|
My honest opinion of Druid is that it should be part of Cleric and that Mystic with its Connections is actually just the superior version of Cleric/Druid.
I have to say I don't really like Bard how it is a full caster and uses the Occult list. I also for PF2e it feels as it leans much harder into the music guy theme like I will give it to 5e the subclasses they have for Bard at least from a flavor perspective are much more interesting than what PF2e has.
Bard as a "music guy" was actually even stronger in 3.5/PF1 : "Every bard spell has a verbal component (song, recitation, or music). To learn or cast a spell, a bard must have a Charisma score equal to at least 10 + the spell level."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually a "wizards should not" occurs to me from reading some other responses. Wizards absolutely should belive that they understand magic on a more fundamental level rhat every other caster, their their knowledge of magic is the superior approach and that with enough time and research eventually they could do any kind of magic, but also this should be arrogance on the wizard's part. As much as they wish to believe otherwise, not every aspect of magical inquiry can be understood through rational analysis of empirical forces. Magic is simply too broad. They perhaps come closest to that grand Unified Theory of Magic than any other caster, but a wise wizard knows that even if they study what makes every kind of magic tick (ie through knowledge skills), their area of expertise is Arcane, and the other traditions fundamentally resist their approach to greater or lesser degree.
Certainly the way they come about their magic--crafting formulas from first principles (or more commonly, copying from someone else who has, but still needing to grok how it worked in the first place to do it) should give them unique ways of manipulating their magic through experimentation. They don't necessarily understand magic more deeply but they are obsessive about trying, and in the process uncovering secrets they can use.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know those Youtube videos where a mathematician or a physicist at the top of their field shows off some extremely esoteric concept or proof, requiring some clever visualization or simplifications just to get the most basic jist of what they're talking about across to the lay viewer? You know how energetic and happy they are talking about their field, and how they casually mention that only a handful of people in the world are working at the same problems? How their rooms are filled with the papers they've read, wrote, or are peer reviewing? Often they'll have some nick-knack that demonstrates some property they found interesting years ago with some name attached to it (probably Euler). Then you get a couple of them in the same room and most of the footage has to be cut because no one understands them excitedly talking to each other.
I think Wizards are what happens when you get those kinds of people in a Fantasy setting and they happen to focus that energy on magic.
They have bent their vast intellects on the study of an infinitely deep field of research that keeps unlocking new features of itself the deeper they go, like it's a living entity trying to seduce them in further. Like if a physicist found out that not only could they make a perpetual motion machine, but there doesn't seem to be a limit to how much they could refine the design as long as they spend the time doing more and more research.
The plato's ideal wizard doesn't necessarily care about throwing fireballs or shooting lightning bolts. They care about seeing how far they can delve into the Arcane mysteries of the universe.
|
|
You know those Youtube videos where a mathematician or a physicist at the top of their field shows off some extremely esoteric concept or proof, requiring some clever visualization or simplifications just to get the most basic jist of what they're talking about across to the lay viewer? You know how energetic and happy they are talking about their field, and how they casually mention that only a handful of people in the world are working at the same problems? How their rooms are filled with the papers they've read, wrote, or are peer reviewing? Often they'll have some nick-knack that demonstrates some property they found interesting years ago with some name attached to it (probably Euler). Then you get a couple of them in the same room and most of the footage has to be cut because no one understands them excitedly talking to each other.
I think Wizards are what happens when you get those kinds of people in a Fantasy setting and they happen to focus that energy on magic.
They have bent their vast intellects on the study of an infinitely deep field of research that keeps unlocking new features of itself the deeper they go, like it's a living entity trying to seduce them in further. Like if a physicist found out that not only could they make a perpetual motion machine, but there doesn't seem to be a limit to how much they could refine the design as long as they spend the time doing more and more research.
The plato's ideal wizard doesn't necessarily care about throwing fireballs or shooting lightning bolts. They care about seeing how far they can delve into the Arcane mysteries of the universe.
I had more the image of chemists (I know Alchemist is now closer, but they're not casters) but I can see this completely.
Now, adventuring Wizards likely enjoy the collateral benefits of throwing fireballs or shooting lightning bolts.
I feel all adventuring casters should be different from their stay-at-home counterparts.
|
|
Actually a "wizards should not" occurs to me from reading some other responses. Wizards absolutely should belive that they understand magic on a more fundamental level rhat every other caster, their their knowledge of magic is the superior approach and that with enough time and research eventually they could do any kind of magic, but also this should be arrogance on the wizard's part. As much as they wish to believe otherwise, not every aspect of magical inquiry can be understood through rational analysis of empirical forces. Magic is simply too broad. They perhaps come closest to that grand Unified Theory of Magic than any other caster, but a wise wizard knows that even if they study what makes every kind of magic tick (ie through knowledge skills), their area of expertise is Arcane, and the other traditions fundamentally resist their approach to greater or lesser degree.
Yes. While considering my classification above of what the Traditions do, I thought of the Wizard trying to emulate the shapeshifting of the Druid, the necromancy or the buffing of the Cleric, the control of emotions and illusions of the Bard.
But also of the Cleric crafting magic items for the glory of their deity.I would see this as a practicioner of a Tradition expanding their art into a domain more common in another Tradition, with 2 consequences : their ability to master the power of their Tradition suffers from it AND they will never reach the pinnacle of power of the Tradition they emulate. But they will still be far better at this field than their colleagues who stay grounded in their Tradition.
I feel the MC Archetypes translate this really well. Though maybe Class feats should be more Tradition-enhancers (for the Tradition-locked classes) and less generic caster feats.
And spellshaping / metamagic would be part of the Arcane Tradition : available in lesser forms to other casters but those who would want greater spellshaping abilities would need to get the appropriate feats through caster MC.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel all adventuring casters should be different from their stay-at-home counterparts.
An adventuring wizard is like the grad student taking a job to make ends meet and suddenly finding out just how much money people with their skills are making in industry.
I feel all adventuring casters should be different from their stay-at-home counterparts.An adventuring wizard is like the grad student taking a job to make ends meet and suddenly finding out just how much money people with their skills are making in industry.
Oh certainly on both accounts. The fundamental difference from an adventurer of any class and a non-adventurer is that normal people don't on average tend toward fields that involve risking their lives on a daily basis using their marketable skills to kill people for money if they have much option. An adventure has to be either really good at it, or foolish enough to try it anyway - unless they happen to be the hero of an adventure who rises to the call to save the world (or again, die trying)
Mind you too, a wizard that's off to war should probably like a spell to end the careers of two dozen enemy soldiers all at once, hence the fireball on the school of Battle Magic. In the wizard's case not all grad students are studying theoretical physics; some are studying tactics and artillery bombardment.
(And I realize you did specify originally a "platonic ideal" of a wizard, to which I'd have to agree in as much that the perfect pursuit of Wizardry is probably the delving of Arcane magic for the sake of studying Arcane magic, possibly for the betterment of life, but probably just because it's there to study and the secrets haven't all been found yet. These wizards probably belong universally to the school of Unified Theory, choosing not to specialize in a practical field like battle, civics, or dimensional sciences in pursuit of raw magical knowledge as much as they can.)
|
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.
Divination belongs to everyone:
Arcane- Peering into the deepest connections between extant phenomena to discern the future.Divine- Beseeching one's higher power for greater clarity regarding events yet to come.
Occult- Many a cautionary tale can provide insights into the coming situation. Alternatively: bargaining with unknowable powers for their esoteric knowledge.
Primal- A peculiar breeze caries with it a hint of things to come.
ect.
I think all traditions have equal claim to divination.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Divination belongs to everyone:
Arcane- Peering into the deepest connections between extant phenomena to discern the future.
Divine- Beseeching one's higher power for greater clarity regarding events yet to come.
Occult- Many a cautionary tale can provide insights into the coming situation. Alternatively: bargaining with unknowable powers for their esoteric knowledge.
Primal- A peculiar breeze caries with it a hint of things to come.ect.
I think all traditions have equal claim to divination.
This post helped me realize that I am also pretty influenced in my view of magic by the Mage the Ascension game.
Where the focus was on what you got out of your magic far more than how you got that result. With casting being flavored according to your Tradition of magic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel that much of the tabletop and video game examples have lost the feel for what I see as a wizard was shown to be in the older literature. They were varying parts scientist, engineer, philosopher, and artist. Some worked towards mastering magic to understand the how and the why of the world around them worked, while others did it to impose order on what they viewed as a disordered world but for whatever reason it is often a compulsion at least on an intellectual level that was impossible to ignore and that they understand and control this force and it's under laying rules in the world around them.
Where this differs from a Sorcerer is that while a wizard is studying and learning about magic a Sorcerer has it in their blood and bones either through birth and heritage or from strange accident, they can no more get away from it than they can get away from themselves. The side effect of this is it tints and bias their interaction with it and limits breadth or range in how they can interact but this gives them the advantage in that while they lack breadth they more than make up for that in their depth of understanding because of their natural intuitive understanding.
On the interpretation of the Wizard schools, what I would like to see, but I'm not really expecting it to have schools more refined the character than entirely define the character.
Such that possibly a School on Battle Magic might give some training in a limited number of martial weapons or something in that vein. Note Battle Magic, in my opinion, should not be defined by one school anyway, being as a conflict has many sides that could be supported with magic (seige craft, troop movement, espionage, control of terrain, etc)
This is just my take on
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Divination belongs to everyone:
Arcane- Peering into the deepest connections between extant phenomena to discern the future.
Divine- Beseeching one's higher power for greater clarity regarding events yet to come.
Occult- Many a cautionary tale can provide insights into the coming situation. Alternatively: bargaining with unknowable powers for their esoteric knowledge.
Primal- A peculiar breeze caries with it a hint of things to come.ect.
I think all traditions have equal claim to divination.
I still quite like the old Rolemaster ways:
ChannelingEssence
Mentalism
Ars Magica was pretty good as well with its Latin verb noun pairing.
But mostly I want consistency. Actual limits that means something. Themes and Rules that are enforced across different Paizo writers.
Shout out to Gortle on remembering Rolemaster! I used to run campaigns in it years ago. Great system complex and deadly as hell though. Brings back memories thank you
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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?
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.)
Sorry, it's been like a week of hectic stuff, but I also thought about what you said and your question deserved a thought out response.
There's really only one thing that I feel is verboten for wizards: healing. That's not really their traditional wheelhouse, I think we can all agree.
Beyond that, and this is after much introspection as well as talking with friends, wizards should not be the best single target damage dealers in the game. The fewer enemies you are facing and the more spread out they are, the less effective a wizard should be. As a friend put it, let people who hit things with things do their thing, and a wizard should buff them for that.
Those are the only two things that I felt were well and truly the realm of other characters, but there were other things that I felt wizards shouldn't be the best at, although they can be good at them. For example, scouting/information gathering. I personally feel that a lot of the scrying/divination spells cut out a fun time where other party members could shine. The rogue should be able to sneak around the guardhouse and listen under windows to get information and the bard should be able to perform and chat with people to get information much easier and better than a wizard should be able to just mutter state boldly and clearly some mystic words and then get the information with no risk. A ranger should be able to move the party much more safely and accurately through environments as opposed to just simply teleporting everywhere.
This isn't to say that the wizard shouldn't be able to scry or teleport, but they shouldn't be as good as, or at least as prevelant as, the rogue's/bard's/ranger's ability to do so.
The wizard should be one of the best classes at knowing things. Not necessarily knowing monster information, but knowing things in general. If there's a puzzle in a dungeon that requires little bits of esoteric arcane lore (not necessiarly Esoteric or Arcane lores, just mysterious and scholarly and not really widely known) then the wizard should shine there. They spent YEARS reading books to get their knowledge, and that should be worth something.
Wizards should have good buffs, but not great buffs. Good debuffs, but not great debuffs. But they should have great AoE solutions to problems, whether that's damage or crowd control or environment manipulation.
Wizards should have great solutions to a few problems, good solutions to many more, and no solutions to things like one-on-one combat or diplomacy. At least, no solutions that come from being a wizard. If a wizard invests in Charisma and Diplomacy, then the character should be good at Diplomacy. Wizards should not be walking solutions to every situation possible.
I think it's clear there is a common through line between people as to what the domain of wizards spellcasting should be, which is interesting to see. I'm not seeing much disagreement
Basically if we have an idea of Primary, Secondary, Tertiary and not-at-all being:
Primary is the stuff the class is best at. This class should be better at this than any other class
Secondary this class should be good at this, above most classes but just below classes who are primary in this feature
Tertiary this class can do this occasionally but quite suboptimally
Not-at-all: the class simply does not gain access to this kind of ability
So the wizard would be:
Primary in:
-Battlefield control, effects such as walls, slow, web, grease, maze etc
-AoE damage, fireball, chain lightning etc
-Knowledge skills
-Dealing with magical challenges such as magical locks, magical traps/devices and dispelling magic
Secondary in:
-Debuffs such as spells that inflict conditions like frightened, clumsy and the like
Tertiary in:
-Scouting
-Travel
-Buffing
-Single Target Damage
Not-at-all in:
-Healing
-Condition removal(arguably tertiary)
-Ressurection
Something not quite agreed on is if summon is primary or secondary for wizards and this seems to lean on the thematics of summoning. If summon brings an ally to your side, the actual being, it feels divine or primal, but if it constructs a facsimile like I believe is the case in this setting, it feels occult and arcane. Likewise the tradition is that necromancy in terms of creating undead thralls such as zombies and skeletons is a wizard-y thing and a cleric thing, but in recent changes starts to seem to be outside the wheelhouse of wizards. Putting it in the tertiary or not-at-all camps. I think those are contentious issues that would require more of a tie breaker, but given how much wizards should get according to everyone posting here, it is possible that this kind of necromancy should not be primary, and at best secondary, but the argument exists for tertiary or not-at-all
I would also personally propose that maybe use of magic items is secondary on all casters except the wizard who gets to be primary. So everyone can use them, but wizards can get more juice out of them. Which feels correct to me, but I'm wondering what others think who like other casters. Do you see a reason that another caster class should be better or just as good as the wizard with magic items?
I think it's clear there is a common through line between people as to what the domain of wizards spellcasting should be, which is interesting to see. I'm not seeing much disagreement
Basically if we have an idea of Primary, Secondary, Tertiary and not-at-all being:
Primary is the stuff the class is best at. This class should be better at this than any other class
Secondary this class should be good at this, above most classes but just below classes who are primary in this feature
Tertiary this class can do this occasionally but quite suboptimally
Not-at-all: the class simply does not gain access to this kind of abilitySo the wizard would be:
Primary in:
-Battlefield control, effects such as walls, slow, web, grease, maze etc
-AoE damage, fireball, chain lightning etc
-Knowledge skills
-Dealing with magical challenges such as magical locks, magical traps/devices and dispelling magic
Secondary in:
-Debuffs such as spells that inflict conditions like frightened, clumsy and the like
Tertiary in:
-Scouting
-Travel
-Buffing
-Single Target Damage
Not-at-all in:
-Healing
-Condition removal(arguably tertiary)
-RessurectionSomething not quite agreed on is if summon is primary or secondary for wizards and this seems to lean on the thematics of summoning. If summon brings an ally to your side, the actual being, it feels divine or primal, but if it constructs a facsimile like I believe is the case in this setting, it feels occult and arcane. Likewise the tradition is that necromancy in terms of creating undead thralls such as zombies and skeletons is a wizard-y thing and a cleric thing, but in recent changes starts to seem to be outside the wheelhouse of wizards. Putting it in the tertiary or not-at-all camps. I think those are contentious issues that would require more of a tie breaker, but given how much wizards should get according to everyone posting here, it is possible that this kind of necromancy should not be primary, and at best secondary, but the argument exists for tertiary or...
What do you mean by primary? I don't know what that means.
Wizard does stuff with magic. That's their thing. When you're missing a bunch of high value magic spells on your list that you used to have, then you look somewhere else for better magic to do what you need done.
What do you mean by primary? I don't know what that means.
Exactly what I said:
Primary is the stuff the class is best at. This class should be better at this than any other class
I'm not sure how to clarify this, what about it is confusing?
Wizard does stuff with magic. That's their thing. When you're missing a bunch of high value magic spells on your list that you used to have, then you look somewhere else for better magic to do what you need done.
This is very vague and I'm not sure what this means? Do you mean that wizards should get every kind of magic? It's the only way I can think to interpret this but it feels quite uncharitable to assume you just want to give the wizard everything
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hello!
Our recent "Player Core Preview: The Wizard, Remastered" blog shares what a wizard is in Pathfinder. Don't miss it.
In the Secrets of Magic rulebook we've written that arcane magic draws on Matter and Mind over Sprit and Life essences. That continues to be true in Pathfinder.
Our next blog will, "go over some of the updates to magic coming in the remaster, from new spells to some of the new rules for spellcasting!"
Pretty interesting to see how the new spell lists end up shaking out and if stuff like raising the dead is removed from wizards given it's neither matter nor mind magic, but apparently life magic
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
People are going to be very upset if they prune a bunch of stuff from the arcane list. Having more spells than the other lists is all it has.
What do you mean by primary? I don't know what that means.Exactly what I said:
Primary is the stuff the class is best at. This class should be better at this than any other classI'm not sure how to clarify this, what about it is confusing?
Wizard does stuff with magic. That's their thing. When you're missing a bunch of high value magic spells on your list that you used to have, then you look somewhere else for better magic to do what you need done.This is very vague and I'm not sure what this means? Do you mean that wizards should get every kind of magic? It's the only way I can think to interpret this but it feels quite uncharitable to assume you just want to give the wizard everything
As long as people stop trying to make the arcane list seem like the old PF1 Sorc/Wiz list and accept the wizard is a lesser class by a huge margin than what it once was, then these debates need not linger.
Wizard was a god in PF1. We all understand this could not be maintained.
Wizard in PF2 is just some class. If you like what it does, then the designers have done well enough for that core. But for us old wizard players, it's not enough. We were mid to high level gods for a few decades at least. This new wizard has been brought to earth. It's really no better than any other class and I wouldn't even consider them a top tier caster class.
My only hope for the remaster is at the very least an improvement of the class chassis, better feats that you look forward to, and curricula focus spells that have an impact and fit the playstyle of a caster of that type.
My first wizard in PF2 was an evoker. The evoker level 1 focus spell was extremely underwhelming. And the advanced focus spell was practically unusable due to having to be in melee combat range to used it, something a blasting wizard doesn't want to do.
The other focus spells were often underwhelming because they were so weak compared to comparable class options. I don't see why you would waste your sustain action on Dread Aura when you're often having to move and cast 2 action spells.
Design of class features should align with how a class plays. They did very well for classes like the bard and druid, but not as well for the wizard or witch. I hope they clean some of that up and take a good look at comparative class options and align the power of the 6 hit point caster classes with standard casting defenses to be able to have fairly powerful magical powers. That just seems right to me.
Wizard was always a trade off of weak at lower level, weak hit points, and generally a softer target with the idea at higher level they would become much more powerful. So far for the wizard and witch, I'm not seeing much pay off for being a 6 hit point caster with standard caster defenses in their abilities. I think that makes them less attractive as classes.
They did a real great job with the 8 hit point casters. Not sure why they can't see the weak job for the wizard and witch 6 hit point casters in their class chassis.
|
|
People are going to be very upset if they prune a bunch of stuff from the arcane list. Having more spells than the other lists is all it has.
You will find many posters that believe the Arcane list being so wide is what actually makes the Wizard a so-so class because it is overvalued.
And also that the number of spells on the Arcane list is not what would make it powerful.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I only care that arcane remains the list able to target every save where primal struggles with will, occult struggles with fort and reflex, and divine is hardly offensive at all. The size isn't super important except that if it shrinks it should have more unique spells, but that isn't necessary either. It makes sense arcane is the list that mostly just poaches the others for all their money
I only care that arcane remains the list able to target every save where primal struggles with will, occult struggles with fort and reflex, and divine is hardly offensive at all. The size isn't super important except that if it shrinks it should have more unique spells, but that isn't necessary either. It makes sense arcane is the list that mostly just poaches the others for all their money
Occult has a bunch of Fort save spells including most of the negative energy spells. A few reflex save spells like Vomit Swarm. Reflex is its weakest ability. They are fine on Fort save spells.
Primal does lack will save attacks other than fear based ones like fear and mask of terror along with charm.
Both lists more than make up for it with a lot of high value unique spells. Primal's ability to turn a battle from a lost cause to a win with its healing is extremely powerful. Primal go from heavy blasting to healing in the blink of an eye.