they are in no form punished for this versatility.

[Cyouni]

I saw that the Twitter thread was posted and immediately knew the exact same people were going to be in this thread.

[Old_Man_Robot]

Cyouni wrote:

I saw that the Twitter thread was posted and immediately knew the exact same people were going to be in this thread.

Attitudes like this are why threads keep being locked!

[Ruzza]

Yes, it's the people who are tired of the endless spellcaster conversation that are the problem. Not the same three to four people posting relentlessly and antagonistically about them day after day.

[Deriven Firelion]

Mechanically speaking, PF2 is so different than PF1 that having the right spell for the right time is about as useless an ability as having the right weapon for the right creature:

1. Only one thesis allows wizards to switch out spells at a fast enough speed where foreknowledge would assist them during an adventuring day. That is Spell Substitution.

2. The ease of acquiring foreknowledge is vastly reduced as it takes up a spell slot that you might need for the preparation to begin with. So you are already reducing your number of slots using a spell to acquire the foreknowledge to prepare if you happen to have Spell Substitution as your thesis.

3. So are you expected to rely on a rogue or another stealth character to acquire foreknowledge, then the party should sit and wait an entire day for a series of encounters? Or even 10 minutes per room after scouting it?

4. This idea of the wizard used to be real because the wizard had powerful scrying spells with durations long enough to allow extensive preparation. They do not have this now.

5. The arcane sorcerer can also change out a spell a day.

6. Druids, clerics, and witches can change their loadout for a day on top of their focus spells.

7. The arcane sorcerer is better at doing what the wizard does with their feats than the wizard is at doing what the sorcerer does with their feats. Meaning it's far easier for a sorcerer to gain a needed spell for an encounter than for a wizard to spontaneously cast a useful spell for an encounter.

8. The wizard's fantasy role was nerfed across multiple levels.

-base class far fewer slots allowing less diverse spell loading options.

-Arcane list had several powerful spells removed that reduced buffing and other types of effects.

-Incap spells further reduce the effectiveness of the kind of "silver bullet" spells they used to use to impact encounters.

-summons are weaker now preventing them from providing a powerful control mechanism with summons and several of their best summon options were removed when outsiders were gated to the divine list.

-Schools were given weak focus spells providing little support for school themed wizards forcing everyone into Universalist to maximize wizard potential.

-Reduced gold in the game making it comparatively more expensive to build a spellbook and create scroll consumables for on level spells including the terrible action economy of continuously using scrolls in a game where action economy is king.

-No simple weapon proficiency when the game is now built with the idea of using an ancestry feat to supplement weapon options

-Recall knowledge is an action further biting into action economy for wizards wanting to use their intelligence on top of the knowledge often not being particularly useful when the rest of the party unloads on it and it dies without you ever telling them anything useful or actionable.

-Religion and Nature are both wisdom based making them less valuable to an intel-based class for recall knowledge.

-System mastery doesn't make the wizard better. I play with players that have great system mastery who used to make the wizard sing in PF1. Sayre is right that the wizard was more powerful than the arcanist or the sorcerer in the right hands. The same cannot be said of the PF2 wizard.

-Changing out spells in a game like PF2 has not proven to be a worthwhile use of game time or class abilities for the minor bang for the buck of possibly activating a weakness when the martials hit so hard they don't even need the weakness to do the same or more damage.

PF2 combats are fast and furious. PF2 monsters are built to do a lot of damage and take a lot of damage over about 3 to 5 rounds regardless of party loadout. That means if you don't land with a high impact spell (damage, control, or otherwise) within that short time frame, you're just not impacting the game much. So if you blow that prepared slot, it don't work, wizard is doing nothing but maybe using their Bond to try the same thing one time a day for that level.

PF2 is built completely different from PF1. A completely different level of balance. Silver bullet spells are nowhere near as useful as they were in PF1. Short durations, saves every round, incap, immunity, resistance, saves in a tight range of 40 to 60 percent failure, just so many layers of balance to reduce the idea of a "silver bullet" spell working.

I hope they realize the base PF2 changes to the game have really made changing spells and the idea of a "silver bullet" almost non-existent. Now you need some ability to impact within the 3 to 5 round combat range on a near continuous basis, like every fight. Focus spells and innate class abilities do that for a lot of classes.

The martials don't care because they always have their high impact abilities ready to go and could care less about your "silver bullet" spell unless it's a fly to get them up to the creature to hit it.

PF2 is a very different game where the value of what the wizard brings to the table has been greatly reduced across multiple levels of balance.

The high level wizard was a God class for nearly four decades. Now it is a class for the diehards who want to play a class called the wizard regardless of how well it performs comparatively.

It feels so strange to have seen this class's power across editions for four decades and to see this class named wizard that feels so hollow compared to what they once were. No class in PF2 has taken a greater fall from power than the wizard. For those of us that played a high level wizard across every edition of this game, it feels bad.

All the great wizards of D&D's past would not be who they were if they were confined to the PF2 version of a wizard.

[Easl]

Cool OMR, thanks for the post! Some thoughts...

Michael Sayre wrote:

What the arcanist had going for it was that it was extremely forgiving.

I'm not a PF1 expert but in terms of game design, I do agree that there should be a place for 'forgiving' classes. I.e. classes that are either simple enough or straightforward enough that it doesn't require a big tactical lift to be effective. I'm echoing another poster here (Unicore? Not sure...) when I say that for wizard, IMO the best way to achieve that would be to just give them a bunch more spell slots than other casters. This allows the player a lot of flexibility, a lot of options in each round, and doesn't require mastering the ins and outs of a lot of specialized feats or feat combinations. I hear a lot of people saying they want improved wizard feats. Improved is fine. But Paizo doesn't really need to make them coolexcitingnew. Serviceable would be fine...if the class had as its distinguishing trait 'significantly more (non-cantrip) spells can be cast per day than other casters'. But I suspect I may be in a minority on this, at least in comparison to veteran players who are specifically looking for a more *interesting* wizard class along with better balance, rather than just better balance.

Quote:

a fact that's further complicated by people's tendency to want a specific name on the tin for their character. A kineticist isn't a satisfying "elemental wizard" to some people simply because it isn't called a wizard, and that speaks to psychology in a way that you often can't design around

I 90% agree with this. I do think players need to be willing to reskin more often. Instead of picking something by name and complaining that it doesn't represent the named thing the way they want it to, pick the mechanic (weapon, class, whatever) that does what you want and simply rename it in your game. My 10% disagreement is that sometimes players who want to do this may encounter resistance from GMs or other players. So it's not always as simple as resetting your own thinking, sometimes you have to reset other people's thinking too. I have not encountered this resistance myself, so I'm speculating. But to use Sayre's exmaple i can certainly imagine bringing a kineticist to the table, saying your PC is a wizard, and having either the GM say "in this Golarion those are called kineticists, 'wizard' refers to something else" or having the other players unwilling to go along with the reskin. A new *setting* homebrew decision will be just as much of a table discussion as a new rules homebrew decision would be.

[MadScientistWorking]

Quote:

System mastery doesn't make the wizard better. I play with players that have great system mastery who used to make the wizard sing in PF1. Sayre is right that the wizard was more powerful than the arcanist or the sorcerer in the right hands. The same cannot be said of the PF2 wizard.

That's because the metagame of the 1e spellcaster was directly antithetical and quite egotistical to the metagame of 2e.

[3-Body Problem]

MadScientistWorking wrote:

Quote:

System mastery doesn't make the wizard better. I play with players that have great system mastery who used to make the wizard sing in PF1. Sayre is right that the wizard was more powerful than the arcanist or the sorcerer in the right hands. The same cannot be said of the PF2 wizard.

That's because the metagame of the 1e spellcaster was directly antithetical and quite egotistical to the metagame of 2e.

That is a lot of word salad to say what has already been agreed upon.

Nobody thinks the PF1 Wizard should come back. What we're saying is that the myriad nerfs mean that it can't - outside of a player literally reading ahead in the AP - possibly achieve the level of perfect knowledge and preparedness that it was balanced around having. Thus the class is left balanced around something it can't do except by accident and even when played well doesn't reach the highs of other classes.

PF's Wizard is designed badly out of fear for a worst-case scenario that other system nerfs ensured could never happen.

[Temperans]

The Raven Black wrote:

The Arcane list in PF2 is far wider than it needs to be precisely so that PF2 Wizards could still do much of the same things (thematically-speaking, not power-wise) as the PF1 Wizards.

BTW were the PF1 Wizards that much better equipped with foreknowledge of what they day's challenges were going to be ?

Or is the issue something else, like number of slots, power level of some staple PF1 spells, the Incapacitation trait, the Rarity system ...

To answer your specific question first I must preface it by saying that Wizards were not really the best casters in PF1. They were however the most spellcaster of the spellcasters. This is why the term CoDzilla exists in TTRPGs, Cleric and Druid were on a class of their own and truly capable of everything.

All PF1 casters had some amount of access to divination and thus they all had some amount of access to foreknowledge. But that was not required as you could always grab spells based on your theme and unless you faced something that specifically counters you still be useful.

Yes the issue comes from everything listed and more. PF1 casters had the class spells, but they also got more spells with higher casting stats; At max level with 26 in their key stat, full casters had 12 extra spells not including items. All the staple spells got nerfed by removing level scaling which improved not just damage but also duration, range, number of targets, area, etc. Incapacitation trait nerfed the spells that got too strong with DC being based on your level. Rarity sealed up all the staple that could grant knowledge of the enemies, or benefit from said knowledge. Being unable to leave slots empty forces spellcasters to wait 8 hours to change spells. Being unable to apply metamagic while preparing prevents spell manipulation. The nerfs to crafting, overall lackluster items, and making it so you don't require spells for magic items made spellcasters being crafters worse or none existent. The removal of touch AC hurts any spell that only required "just a touch", while making those that use both worse (this is why they had to add the upgrade aspect to Desintegrate).

An example: Disintegrate:

PF2 Disintegrate wrote:

Range: 120 feet

Damage: 12d10+2d10 per spell level
Must make an attack roll, on a crit success save is treated as 1 worse.
Must make a basic save.

PF1 disintegrate wrote:

Range: 100ft +10ft per caster level.

Damage: 2d6 per caster level max 40d6.
Must make a touch attack (can crit).
Must make a save on success only take 5d6.

Looks relatively comparable right? Except they aren't.

PF2 damage caps at 20d10 (40d10) using a 10th level spell. PF1 damage caps at 40d6 (80d6) using a 6th spell, before adding metamagic or class abilities.
PF2 range is always 120 ft. PF1 range is minimum 210 ft and can reach 300 ft as at 6th level spell before adding metamagic or class abilities.
PF2 is also much harder to land and crit, and compensates with losing less damage when they pass the save.

That was one spell, now imagine every spells, every feat that supported those spells, every ability that enhanced those spells, and every item that dealth with those spells being either nerfed or straight up removed.

**************
* P.S. The "god wizard" was a support character that let everyone else do the work while they handled the travel, housing, and other miscellaneous things. That name does not come from being the most powerful or solving all the problems, it came from having the tools needed to help the party. Its Merlin being helpful, while Arthur takes the glory.

**************
* P.S.S. Both games are as egoistical as the players on the table. The difference is in how much teamwork is required just to survive. Regardless system mastery giving you more freedom to build more characters is not antithetical or egoistical to PF2. Quite the opposite, PF2 requires that you get system mastery quickly or else suffer.

Heck PF2 almost expects you to be metagaming, unlike other games where that is frowned upon.

[MEATSHED]

I kind of got annoyed with the idea that arcanist was a weak class because it was more forgiving than the other two. Like being easy to play is a strength and it's still a full caster in 1e which almost brute forces it to being high tier just from that.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

While there are some neat analytical insights, to me, the post essentially reads "The Wizard class is just fine, stop complaining about it being bad, and git gud."

All this does is reaffirm my belief that the designers didn't think there was an issue with the class, and they even acknowledge their apparent weaknesses/flaws, and basically say it's working as intended in the system.

[Old_Man_Robot]

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

While there are some neat analytical insights, to me, the post essentially reads "The Wizard class is just fine, stop complaining about it being bad, and git gud."

All this does is reaffirm my belief that the designers didn't think there was an issue with the class, and they even acknowledge their apparent weaknesses/flaws, and basically say it's working as intended in the system.

More cynically, I think this is the point of this post as well. The same with the upcoming blog post about the Wizard.

The remaster is done, no changing it now. The battle for the Wizard has already been lost, even if the arguments against the design choices were never answered.

Obliviously Paizo hear the complaints and are aware of them. Posts like the above and the blog post are the standard "Get ahead of it" posts that get made before any new product release, so that the release hype doesn't get marred by any foreseeable negative reactions to changes.

I think Paizo have ultimately made mistakes with the Wizard. Mostly because they don't provide it the tools to lean into the role they want it to play, and are putting too much on both the player and GM to make it succeed.

The sad thing is that the Wizard doesn't actually need much to bring it up to a good spot. Some good knowledge mechanics and a way to swap out spells during the day that doesn't cost your thesis option (or even buff Spell Substitution so that it does more).

[breithauptclan]

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

While there are some neat analytical insights, to me, the post essentially reads "The Wizard class is just fine, stop complaining about it being bad, and git gud."

All this does is reaffirm my belief that the designers didn't think there was an issue with the class, and they even acknowledge their apparent weaknesses/flaws, and basically say it's working as intended in the system.

Not sure how you got that from the twitter repost.

What I got from it was more along the lines of, 'it isn't possible to create a Wizard that looks and feels like the PF1 Wizard while still holding to the balance needs of PF2. We created Kineticist to fill a similar role using PF2 mechanics - more limited in effect selection, but has a more forgiving power floor as a result. But since it doesn't have the same class name, people aren't necessarily going to see it as equivalent.'

[Gortle]

Look I agree with a lot of what Michael Sayre is saying here but I do take issue with some points. Yes I'm nit picking as this is a forum, and this is what we do.

Michael Sayre wrote:

For a player with even a modicum of system mastery, the arcanist was strictly worse than either of the classes who informed its design, the wizard and the sorcerer. The sorcerer had significantly more spells to throw around, and the wizard had both a faster spell progression and more versatility in its ability to prepare for a wide array of encounters. Both classes were strictly better than the arcanist if you knew PF1 well enough to play them to their potential. What the arcanist had going for it was that it was extremely forgiving.

I felt it was a trade off of one level slower spell progression for flexibility. I feel that Michaels statement goes too far here, because he uses the word strictly. He is putting too much emphasis on that one top level slot. This is like deciding all those white room analyses that are popular online are a good representation of play experience. They can be insightful but they come with a lot of baked in assumptions. Like good knowledge of what challenges you are facing, average luck, along with the higher player skill he acknowledges.

Michael Sayre wrote:

In many TTRPGs and TTRPG communities, the options that are considered "strongest" are often actually the options that are simplest.

Obviously this is true is some communities. But in an internet enabled reality, the best designs get shared quickly as they as discovered. So in general this is not true. It is not always true in PF2. I mean things like StarLight Span Magus Imaginary Weapon is a relativily complex build. Yes the Fighter might be the best class but that is down to the raw strength and flexibility of +2 to hit. If there was a +3 buried somewhere else, people would be touting that.

Michael Sayre wrote:

D20 TTRPG wizards, generally, have a humongous breadth of spells available to every single individual spellcaster, and their only cohesive theme is "magic". They are expected to be able to do almost anything (except heal), and even "specialists" in most fantasy TTRPGs of the last couple decades are really generalists with an extra bit of flavor and flair in the form of an extra spell slot or ability dedicated to a particular theme.

Isn't that up to game designers to write well themed casters with interesting abilities to make us lean into those themes? There was an attempt to do that with specialists and schools in older D20. There were actual costs associated with specialisation. We could lean into that again. Even further perhaps. Obviously schools are different now. I would like to see a real Illusionist. The PF2 Elementalist that is sad though it got very little in the way of abilities but paid a very high price for them.

Michael Sayre wrote:

if a goal of your game is balance, it must be assumed that the character will do all those things they're capable of. Since a wizard very much can have a spell for every situation that targets every possible defense, the game has to assume they do, otherwise you cannot meet the goal of balance.

So wizards are actually strong but they are just complex. Ok I sort of agree but a lot of other people here don't. But what I object to is assuming that wizards can and do prepare well is overly optimistic. Having good knowledge of your opponent to prepare is not always possible - though I really do appreciate the clarifications Paizo has done for Recall Knowledge. Thank you Michael . Complex characters are harder to get right. It all needs to be balanced up.

I am assuming here the Pazio are trying to grow the game so they are aiming at new players. Assuming optimal game play is too much. Put in a fudge factor there and dial it back a fraction.

Michael Sayre wrote:

Customization, on the other side, demands that the player be allowed to make other choices and not prepare to the degree that the game assumes they must, which creates striations in the player base where classes are interpreted based on a given person's preferences and ability/desire to engage with the meta of the game. It's ultimately not possible to have the same class provide both endless possibilities and a balanced experience without assuming that those possibilities are capitalized on.

There is were I start to really disagree. There is an opportunity cost to each of these possibilities. You can't do them all at once. You have to choose one and not the other. The character doesn't have access to all these things at once. Players do not play perfectly. Some of them are just there for fun.

Michael Sayre wrote:

So if you want the fantasy of a wizard, and want a balanced game, but also don't want to have the game force you into having to use particular strategies to succeed, how do you square the circle? I suspect the best answer is "change your idea of what the wizard must be."

A nice idea but if I know anything about TTRPGs it is that stories and flavour are KING not balance. Good luck trying to move a community. Is this really something for Paizo to try and drive forward?

Michael Sayre wrote:

D20 fantasy TTRPG wizards are heavily influenced by the dominating presence of D&D and, to a significantly lesser degree, the works of Jack Vance. But Vance hasn't been a particularly popular fantasy author for several generations now, and many popular fantasy wizards don't have massively diverse bags of tricks and fire and forget spells.

Vance was never really that popular. His best work was in the fifties. He was a writer for a different generation when D&D became a thing. I certainly don't know of anyone who knew of him before knowing of him through D&D. His influence on the game stuck around because the implementation worked, or at least worked well enough at the time. It is really as Michael says D&D, and popular culture influenced by that, which is driving the fantasy now. Merlin and Gandalf were always a much bigger source of player inspiration than Rialto.

Michael Sayre wrote:

They often have a smaller bag of focused abilities that they get increasingly competent with, with maybe some expansions into specific new themes and abilities as they grow in power. The PF2 kineticist is an example of how limiting the theme and degree of customization of a character can lead to a more overall satisfying and accessible play experience. Modernizing the idea of what a wizard is and can do, and rebuilding to that spec, could make the class more satisfying to those who find it inaccessible.

The Kineticist is very well done. Congratulations on that.

You can't really change the wizard from having a bag of selectable spells that is the core of its identity. I don't see the future of the wizard lies down that path. It would cause too much of a player revolt. If you want to narrow the wizard then give out benefits as you take from it. Lean into the themes the wizard has. Like books, scrolls, meta magic, staves, crafting, secret knowledge. When you create something new, cool and shiny for the wizard. Don't just give it to everyone else for free. Simplification is good. But we need boundaries too. PF2 has been successful balanced precisely because you guys stuck to some tight principles.

A lot of the problems with the wizard where inflicted by Paizo giving out too many toys too easily to everyone. Why trick magic item? It is an almost trivial cost. Why does every caster get to use scrolls? Why aren't there really good boundaries between the 4 traditions of magic? Surely heal is not the only rule for arcane? Why do so many spells belong to 2, 3 and 4 traditions. Anyway these sort of ideas are too major to be in anything less than a new edition. Anyway I presume the Remastered is finalised now. I'll probably just choose to cope with what has been done.

[Calliope5431]

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

The problem isn't that casters aren't utilising an array of spells to achieve their goals. Every caster should be, and from my personal table experience, is, making sure they have something that targets all defenses anyhow.

Its that the class design of the Wizard seems to overly levy this design focus on them to the point where the class is weaker than is necessary for the designed space.

Micheal is saying they design the Wizard around always having the correct solution to an encounter problem ready and prepared, because doing otherwise would lead to an unbalanced class.

The counter argument is that, in practical terms, while this is impossible the possability is there. So if the Wizard is already designed with this expectation in mind, then they should have the actual class mechanics to enable this line of play more often.

Currently, the Wizard is one of the few classes that can render themselves largely ineffective in a play session if they prepare wrong or badly. Doubly so if they manage their resources poorly. If the expectation of the Wizard is already at the point where they are assumed to have an answer to a problem, but they actually don't, the class lacks ways to compensate or enable the desired stated.

I really like this analysis. I do agree that the wizard is first-off built for players with a lot of system mastery...but even if you HAVE a lot of system mastery, I think you can still get jumped, or surprised, or run out of silver bullets (this last one has bedeviled me as a wizard PC several times - if you're fighting a battalion of sonic-vulnerable golems you may run out of sonic before you run out of golems and get to cry).

Or just fail your RK roll. That's one of the bigger issues with designing a class that assumes good prep and knowledge. You can hit a brick wall the moment you fail to identify that thing over there as having an implausibly-high Reflex save for a lumbering colossus. Or that big dumb brute as being entirely immune to mental and not just rolling high on its saves.

But I'm very happy to see Sayre commenting, all the same. Simplicity is a decent point.

PS: remember to stay sane, people! Don't kill each other here, for the love of Sarenrae.

[Ascalaphus]

Yeah to talk about "the prepared wizard can solve anything"... no.

Even if you let the wizard player read the whole adventure and decide spell selection beforehand, they still wouldn't dominate. Nor could any class.

That silver bullet spell you prepared against the boss? His save is good enough that he might just ignore it entirely. Maybe he'll fail and it'll be glorious. But his odds of a success are always gonna be good enough that you can't count on it.

That utility spell that's supposed to solve an entire hazard? Maybe, just maybe. But most of the time, nope, you might get to Counteract it instead of someone else making Disable Device checks. But the DC is gonna be roughly the same and your bonus is gonna be roughly the same.

The silver bullets in this game are made of low-grade silver and we shouldn't budget classes like they're auto-win.

[pixierose]

I...perhaps I am misreading this but this reads more as a rumination on things that have come before rather than a definitive conclusion on where things are going. Looking at the challenges that comes with designing spellcasters and expectations. The post doesn't end with how things should be or where they are going but instead how things have been received, from the perspective of a designer.

An analysis coming from the lead Designer of the playtest Animist class... a class that has been getting a lot of flak from people claiming it is too versatile and too powerful. All because it is trying to be versatile and effective. At least to me this doesn't seem like an argument for the way things are, or that has paizo has done everything right and people need to get in line or shut up about the Wizard like some people have claim.

[Errenor]

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

Recently Michael Sayre posted the below on balance, design and notably Wizards.

Michael Sayre wrote:

... Since a wizard very much can have a spell for every situation that targets every possible defense, the game has to assume they do, otherwise you cannot meet the goal of balance...

And.. Schrodinger's Wizard strikes AGAIN!

I'm really tired of this false narrative. It just doesn't and can't work in PF2. It seems the designers forget all the time that casters have only 4 slots per rank now. Which also... are consumed sometimes. Like, your character doesn't have all these slots all day.
Yes, scrolls and staves exist. No, you still can't have all possible spells for all situations all the time. Not even close. Not even talking about how exhausting and tiresome such preparation would be for the player.

[Cyouni]

Ascalaphus wrote:

Yeah to talk about "the prepared wizard can solve anything"... no.

And see, this is why these threads always have issues - because people take things and warp them into this.

Because what was actually said was:

Quote:

Since a wizard very much can have a spell for every situation that targets every possible defense, the game has to assume they do, otherwise you cannot meet the goal of balance.

This is absolutely and unequivocally true. A martial can target AC, and possibly use Athletics on Fort/Ref. This is very much more limited than the defenses a wizard can target.

[aobst128]

Yep. Applying balance around a hypothetical ceiling that in practice, almost never happens is not really balancing. These types of casters in general have a lot of room to improve before the actual balance of the game is of concern. I don't think I'd complain if 3rd edition made casters like the kineticist though.

[breithauptclan]

Cyouni wrote:

Ascalaphus wrote:

Yeah to talk about "the prepared wizard can solve anything"... no.

And see, this is why these threads always have issues - because people take things and warp them into this.

Because what was actually said was:

Quote:

Since a wizard very much can have a spell for every situation that targets every possible defense, the game has to assume they do, otherwise you cannot meet the goal of balance.

This is absolutely and unequivocally true. A martial can target AC, and possibly use Athletics on Fort/Ref. This is very much more limited than the defenses a wizard can target.

Yup. The important part of that snippet quote is "the game has to assume they do".

Even if everyone - including the game devs - knows that this is an invalid assumption in nearly any practical case. Because it is possible, that becomes the power ceiling that the class has to be balanced with.

[WWHsmackdown]

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

While there are some neat analytical insights, to me, the post essentially reads "The Wizard class is just fine, stop complaining about it being bad, and git gud."

All this does is reaffirm my belief that the designers didn't think there was an issue with the class, and they even acknowledge their apparent weaknesses/flaws, and basically say it's working as intended in the system.

More cynically, I think this is the point of this post as well. The same with the upcoming blog post about the Wizard.

The remaster is done, no changing it now. The battle for the Wizard has already been lost, even if the arguments against the design choices were never answered.

Obliviously Paizo hear the complaints and are aware of them. Posts like the above and the blog post are the standard "Get ahead of it" posts that get made before any new product release, so that the release hype doesn't get marred by any foreseeable negative reactions to changes.

I think Paizo have ultimately made mistakes with the Wizard. Mostly because they don't provide it the tools to lean into the role they want it to play, and are putting too much on both the player and GM to make it succeed.

The sad thing is that the Wizard doesn't actually need much to bring it up to a good spot. Some good knowledge mechanics and a way to swap out spells during the day that doesn't cost your thesis option (or even buff Spell Substitution so that it does more).

Ooooo! There's a remaster blog post on wizard coming up?

[Old_Man_Robot]

Cyouni wrote:

Because what was actually said was:

Quote:

Since a wizard very much can have a spell for every situation that targets every possible defense, the game has to assume they do, otherwise you cannot meet the goal of balance.

This is absolutely and unequivocally true. A martial can target AC, and possibly use Athletics on Fort/Ref. This is very much more limited than the defenses a wizard can target.

Only if you build one that doesn't.

IMO is a bad idea not to build a martial that can target every save with at least something. Max out intimidation, dip Alchemist or Gunslinger for bombs, get a weapon with the trip and/or disarm trait, use snares and talismans.

Its all there.

[Old_Man_Robot]

WWHsmackdown wrote:

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

While there are some neat analytical insights, to me, the post essentially reads "The Wizard class is just fine, stop complaining about it being bad, and git gud."

All this does is reaffirm my belief that the designers didn't think there was an issue with the class, and they even acknowledge their apparent weaknesses/flaws, and basically say it's working as intended in the system.

More cynically, I think this is the point of this post as well. The same with the upcoming blog post about the Wizard.

The remaster is done, no changing it now. The battle for the Wizard has already been lost, even if the arguments against the design choices were never answered.

Obliviously Paizo hear the complaints and are aware of them. Posts like the above and the blog post are the standard "Get ahead of it" posts that get made before any new product release, so that the release hype doesn't get marred by any foreseeable negative reactions to changes.

I think Paizo have ultimately made mistakes with the Wizard. Mostly because they don't provide it the tools to lean into the role they want it to play, and are putting too much on both the player and GM to make it succeed.

The sad thing is that the Wizard doesn't actually need much to bring it up to a good spot. Some good knowledge mechanics and a way to swap out spells during the day that doesn't cost your thesis option (or even buff Spell Substitution so that it does more).

Ooooo! There's a remaster blog post on wizard coming up?

I believe there is going to be a post for each class in Player Core 1 sometime in the next month or so, leading up to the release.

I think the Wizard one is first up!

[breithauptclan]

pixierose wrote:

An analysis coming from the lead Designer of the playtest Animist class... a class that has been getting a lot of flak from people claiming it is too versatile and too powerful.

It is interesting to see how Animist is trying to solve that particular problem. Getting the flexibility, but in large unchangeable blocks.

It limits the flexibility of Animist casting by the number of spell slots available.

Then it also limits the flexibility of Apparition casting by not letting the player choose their spells other than by picking a different Apparition entirely. So, similar to Kineticist, they have a limited selection of effects to choose from.

[Old_Man_Robot]

breithauptclan wrote:

Yup. The important part of that snippet quote is "the game has to assume they do".

Even if everyone - including the game devs - knows that this is an invalid assumption in nearly any practical case. Because it is possible, that becomes the power ceiling that the class has to be balanced with.

So they should give them mechanics to help ensure that maybe?

/Zoidberg

[breithauptclan]

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

breithauptclan wrote:

Yup. The important part of that snippet quote is "the game has to assume they do".

Even if everyone - including the game devs - knows that this is an invalid assumption in nearly any practical case. Because it is possible, that becomes the power ceiling that the class has to be balanced with.

So they should give them mechanics to help ensure that maybe?

/Zoidberg

How does this sound:

Your top two ranks of spell slots have to be filled only with spells from your school.

Now we no longer have to assume that the Wizard can have any spell in the entire PF2 cosmology available to them in combat.

[aobst128]

Wizard does technically have more tools to swap out their spells at higher levels. I've seen it work exactly once. It saved our asses but it's really once in a blue moon where you get the opportunity to swap out a really choice spell. These options should be more generally useful. I kinda like the ability to prepare 2 different spells in one slot. There should be more of that.

[Old_Man_Robot]

breithauptclan wrote:

How does this sound:

Your top two ranks of spell slots have to be filled only with spells from your school.

Now we no longer have to assume that the Wizard can have any spell in the entire PF2 cosmology available to them in combat.

The change to Cirrculum spells already ensures that at least 25% of the Wizards spell slots are drawn from a very narrow selection.

Maybe something like are suggesting could have worked with the old system, but with the Remaster changes, it would simply ruin them.

[SuperBidi]

Balancing efficiency with complexity is a conundrum no game has managed to solve. When you balance a game you have to balance it for "a specific tactical level". Players with that level of tactical acumen will find the game balanced, players with higher tactical acumen will find the complex options stronger and players with low tactical acumen will find the simple options stronger.

PF2 is balanced around a high tactical level. The simplest classes have most love.

PF1 was balanced around a low tactical level. The complex classes had most love.

I hope they'll balance PF3 around a more average tactical level.

[breithauptclan]

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

breithauptclan wrote:

How does this sound:

Your top two ranks of spell slots have to be filled only with spells from your school.

Now we no longer have to assume that the Wizard can have any spell in the entire PF2 cosmology available to them in combat.

The change to Cirrculum spells already ensures that at least 25% of the Wizards spell slots are drawn from a very narrow selection.

Maybe something like are suggesting could have worked with the old system, but with the Remaster changes, it would simply ruin them.

I didn't think you would like it.

I proposed that to illustrate the link between unfettered flexibility, power ceiling, power floor, and the perception of the class due to psychology and 'If it is called a Wizard, it needs to actually be a Wizard like the Wizard I used to play'.

[Cyouni]

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

Only if you build one that doesn't.

IMO is a bad idea not to build a martial that can target every save with at least something. Max out intimidation, dip Alchemist or Gunslinger for bombs, get a weapon with the trip and/or disarm trait, use snares and talismans.

Its all there.

Are you implying that a character with one archetype, a maxed skill, and a specific weapon type is equivalent to one that doesn't have all those requirements?

Not to mention that only does things related to frightened, trip, and disarm. By rank 3 spells, you can target slowed on at least two different saves, damage large AoEs, blind enemies (for a minute, which is basically the whole fight), make groups invisible, open locks, cause stronger fear, etc.

This is unquestionably a larger variety of activities that can target a wider range of defenses. Now, you can absolutely argue that it's not as good as just hitting things (which people may disagree on), but martials definitely do not reach the range of things a caster has available.

[Old_Man_Robot]

breithauptclan wrote:

I didn't think you would like it.

I proposed that to illustrate the link between unfettered flexibility, power ceiling, power floor, and the perception of the class due to psychology and 'If it is called a Wizard, it needs to actually be a Wizard like the Wizard I used to play'.

Sure... but you didn't actually do any of that. Specifically limting one particular class to only being able to cast potentially 2 speific spells for around 2/4 levels of play, without giving them anything in return isn't isn't really a illustrative argument.

[MEATSHED]

Cyouni wrote:

Ascalaphus wrote:

Yeah to talk about "the prepared wizard can solve anything"... no.

And see, this is why these threads always have issues - because people take things and warp them into this.

Because what was actually said was:

Quote:

Since a wizard very much can have a spell for every situation that targets every possible defense, the game has to assume they do, otherwise you cannot meet the goal of balance.

This is absolutely and unequivocally true. A martial can target AC, and possibly use Athletics on Fort/Ref. This is very much more limited than the defenses a wizard can target.

Sure but a sorcerer can also have that. Like wizard isn't weak because its an arcane caster it just doesn't actually do a lot to stand out other than having 1 extra top level slot compared to sorcerer and some of the theses are okay. Like the 3 other prepared casters either get quite strong class abilities or proficiencies and use a more universally useful stat for casting along with just knowing most of their spell list by default (druid and cleric) or are also considered kind of mediocre (witch).

[Old_Man_Robot]

Cyouni wrote:

Are you implying that a character with one archetype, a maxed skill, and a specific weapon type is equivalent to one that doesn't have all those requirements?

Not to mention that only does things related to frightened, trip, and disarm. By rank 3 spells, you can target slowed on at least two different saves, damage large AoEs, blind enemies (for a minute, which is basically the whole fight), make groups invisible, open locks, cause stronger fear, etc.

This is unquestionably a larger variety of activities that can target a wider range of defenses. Now, you can absolutely argue that it's not as good as just hitting things (which people may disagree on), but martials definitely do not reach the range of things a caster has available.

Well no, that's not the argument.

You said

Cyouni wrote:

A martial can target AC, and possibly use Athletics on Fort/Ref. This is very much more limited than the defenses a wizard can target.

My point was simply that its not an unassailable gulf. You can target every save with an impactful ability as a martial. It's there and possible, but you have to build for it.

Its not as easy as it is for Casters, but that is very much the point of being a caster in this edition to begin with.

As a martial you shouldn't limit your options just because its not handed to any given class.

[Easl]

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

breithauptclan wrote:

Yup. The important part of that snippet quote is "the game has to assume they do".

Even if everyone - including the game devs - knows that this is an invalid assumption in nearly any practical case. Because it is possible, that becomes the power ceiling that the class has to be balanced with.

So they should give them mechanics to help ensure that maybe?

/Zoidberg

It's ensured, and honestly not that unrealistic to assume the most broken combinations no matter how complex will be reached by many characters in many games. Because, as Gortle pointed out, "in an internet enabled reality, the best designs get shared quickly as they as discovered."

The "all spells available /= every spell available" criticism is more legit, because unless players pre-read adventures there is no "character design" way to ensure just the right spell is prepped for just the right scene. But in terms of feat combos, archetype combos, etc., yep the designers are not being unreasonable in balancing them under the assumption that the power ceiling will be identified quickly by the community and become a regular build.

[breithauptclan]

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

breithauptclan wrote:

I didn't think you would like it.

I proposed that to illustrate the link between unfettered flexibility, power ceiling, power floor, and the perception of the class due to psychology and 'If it is called a Wizard, it needs to actually be a Wizard like the Wizard I used to play'.

Sure... but you didn't actually do any of that. Specifically limting one particular class to only being able to cast potentially 2 speific spells for around 2/4 levels of play, without giving them anything in return isn't isn't really a illustrative argument.

The point being that with the effect selection more limited, they could be given things to increase their power in that limited scope.

When a Wizard is of Illusion school and only has spells that target Will saves, then it doesn't have that problem of "Since a wizard very much can have a spell for every situation that targets every possible defense,..."

[Old_Man_Robot]

Easl wrote:

It's ensured, and honestly not that unrealistic to assume the most broken combinations no matter how complex will be reached by many characters in many games. Because, as Gortle pointed out, "in an internet enabled reality, the best designs get shared quickly as they as discovered."

The "all spells available /= every spell available" criticism is more legit, because unless players pre-read adventures there is no "character design" way to ensure just the right spell is prepped for just the right scene. But in terms of feat combos, archetype combos, etc., yep the designers are not being unreasonable in balancing them under the assumption that the power ceiling will be identified quickly by the community and become a regular build.

I'm not certain I understand the through-line to the Wizard in particular here.

Could you expand on this a bit for me?

[breithauptclan]

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

Cyouni wrote:

A martial can target AC, and possibly use Athletics on Fort/Ref. This is very much more limited than the defenses a wizard can target.

My point was simply that its not an unassailable gulf. You can target every save with an impactful ability as a martial. It's there and possible, but you have to build for it.

I'm not seeing much that the Fighter class has to target Will saves.

If you are looking at skill feats and archetypes, then that is no longer talking about class balance, but character balance. Yes, building a well-rounded character is a good plan. But that isn't the same as designing a balanced class.

[Old_Man_Robot]

breithauptclan wrote:

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

Cyouni wrote:

A martial can target AC, and possibly use Athletics on Fort/Ref. This is very much more limited than the defenses a wizard can target.

My point was simply that its not an unassailable gulf. You can target every save with an impactful ability as a martial. It's there and possible, but you have to build for it.

I'm not seeing much that the Fighter class has to target Will saves.

If you are looking at skill feats and archetypes, then that is no longer talking about class balance, but character balance. Yes, building a well-rounded character is a good plan. But that isn't the same as designing a balanced class.

Careful not to compare talk of Martials, as in the above quote, to a particular class. As things true on balance for a category might have specific exceptions.

That said, Fighters have access to things like Dazzling Display, and abilties like Intimidating Strike which bypass the will save itself to give the desired result.