| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I may be making a very big mistake in starting this thread so I am asking ahead of time and at the start that this discussion not be about what is wrong, or not wrong, with the wizard. Instead I want to pose the question:
What exactly should the wizard's niche, theme-ing and mechanical identity be? What to you are spells that say "this is a wizard spell" and what kind of class feats and features do you feel are especially wizardy?
To give a couple examples:
The mechanical identity of the wizard in 5e according to Jeremy Crawford is their biggest and best spell list, which is contrasted with sorcerers who get to do more and be experts with their much smaller set of spells
I won't list everything I think a wizard should be here in the op, I'll post that below after reading some answers, but to help give an idea of what I'm looking for I'll say I strongly associate wizards with utility magic such as the spell knock
Beyond what a wizard is to you, I'm interested in what you think a wizard is not? For instance what shouldn't they do or be able to do? What limits should their magic have and what should be the domain of other classes? Easy example is healing ofc. It's as old as d&d that wizards cannot and should not heal, but what else should be outside the purview of the wizard?
I look forward to reading your personal head canons
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Wizard should do Wizard stuff as befits decades of TTRPG tradition. Nothing that was a Wizard's domain should be withheld even if it exists in a weakened state for reasons of balance.
The Wizard should do Wizard stuff as befits decades of TTRPG tradition. Nothing that was a Wizard's domain should be withheld even if it exists in a weakened state for reasons of balance.
Can I get examples of this in broad strokes? What you believe this is? What spells do you think are the most wizardy, what are wizards as characters like, what do you think wizards should not get?
Just to clarify this is a "feelings" thread, there are no wrong answers as to what you think a wizard is, I only would like if people be specific. A lot of people are going to talk about the tradition of the wizard and what it has done for a while, but everyone will have experienced that differently and different aspects will stand out to them as "yeah, that right there, that is the good stuff... the wizard stuff
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Wizard should do Wizard stuff as befits decades of TTRPG tradition. Nothing that was a Wizard's domain should be withheld even if it exists in a weakened state for reasons of balance.Can I get examples of this in broad strokes? What you believe this is? What spells do you think are the most wizardy, what are wizards as characters like, what do you think wizards should not get?
I think, that when it comes to TTRPG Wizards that one cannot separate the spells of editions and systems past from the class itself. A Wizard is what it has been since AD&D firmly set it as what it grew into. It has long since moved away from any representation of other works to stand as its own complete idea.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think, that when it comes to TTRPG Wizards that one cannot separate the spells of editions and systems past from the class itself. A Wizard is what it has been since AD&D firmly set it as what it grew into. It has long since moved away from any representation of other works to stand as its own complete idea.The Wizard should do Wizard stuff as befits decades of TTRPG tradition. Nothing that was a Wizard's domain should be withheld even if it exists in a weakened state for reasons of balance.Can I get examples of this in broad strokes? What you believe this is? What spells do you think are the most wizardy, what are wizards as characters like, what do you think wizards should not get?
Okay, so, to you, what are these things established by tradition you want kept around?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I don't know exactly how this should be represented mechanically but so far neither 5e or PF2e really nails this concept but I like the idea of caster who is kind of like person who studies the world around them and then that knowledge effects how they use their magic. A universalist/generalist also fits in this idea for me where they learn a little bit of everything but aren't better than someone who specialized
I don't really find the old schools of magic that compelling because most of them feel a lot more defined by mechanics than actual theme except for Necromancy and Illusionist.
Should mention I have very little history with DnD stuff apart from 5e and PF2e so my opinion is less rooted in the traditions of DnD/pathfinder
This is exactly what I'm looking for. Thank you for sharing!
Take this with a huge grain of salt as I almost never play Sorcerers and don’t think I have ever played a Wizard. Wizards are outdated and should be consigned to the derivative bins whence Gandaldore and Saurmort derived. The distinction between Sorcerers and Wizards should rather be combined into a spellcasting class that casts a bunch of different ways utilising a bunch of different sources. With the ability to heal.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, so, to you, what are these things established by tradition you want kept around?
You see what PF1 and 3.5 were doing... In a word: That. Not necessarily in terms of raw power but in terms of having broad schools that encompassed all of Arcane magic, having ways to shape that magic, and having by far and away the broadest scope of magic that really only failed to touch on healing and nature.
So I'll give my take here:
The wizard thematic identity ofc is the *magic guy*. He's the dude that sees magic and goes "I'mma hack that s%*#" and goes about learning all kinds of esoteric, philosophical, metaphysical and scientific nonsense to deconstruct whatever magic forces there are and create, or discover, spells. To me they're real weird dudes. Mechanically I personally think that outside combat they are analogous to rogues in how rogues are skill monkeys allowing them to be a little swiss army knife, the wizard is just a spell monkey instead. To me I think the question should be "do we have a rogue or a wizard for x, y, and z" challenges. A wizard might identify magic, dispell magical traps and magical locks, maybe even pick mundane locks with spells, use something like the floating disc to hold loot, use spells to understand and speak to people in different languages, get people up to high up places with levitate or something. In combat I think the domain of wizards is controlling the battlefield first and foremost along with summons, a little bit of damage spells, and limited access to debuffs, and very few buffs particularly numeric buffs. I think they should have no access to healing, condition removal, bringing things back to life, and they probably shouldn't by default specialize in creating undead. To me the most iconic wizard spells are the wall spells, summon spells, magic missile, knock, floating disc, black tentacles and grease. I also think they shouldn't be fantastic at dealing with haunts, but that they can maybe "brute force" it. An occult or divine specialist might be able to commune with the spirits of a haunt like a medium or something and put them to rest, but a wizard might have significantly less tact in their approach and thus have a harder time
Part of what I think facilitates this and fits them mechanically is the emphasis on being the best at spell slot manipulation, metamagic and crafting, and using, magic items
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the wizard has two primary identities:
1.) Support and control. The toolbox wizard. Basically what you described above, Dialectic.
2.) The war mage. Big flashy damage spells. Personal defensive spells. Your Gromph Baenre or Robillard types. They often have non- damaging spells, too, but usually their first and most effective tactic is firepower.
I feel like the first play style is well supported in the system as-is.
The second kind is less supported than I'd like. But there are plenty of threads about that topic recently so I'll leave off there. ^^
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, so, to you, what are these things established by tradition you want kept around?You see what PF1 and 3.5 were doing... In a word: That. Not necessarily in terms of raw power but in terms of having broad schools that encompassed all of Arcane magic, having ways to shape that magic, and having by far and away the broadest scope of magic that really only failed to touch on healing and nature.
So the entirety of Wizard was perfected with 3.5/PF1? That's the pinnacle of wizardness? A class that has definitive Good Spells, Bad Spells, REALLY Bad Spells, and a few useful Metamagic feat and a bunch no one ever takes because they're too situational? 90% of everyone's spellbook is the same spells over and over again because they're just so useful and you only have so many spells per day so it's best to just keep Haste prepared so that your party can get stuff done better.
Wizards were boring. Wizards had a book, you followed the book and you were good. Insert tab A into slot B and boom you've trivialized every encounter and there's no need to travel or anything any more and if we spend three hours just sitting around the table burning spell slots on certain divinations before making our own demiplane to rest in so time doesn't progress in the outside world and doing it all over again and then we just ignore the encounters anyway.
I hated PF1 wizards. With a passion. They were the most useless, boring class. They were walking 'I win' buttons that made the game boring. You didn't need tactics or skill or anything like that, just a spreadsheet cross referencing "I've got x amount of enemies in y formation so I cast z and they're all dead." I'm glad that doesn't seem to be the case with PF2. I'm glad they got rid of a lot of the divination stuff and teleportation stuff, and turned those into Rituals. I'm glad that wizards are now as reliant on the rest of the party as everyone else. I'm ELATED that in PF2 there's at least a modicum of "Hey we need to work together as a team to win this fight" instead of what used to happen in PF1 where people could solo whole APs with the right builds. (I don't have a lot to stand on here, having my maximum damage in a round being 850 points of damage before rolling dice, and that was a barbarian.)
What do I think of when I think of wizards? Lots of negative things, some of which are colored more by certain works of fiction and certain artistic renditions. I own that. They are not my favorite class. Everything that I want out of a wizard I get better from other classes. In PF1, instead of playing a wizard I went with Summoner, or Magus, or Inquisitor. All of them let me live out my wizard fantasy without taking over the table and doing everything.
I want wizards to be less useful than most martials for about 15% of the standard adventuring day, roughly the same as martials for about 75% of the standard adventuring day, and then blow martials out of the water about 10% of the standard adventuring day. And I don't necessarily mean in combat. I mean holistically. Those rough percentages should follow for combat, skills, diplomacy, all aspects of adventure.
In my opinion, wizards should be retired. EVERYTHING I would want to do as a wizard can be done better by other classes now.
(Also, tangentially, I despised the Charm/Complusion subclass of spells. Charm Person/Monster, Dominate Person/Monster, Suggestion, Command, all of those can just be consigned to hell where they belong.)
I think the wizard has two primary identities:
1.) Support and control. The toolbox wizard. Basically what you described above, Dialectic.
2.) The war mage. Big flashy damage spells. Personal defensive spells. Your Gromph Baenre or Robillard types. They often have non- damaging spells, too, but usually their first and most effective tactic is firepower.
I feel like the first play style is well supported in the system as-is.
The second kind is less supported than I'd like. But there are plenty of threads about that topic recently so I'll leave off there. ^^
Do you think sorcerers or wizards should be the better damage dealing casters? My personal inclination is that sorcerers should get damage buffs to spells wizards do not get access to. I do think blasting is a thing wizards should be able to do with a degree of competence, it's just my opinion that we should make that primary for sorcerers and secondary for wizards
What do I think of when I think of wizards? Lots of negative things, some of which are colored more by certain works of fiction and certain artistic renditions. I own that. They are not my favorite class. Everything that I want out of a wizard I get better from other classes. In PF1, instead of playing a wizard I went with Summoner, or Magus, or Inquisitor. All of them let me live out my wizard fantasy without taking over the table and doing everything.
I want wizards to be less useful than most martials for about 15% of the standard adventuring day, roughly the same as martials for about 75% of the standard adventuring day, and then blow martials out of the water about 10% of the standard adventuring day. And I don't necessarily mean in combat. I mean holistically. Those rough percentages should follow for combat, skills, diplomacy, all aspects of adventure.
In my opinion, wizards should be retired. EVERYTHING I would want to do as a wizard can be done better by other classes now.
(Also, tangentially, I despised the Charm/Complusion subclass of spells. Charm Person/Monster, Dominate Person/Monster, Suggestion, Command, all of those can just be consigned to hell where they belong.)
I would say compulsion magic is sort of morally dubious thing for your character to do, and the incapacitation rules have definitely reigned it in mechanically thankfully. I am curious though if you had to make a wizard and you needed to make it a unique spellcaster and fit within what you feel is the identity of being a wizard, what would that look like to you? And what do you think should be off limits for the class to do? I think this is the most interesting exercise for the wizard. A lot of people talk about the things the wizard should be able to do, very few talk about what they shouldn't be able to do. What is stepping on the toes of other classes too much
Okay, so, to you, what are these things established by tradition you want kept around?You see what PF1 and 3.5 were doing... In a word: That. Not necessarily in terms of raw power but in terms of having broad schools that encompassed all of Arcane magic, having ways to shape that magic, and having by far and away the broadest scope of magic that really only failed to touch on healing and nature.
What do you think should be off limits for the wizard to do? In terms of balance what do you think should be the no go zones left for other classes and casters to do?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So the entirety of Wizard was perfected with 3.5/PF1? That's the pinnacle of wizardness? A class that has definitive Good Spells, Bad Spells, REALLY Bad Spells, and a few useful Metamagic feat and a bunch no one ever takes because they're too situational? 90% of everyone's spellbook is the same spells over and over again because they're just so useful and you only have so many spells per day so it's best to just keep Haste prepared so that your party can get stuff done better.
PF2 hasn't solved this. Haste is still good, Fireball is still good, Walls are still good, and you still have spells like Evards Magic Doorknob that are clearly flavor texting trying to hide among spells.
Wizards were boring. Wizards had a book, you followed the book and you were good.
Engineers are boring. Engineers have a book, you follow the book and you are good.
Insert tab A into slot B and boom you've trivialized every encounter
Did you miss the part where I said, "Not necessarily in terms of raw power..." You seem annoyed at the fact that spells aren't internally balanced with one another and that magic was too good in 3.5 and PF1 more so than with how the Wizard used that power.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is my own vision of the wizard and why the PF2 wizard is the best wizard I have ever played. My vision will sound a little arrogant, it is coming from being in character. I personally mean no offense to anyone with a different vision.
For me, an unprepared wizard is a dead wizard. Magic doesn’t run through their veins, no one is coming to help them if they fail, they have to think it through, get it right, have an exit plan or they die.
There is no such thing as a “fire wizard.” A wizard who only casts certain spells to look cool or fit an aesthetic theme is a dead wizard, they just might not know it yet. Studying certain spells until you get them right is one thing, but believing exclusively in one spell or small group of spells is for over-confident sorcerers. Wizards have to be smarter than that and be capable of looking beyond any of the expected boxes for an answer and creatively thread the rules of magic into the unexpected pattern, not just try to brute force the same spells over every problem.
This is my own vision of the wizard and why the PF2 wizard is the best wizard I have ever played. My vision will sound a little arrogant, it is coming from being in character. I personally mean no offense to anyone with a different vision.
For me, an unprepared wizard is a dead wizard. Magic doesn’t run through their veins, no one is coming to help them if they fail, they have to think it through, get it right, have an exit plan or they die.
There is no such thing as a “fire wizard.” A wizard who only casts certain spells to look cool or fit an aesthetic theme is a dead wizard, they just might not know it yet. Studying certain spells until you get them right is one thing, but believing exclusively in one spell or small group of spells is for over-confident sorcerers. Wizards have to be smarter than that and be capable of looking beyond any of the expected boxes for an answer and creatively thread the rules of magic into the unexpected pattern, not just try to brute force the same spells over every problem.
The purpose of the thread is to gauge different visions of the wizard, so I appreciate you doing exactly that!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm in the same boat as Unicore, basically. Wizards are the genius casters, the ones with the dedication and sheer mental fortitude to bother memorizing the entire arcane list and knowing when this niche spells is actually significantly better than the ol' reliables that a sorcerer can cast intuitively but doesn't really understand.
The biggest thing I'm missing from the PF2 wizard is knowledge stuff; the wizard should be as good at identifying monsters and recalling esoteric lore as the Thaumaturge. They've read about this before, they've always read about it before.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm in the same boat as Unicore, basically. Wizards are the genius casters, the ones with the dedication and sheer mental fortitude to bother memorizing the entire arcane list and knowing when this niche spells is actually significantly better than the ol' reliables that a sorcerer can cast intuitively but doesn't really understand.
The biggest thing I'm missing from the PF2 wizard is knowledge stuff; the wizard should be as good at identifying monsters and recalling esoteric lore as the Thaumaturge. They've read about this before, they've always read about it before.
Perhaps wizards should have a feat or class feature that gives the benefits of the feat "unified theory" instead of this being a level 15 skill feat. Which does seem awfully late to get this
The biggest thing I'm missing from the PF2 wizard is knowledge stuff; the wizard should be as good at identifying monsters and recalling esoteric lore as the Thaumaturge. They've read about this before, they've always read about it before.
It is totally possible to do that if you want.
To get other tangible benefits aparts from the knowledge itself then archetype into Loremaster or Investigator or ...YEs it probably could do with there being something specific in the Wizard class itself.
So I don't know exactly how this should be represented mechanically but so far neither 5e or PF2e really nails this concept but I like the idea of caster who is kind of like person who studies the world around them and then that knowledge effects how they use their magic. A universalist/generalist also fits in this idea for me where they learn a little bit of everything but aren't better than someone who specialized
I don't really find the old schools of magic that compelling because most of them feel a lot more defined by mechanics than actual theme except for Necromancy and Illusionist.
Should mention I have very little history with DnD stuff apart from 5e and PF2e so my opinion is less rooted in the traditions of DnD/pathfinder
But the PF2 does. What you describe is what the Wizard was at MERP (and Rolemaster), I loved it being the character with "magical", in general, features, like reading scrolls and using magical items, with magic manipulation, rituals, and lore due in other things because the high Int, and not so just focused on the spells themselves only.
That is exactly what I have found in PF2 that was lost in D&D (at least 5E). When moved to 5E I lost the reason to use a Wizard just for the reason you describe, and moved to Sorcerer. But now in PF2 I was so tempted to return to the Wizard to do the things I like.
It is an Int based, which means you get extra languages and skills, all the crafting and lore skills use Int, have metamagic, and many options combining thesis, Universalist or specialist, and prepare or Flexible Spellcasting type. The options are so vast.
With those extra skills you can get all the lore tradition skills, so at the same time you can try to use any magical item with Trick Magic Item feat, we are now closer to what we want, right?
At the same time we as Wizards are those who identify items, creatures, ancient texts, or can talk and/or translate for others having more languages.
Then add the option of Crafting, also using Int, so another task to do is collecting materials (from defeated monsters and etc.) to craft at reduced cost compared to buying.
What is true is about schools that are diluted.
Cannot compare really directly with Investigator or Thaumaturge, as the Wizard is a caster, but even in that case we can apply all the previous, so it is nice if you want lore and spellcasting.
Then, to answer the question of the thread, could summarize as the caster expert in academic and lore, which can do many things in and out of spells.
There is no such thing as a “fire wizard.” A wizard who only casts certain spells to look cool or fit an aesthetic theme is a dead wizard
I think everyone basically agrees that Wizard should have the knowledge niche. A wizard is the learned prepared caster, with lots of different abilities.
It is the Sorcerer who should have the talent with particular types of magic.Pazio have given us a very open system. You can build these characters but you aren't restricted to them.
I do like this but I would like to see some systemic bonuses for tighter themes. Like say a feat that gave you an extra top spell slot but all of your top level slots have to share an elemental or school trait.
Wizards should be the best at assessing a situation and determining which spell/spells they have that can help. They won't always use them (especially at low levels), and they might not have anything useful at the moment (again, especially at low levels), which are balancing factors. As they become more powerful, they should have more and more magical items on their person for emergencies (wands, scrolls, etc).
In mechanical terms, I agree with them having a recall knowledge ability in the class, and I'm sympathetic to them all getting the benefits of Reprepare Spell as a class ability instead of a thesis.
| 20 people marked this as a favorite. |
You all are clearly missing the forest for the trees here. The most important trait of a wizard is a big pointy hat. No big pointy hat, no wizard. Simple as.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a good question to ask: in my opinion, there is a fair difference between what a wizard is and what a wizard ought to be: I agree very much with other posters here that the wizard ought to be essentially the magical scientist, the caster who plays with the fundamental building blocks of the universe and amasses a large collection of niche spells that find themselves being exactly what is needed to solve a particular problem. The wizard ought to study magic empirically and thus specifically rely on spells that deal with reliable concepts, such as the material of the Universe and the applications of the rational mind. As a result, they should not have access to extraplanar magic, nor magic that relies on energy that can't be properly quantified, such as vital or spiritual energy. They should certainly be a generalist, but a generalist with a recognizable niche nonetheless.
In practice, though, those restrictions aren't terribly well-enforced, because historically the term "wizard" has been used to describe pretty much any caster who doesn't explicitly worship some external force, and that nebulous definition has affected the class's niche and identity. That pyromancer who knows nothing but fire spells? If they learned those spells, they're a wizard. The necromancer who fills corpses with extraplanar unlife? Wizard. The captivating mesmer who can deceive and enchant others into fanatical loyalty? Also a character you could build with a wizard, even though the mesmerist is an occult class. It doesn't help that D&D's wizards, on which Pathfinder's wizard is based, use Gandalf from Lord of the Rings as the founding wizard template... except Gandalf is effectively an angel who channels divine magic, the very opposite of the arcane magic that defines wizards in contemporary d20 systems. We probably need a future edition to clean up the wizard's identity and extract a bunch of other classes from it that achieve certain niches better, such as the aforementioned mesmer or necromancer.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You all are clearly missing the forest for the trees here. The most important trait of a wizard is a big pointy hat. No big pointy hat, no wizard. Simple as.
Real. That's the real wizard sh*t right there
(Read this in the Disco Elysium narrator voice)
|
|
Do you think sorcerers or wizards should be the better damage dealing casters? My personal inclination is that sorcerers should get damage buffs to spells wizards do not get access to. I do think blasting is a thing wizards should be able to do with a degree of competence, it's just my opinion that we should make that primary for sorcerers and secondary for wizards.I think the wizard has two primary identities:
1.) Support and control. The toolbox wizard. Basically what you described above, Dialectic.
2.) The war mage. Big flashy damage spells. Personal defensive spells. Your Gromph Baenre or Robillard types. They often have non- damaging spells, too, but usually their first and most effective tactic is firepower.
I feel like the first play style is well supported in the system as-is.
The second kind is less supported than I'd like. But there are plenty of threads about that topic recently so I'll leave off there. ^^
Do I think Wizards should be better blasters than Sorcerers? Not necessarily, but that wasn't the op's question. I think fiction has repeatedly illustrated that throwing out big flashy spells is 'wizardy'.
fwiw, I rather liked the difference between PF1 blaster wizards and PF1 blaster sorcerers: the sorcerer had quite superior "white room" damage, the wizard had more access to metamagic and the admixture school for damage type coverage.| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A wizard is a miserable pile of secrets, pondering an orb.
...
On a more serious note, in 1e it rather seemed like the role of a wizard was to be The Magic User in the sense that while every caster had access to a kind of magic through their traditions, that magic was coloured by and limited to those traditions (in the casual sense) while the wizard was the magical physicist-engineer who broke apart the underpinnings of magic and democratized it for mortal use, creating a kind of magic that anybody clever enough could use to achieve almost any magical effect. Creating new spells from the ground up was difficult research, but once a wizard had done it, any wizard could reproduce it, working with the same formula (and spell capacity).
... Which did make it awfully conspicuous that about the only thing wizards couldn't do was also one of the first things you'd think any rational being living in a pre-modern world might want. Also, for that matter, that this painstakingly recreated tradition of magic also happened to be the same that every sorcerer innately drew their spells from by natural talent.
Suffice to say, given that it would be virtually impossible by balance to actually make every wizard a master of all fields of magic that exist, even if their mechanics had fully matched that flavour originally, I'm glad for an update to the wizardly vibe. Back in the beginnings of 2e I kind of expected for wizards' schtick to be that they could cast from the Arcane list of mental/material spells but also their school research gave them access to Arcane versions of non-traditional spells, whether as free stealing a set levels, or in the form of a short list of stand-bys much like sorcerers or clerics have.
I am slightly disappointed that the answer instead was that 'wizards made the Arcane list bigger through their research', though it did lead to some cool metaphysical considerations lightly touched on in Secrets of Magic about how by creating new arcane spells wizards may be actually paving the tracks in reality that make those spells easier to cast.
-
I don't necessarily know what a wizard should be, but one thing that it feels like a wizard has been missing since 2e was a purpose. The new schools coming in the remaster have been much maligned for the nerf they represent to wizard's old flexibility in that slot, but leaving the mechanical consideration aside, these new schools represent a significant improvement to the sense of what a wizard is besides "I am the smartest at magic". The new schools give the sense of a specific real-world pursuit to your magic, "I study war magic" and "I use magic to build cities" rather than the over-broad "I study every kind of energy manipulation; to me creating lights, explosions, and invisible walls are about equal pursuits". I probably would have felt different if wizards felt like they were pushing the boundaries of these fields in their study, but even if that was true in the fiction, it wasn't in the class.
I guess more to the point, wizards don't really feel like they have anything at all that is uniquely Wizard. They cast more spells than most spellcasters, they get to use the biggest list of all casters, but aside from just being (theoretically) the best at magic, they don't seem to get to do anything with that. They have no meaningful trappings to their magic. A spellbook is cool but it doesn't do anything except make it expensive to lose their magic; a problem only the witch has besides; staves, wands, and scrolls are all things that every caster (rightly) can use--there's nothing that makes a wizard a wizard except being able to learn magic.
I'd happily give up that fourth slot if it meant wizards could do something cool to stake a claim that says "This is what it means to be a magic scientist, a master of mind and matter" - though given that Sorcerers are happily trucking along with their 4 slots and some cool bloodline thematics, I don't necessarily think the sacrifice would actually be necessary. Wizard Theses kind of get the idea, but they haven't quite hit the mark and only seem to create narratively invisible effects like giving you an extra metamagic trick or an extra spell slot (I had to go look up theses just now because while it seems like everybody talks about the one they consider the most powerful, I didn't know a thing about any of the others).
In fact I'd remove the spellbook, is a deprecated concept for today. If you learn a spell, you know it, period, just like the Cleric works.
A spellbook then is a source with spells, typically a book.
Finally add a Spellbook thesis granting one maybe with some rituals and extra spells (can write your known ones into it), and allowing to use this type of sources, i.e. an extra spell slot of your higher level allowing to cast any spell in a spellbook using that slot with no need of preparing, just reading from it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have a more classical view of the wizard.
The wizard is the powerful, mysterious practitioner of magic in all its many forms. They thoroughly study the world and the arcane learning ancient and hidden secrets that allow them to unlock the power inherent in the universe. They spend their entire lives in a state of constant learning to obtain power that others fear and covet.
They are the Merlins. They are the Bayaz. They are the Gandalfs. The Raistlins. The Elrics. They move the world with their magic shaping its present and future.
If they study and live long enough with a sufficient talent and intelligence, they become one of the most powerful beings in existence, feared by all and able to shape reality to their whims.
I think they should stand at the top of the magic pyramid at the highest possible level. They should stand a step above when it comes to magic. Their power should be sufficient to challenge armies alone.
In mechanical terms, a level 20 wizard should stand at the top of the power tier. They should be real scary even to other level 20 characters. I have never seen a powerful wizard in a book, movie, or game as weak as the PF2 wizard is in the scheme of PF2.
I get it. Balance is king in PF2. The classical wizard doesn't fit in that balance framework. I'd still like it quite a bit better than the class is right now to at least not be just some guy. I'd like to stand out as a class that you look forward to leveling for the powerful abilities you get.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wizards are scholar mages; wizards love poring over books, wizards enjoy heated debates over contentious topics, wizards seclude themselves in arcane towers or forgotten libraries for fun, wizards prepare for contingencies, wizards conduct research or experiments in their free time, wizards know the things, all of this bc say it with me...WIZARDS ARE INSUFFERABLE NERDS!!!
I have a more classical view of the wizard.
The wizard is the powerful, mysterious practitioner of magic in all its many forms. They thoroughly study the world and the arcane learning ancient and hidden secrets that allow them to unlock the power inherent in the universe. They spend their entire lives in a state of constant learning to obtain power that others fear and covet.
They are the Merlins. They are the Bayaz. They are the Gandalfs. The Raistlins. The Elrics. They move the world with their magic shaping its present and future.
If they study and live long enough with a sufficient talent and intelligence, they become one of the most powerful beings in existence, feared by all and able to shape reality to their whims.
I think they should stand at the top of the magic pyramid at the highest possible level. They should stand a step above when it comes to magic. Their power should be sufficient to challenge armies alone.
In mechanical terms, a level 20 wizard should stand at the top of the power tier. They should be real scary even to other level 20 characters. I have never seen a powerful wizard in a book, movie, or game as weak as the PF2 wizard is in the scheme of PF2.
I get it. Balance is king in PF2. The classical wizard doesn't fit in that balance framework. I'd still like it quite a bit better than the class is right now to at least not be just some guy. I'd like to stand out as a class that you look forward to leveling for the powerful abilities you get.
But that relies on a scenario where the Wizard is the only arcane caster, with divine and nature magic being something totally apart, with no Sorcerer and others related. A scenario where arcane is just much more powerful but requires deep studying that only a few ones can accomplish. Then, all arcane users are just Wizards. At the moment you balance arcane to others and have other classes using arcane, is what you get, but that's for all games.
About facing armies can do it.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see a wizard as an academic/sage type mostly. I feel that if the PF2e wizard had more feats that gave some advantage for recall knowledge it would work better.
I would prefer if Thesis actually felt like proper Thesis, that the wizard had researched and got some real benefit from a magical area of study... right now they are meh.
I feel Substitution and Meta Magic Thesis should be baseline abilities of the class.
I would love a Thesis like 'Magical Zoology' which allowed the wizard to use Arcane to recall knowledge checks for all creatures and allowed you to add more summon spells to your spell list and able to summon more powerful creatures - maybe level -2 or 3 rather than -5.
A Thesis on Magical Energies that allowed you to change damage type of the next damaging spell you cast before the end of your next turn that targets or includes the target of your RK in its AoE.
A unified theory thesis which allowed you to poach 2 cantrips and 1 spell per rank from other traditions and gave you the Unified Theory skill feat to use Arcane for all RK checks.
A missiles and rays thesis that gave you +2 on next spell attack roll against a creature you succeed on an RK check against.
A mental control thesis where you treat your spell rank as 1 higher (or 2 on a crit success) for determining incapacitation (does not increase effect or DC of spell) against target of an RK check.
Things like that would really tie in Wizard being the knowledge guy while keeping it to a narrow area of stufdy.
Maybe an 8, 10 or 12 feat to pick up a second thesis. Probably with further studies feats that could improve the effects of your thesis rather than it being a level 1 choice then forgotten.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are 2 different things.
What I think a DnD/PF1/PF2 Wizard should be.
What I think a Wizard should be.
Thanks to this thread, I realize that the latter comes from Ars Magica and specifically Tremere (not the Vampire one).
The Wizard is the student and analyzer of magic. In a way, they are the scientist of magic. And they are utterly convinced that anything magic will finally end up in their purview, one way or the other. They do not rely on outside powers. They compel those.
Tremere's motto sums it up : My will be done.
Now, they can be crafters of items and of magical creatures, specialists in changing the parameters of spells, imitators through their own means of powers beyond themselves. And they can also be specialists in a theme of magic, be it elemental magic, decay magic, shapeshifting, summoning and controlling powers from beyond the mundane world.
What they cannot do (but will always be determined to reach nonetheless) is the province of powers beyond mortals : create life, heal the body and the soul in an enduring way ...
What I think a DnD/PF1/PF2 Wizard should be : an INT-based prepared Arcane spellcaster with zero anathema and a spellbook, to which they constantly add new knowledge of spells and ways to twist them, and who can, through hard study and theories and experience, access spells coming from other traditions though in a limited / less powerful way.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You all are clearly missing the forest for the trees here. The most important trait of a wizard is a big pointy hat. No big pointy hat, no wizard. Simple as.
Also, their staves have to have knobs on the end.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
For PF2, Wizards should be pretty straight forward.
A knowledge class who specialises in assessing the situation, reaching into their big bag of tools, and using the best tool at their disposal for the said situation.
The mechanical implementation of a Wizard throws some blocks in the path of achieving this, most that they aren't actually a knowledge class and that its possible to opt-out of Spell Substitution so your ability to reach into your bag of tools can be limited by lack of foreknowledge.
Wizards, in fiction and myth are a whole other story.
Wizard is a big-tent term that a lot of characters can fall into and out of depending on your perspective. More traditionally, Wizards would not be generalists, instead they would be specialistsm, with the more legendary Wizards being true polymaths.
Wizards, as whole, tend to adhere to a few key tropes:
- Magical, obviously, but by knowledge not usually inherently or from a divine source ( as a side note, often the most famous wizards present themselves like this, but are also secretly somehow innately magical as well)
- They are knowledgeable and Wise
- Tend to be more reclusive and/or mysterious
- Often have a tool/artifact/magical gizmo component to them
- Often take the role of guides and teachers, sometimes are even psychopomps
- Dress a bit funny or have odd mannerisms, serving to set them apart from those around them even without any hints of magic.
A part from those few signposts, Wizards are a pretty broad concept. Its sometimes used as a catch-all term for anyone magical who isn't a god.
I think there is some discussion to be had on the concept of a specalist vs a generalist, as I think Wizards overall tend to towards conceptual specalisation.
|
|
You all are clearly missing the forest for the trees here. The most important trait of a wizard is a big pointy hat. No big pointy hat, no wizard. Simple as.Also, their staves have to have knobs on the end.
The modern Wizard aesthetic is one of those things that people do seem to largely agree on.
Big pointy had, staff, pillowly robes.
Depictions of Gandalf and Merlin have throughly captured the general design there.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Appreciating the thoughtful posts! I want to encourage people to also consider what they think a wizard should not be able to do and incorporate that. We get a few things here and there, the no healing thing ofc, but maybe we could really push ourselves here and really think "what is the role of other magic users in relation to the wizard? Where does the wizard domain stop and the domain of bards, clerics, druids and sorcerers begin?"
I think it's generally agreed upon, the wizard is *the guy*, the magic guy, but we all seem a bit eager to want to take the whole pie and say "no, wizard gets everything". So I think it might do us some good to say "okay wizards don't do that"
Appreciating the thoughtful posts! I want to encourage people to also consider what they think a wizard should not be able to do and incorporate that. We get a few things here and there, the no healing thing ofc, but maybe we could really push ourselves here and really think "what is the role of other magic users in relation to the wizard? Where does the wizard domain stop and the domain of bards, clerics, druids and sorcerers begin?"I mean bards are also weird now, they used to be built on the idea of being a jack of all trades but in dnd 5e and pf2e they got updated to being primarily casters.
I have the 1st and 2nd edition ad&d books, and bards in those books are a kind of rogue/thief, and alternative class to those. How they graduated to "annoying musical wizard" is beyond me, but I have a burning hatred for bards and rogues and no one should ask me my opinion on those two classes
Yeah I think the revamp to bards into being full casters was a win for the theme of the class. When you're mandated to be a gish it's hard to justify carrying an instrument.
In the context of PF2 I think the weaknesses of wizards are already pretty well established; I think it's correct for wizards to have more limited focus spells than other classes, getting the 1-action spells that you're supposed to combine with a slot spell compared to the more class-defining focus spells of a Druid or Psychic.
A Wizard knows more about the world than its player, more than is even provided in all the lore books combined. You can only ever surprise a wizard with what someone did with lost or forbidden power, they already knew all about the power itself.
That they do not always act on their superior knowledge is merely because they have a mysterious agenda they are pursuing that occasionally requires them to take stumbles on purpose, or to allow others to face hardships. When they fall, it is a sacrifice they choose to make in service to a person, goal or ideal, never because they are actually outmatched.
Obviously that is not the 2e Wizard, but that is my ideal of a wizard.
|
|
Bards actually got closer to their name by becoming performers.
I like Occult being the magic of the Bard : the magic of tales rather than the Wizard's magic of formulas.
Expanding on this, this is how I see the Traditions "in character" :
- Arcane is the magic of the Wizard : the magic of formula. Here I tend to put everything dealing with the material (crafting, the Inner planes) and the reasoned mind (mind-reading, mind control rather than emotions)
- Occult is the magic of the Bard : the magic of tales. By association, I would put the magic of illusions and emotions here. Also curses from non-divine sources.
- Divine is the magic of the Cleric : the magic of prayers. Here is where I would put the magic of the soul : life and death / undeath. Also the wrath (curses) and blessings of spirits and deities.
- Primal is the magic of the Druid : the magic of nature. The magic of animals, plants, elements, weather and the natural cycle.
Then there are other magics that do not fit so nicely in the above classification : divination and teleportation for example.