It is "preparing spell slots" the class; if that's your thing the wizard will serve you well. At the end of the day they can always multiclass for class features.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't love the wizard class I don't like prepared casters and for the most point I find the classes feat to be fairly dull.
But I don't get people casting it as a
a weak class, it has the most spells per day over every class and access to a great list of spells from 1- 10 at later levels a wizard could easily have multiple encounter defining spells per encounter.It is a class the particularly struggles at low levels before spells get good (all of its class power is in spells rather than unique actions and focus powers) but that isn't a unique problem for wizards and from level 7 plus it's one of the strongest casters in the game.
So while the wizard may not have the prettiest exteriors or be that fun to drive but it's motor is solid prescion engineering and will get you where you need to go.
To summarise the wizards fundamentals are fine it could do with some glitz and a fancy paint job.
It has one more spell slot than a Sorcerer if they are a specialist school caster, it has a passable (but not specialized enough) spell list, and the number of "encounter defining spells" is still relatively limited. I will say that my most potent use of a spell at 19th level was a 6th level Mass Slow, but it required poor rolls on the GMs part.
Sorcerers and Druids can get some potent focus spells straight out of the gate, with even stronger focus spells later on. Wizard ones are lackluster with less focus spells available, and have even less features to work with. And they struggle more than Bards and Druids, who get better proficiencies and spell lists for fulfilling a similar role.
Wizards are also pretty bland with not many robust features to interact with. Really, what made my wizard so good was the metagaming I did.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let me make a simple comparison.
Bard has unlimited wide AoE spells for 1 action.
Wizard has limited very restricted single target spells for 1 action. Some of those also require spending 3 actions the previous turn.Bard has ways to poach spells from any school in class.
Wizard does not have any way to poach spells.Bard has 8 HP, 1 legendary will, expert with martial weapons, expert with light armor, and master in perception.
Wizard has 6 HP, 0 legendary saves, expert in unarmor, expert with simple weapons, and expert in perception.Bard has a way to get expert in all lore skills and ways to benefit from recall knowledge.
Wizard has none of that.Bard has significantly better feats.
Wizard has very few.Bard has significantly more feats and more feats to support each of their muses (which they can mix and match).
Wizard has very few feats that help their choosen school or thesis and cannot mix and match.Bards have 3 spells slots per spell level.
Wizards have 4 spell slots per spell level.Bard has ways to always debuff enemies before casting their spells (dirge).
Wizard has no way to do so.***********************
Are you seeing the issue? Yes you can play a wizard and if the dice and GM are nice you might even have fun. But that fun is in spite of the wizard whose only benefit is "cast 1 more single use spell".
Which an Arcane Sorcerer will have the same number of spells as the Wizard. Spell blending give 1 extra spell for levels 3 to 9 (max 7), at the cost 2 spells per level from 1 to 7 (max 14). So you end up having fewer spells than the Sorcerer.
You list all the things a Bard can do but avoid mentioning the fact that a single Bard cannot do all of them.
As you avoid mentioning that the Bard is worse at Lore (because KAS is CHA) than the Wizard (whose KAS is INT).
As usual.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let me make a simple comparison.
Bard has unlimited wide AoE spells for 1 action.
Wizard has limited very restricted single target spells for 1 action. Some of those also require spending 3 actions the previous turn.Bard has ways to poach spells from any school in class.
Wizard does not have any way to poach spells.Bard has 8 HP, 1 legendary will, expert with martial weapons, expert with light armor, and master in perception.
Wizard has 6 HP, 0 legendary saves, expert in unarmor, expert with simple weapons, and expert in perception.Bard has a way to get expert in all lore skills and ways to benefit from recall knowledge.
Wizard has none of that.Bard has significantly better feats.
Wizard has very few.Bard has significantly more feats and more feats to support each of their muses (which they can mix and match).
Wizard has very few feats that help their choosen school or thesis and cannot mix and match.Bards have 3 spells slots per spell level.
Wizards have 4 spell slots per spell level.Bard has ways to always debuff enemies before casting their spells (dirge).
Wizard has no way to do so.***********************
Are you seeing the issue? Yes you can play a wizard and if the dice and GM are nice you might even have fun. But that fun is in spite of the wizard whose only benefit is "cast 1 more single use spell".
Which an Arcane Sorcerer will have the same number of spells as the Wizard. Spell blending give 1 extra spell for levels 3 to 9 (max 7), at the cost 2 spells per level from 1 to 7 (max 14). So you end up having fewer spells than the Sorcerer.
You list all the things a Bard can do but avoid mentioning the fact that a single Bard cannot do all of them.
As you avoid mentioning that the Bard is worse at Lore (because KAS is CHA) than the Wizard (whose KAS is INT).
As usual.
If the Wizard is meant to be the Lore class, then why not give it features that grant or provide more interaction with the Lore skill?
Plus, a Bard could take Sentinel dedication, dump Dex, and boost Int instead to have what is basically a super-powered Lore skill that is on par with any Knowledge check by nature of reducing the DC by 2 for being a Lore skill.
|
|
Let me make a simple comparison.
Bard has unlimited wide AoE spells for 1 action.
Wizard has limited very restricted single target spells for 1 action. Some of those also require spending 3 actions the previous turn.Bard has ways to poach spells from any school in class.
Wizard does not have any way to poach spells.Bard has 8 HP, 1 legendary will, expert with martial weapons, expert with light armor, and master in perception.
Wizard has 6 HP, 0 legendary saves, expert in unarmor, expert with simple weapons, and expert in perception.Bard has a way to get expert in all lore skills and ways to benefit from recall knowledge.
Wizard has none of that.Bard has significantly better feats.
Wizard has very few.Bard has significantly more feats and more feats to support each of their muses (which they can mix and match).
Wizard has very few feats that help their choosen school or thesis and cannot mix and match.Bards have 3 spells slots per spell level.
Wizards have 4 spell slots per spell level.Bard has ways to always debuff enemies before casting their spells (dirge).
Wizard has no way to do so.***********************
Are you seeing the issue? Yes you can play a wizard and if the dice and GM are nice you might even have fun. But that fun is in spite of the wizard whose only benefit is "cast 1 more single use spell".
Which an Arcane Sorcerer will have the same number of spells as the Wizard. Spell blending give 1 extra spell for levels 3 to 9 (max 7), at the cost 2 spells per level from 1 to 7 (max 14). So you end up having fewer spells than the Sorcerer.
You list all the things a Bard can do but avoid mentioning the fact that a single Bard cannot do all of them.
As you avoid mentioning that the Bard is worse at Lore (because KAS is CHA) than the Wizard (whose KAS is INT).
As usual.
If the Wizard is meant to be the Lore class, then why not give it features that grant or provide more interaction with the Lore skill?
Plus, a Bard could take Sentinel dedication, dump Dex, and boost Int instead to have what is basically a super-powered Lore skill that is on par with any Knowledge check by nature of reducing the DC by 2 for being a Lore skill.
I did not say the Wizard is meant to be the Lore class. Just that they will be mechanically better at the Lores they have than the Bard. Which Temperans carefully omits.
And a Bard could sure do what you say, though I have seen strong table variation about Bardic Lore reducing the DC. But then there are other things Temperans list that the same Bard will just not be able to do.
It has one more spell slot than a Sorcerer if they are a specialist school caster, it has a passable (but not specialized enough) spell list, and the number of "encounter defining spells" is still relatively limited. I will say that my most potent use of a spell at 19th level was a 6th level Mass Slow, but it required poor rolls on the GMs part.I don't love the wizard class I don't like prepared casters and for the most point I find the classes feat to be fairly dull.
But I don't get people casting it as a
a weak class, it has the most spells per day over every class and access to a great list of spells from 1- 10 at later levels a wizard could easily have multiple encounter defining spells per encounter.It is a class the particularly struggles at low levels before spells get good (all of its class power is in spells rather than unique actions and focus powers) but that isn't a unique problem for wizards and from level 7 plus it's one of the strongest casters in the game.
So while the wizard may not have the prettiest exteriors or be that fun to drive but it's motor is solid prescion engineering and will get you where you need to go.
To summarise the wizards fundamentals are fine it could do with some glitz and a fancy paint job.
It's a lot more than that depending on feats and thesis. Scroll savant is 2 more spells perday by itself, and spell mastery while level 20 is 4 more. Staff nexus is variable but can give you more top level or low level slots depending on what you need, and spell blending gives more top level slots ofc. Bond conservation and superior bond gives an extra slot minimum and bond conservation can really do wild stuff if you don't have to move. Universalist can take that to a pretty potent extreme and combine it with staff nexus to enable it. A lot of this is tech-y, feat dependent and thesis dependent, but it does result in quite a lot more slots compared to everyone else
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I literally only listed the chassis, number of class options, and quality of said options. So yes they get everything I listed, get out with the strawman.
Also they get Loremaster's Etude, which means a free reroll every 10 minutes. Or how about all those lore spells that are exclusive to Occult. Its like saying that Alchemist is good at Recall Knowledge, it just ain't happening.
Only if they take the Enigma Muse, which not every Bard is going to. That's Raven Black's point.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I overall like the wizard
It was never the strongest option
Now with other classes getting buffs and, so far my the looks the wizard getting a nerf. That sucks. They will still be playable.
The issue with the wizard was both , vague theme and some options just being a lot better
Blending and substitution are better then meta magic, familiar and staff almost every time.
Low level feats were meh.
Until remaster, there was strong argument for non universalist wizards because they had a large number of spells to choose from, some had decent focus spells though not great.
Even if the focus spells are better in the remaster, if I have to sit through dead bonus slots that don't scale well, I'm just going to play the universalist, or another class.
Overall I'm disheartened. The class will remain playable, but I liked the wider selection of spells. I love paizo but they've repeatedly shown they prioritize narrative over balance when it comes to something being mechanically weak. So I'm fully expecting the school spell options to be, for the most part, narrative instead of good in the long run.
Personally I don't want to be level 10 with 3 dead slots I'll never use.
This also limits the usefulness of flexible caster archetype, one of my favorites, because I could select good spells for those bonus slots to bolster me.
Maybe paizo will prove me wrong, but my hopes in this specific subtext of their design habits, I'm not hopeful
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I did not say the Wizard is meant to be the Lore class. Just that they will be mechanically better at the Lores they have than the Bard. Which Temperans carefully omits.
And a Bard could sure do what you say, though I have seen strong table variation about Bardic Lore reducing the DC. But then there are other things Temperans list that the same Bard will just not be able to do.
I don't see how the Wizard is better at Lores than the Bard, who can literally acquire a feature that gives them the ability to make a check on anything with a single Lore skill. The only other thing comparable to that is Esoteric Lore from Thaumaturge, which is really only better because of Legendary Scaling, benefitting from Charisma, and providing more in-combat reliance on Recall Knowledge. What does a Wizard get from investing in Lores that these classes don't? Nothing, really. So saying they are "mechanically better" doesn't track with this in mind.
That's fair enough, though honestly, given that Bard Muse options are basically only a one feat tax away to getting access to any options that require these things, and Bards have only slightly more compelling feat options compared to Wizards, it's not as tall of an order as we make it out to be, especially if the tables are using Free Archetype rules.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bardic Lore is complete ass. Good luck making a Bard with the Int to make trained-only RK checks. If you want that kind of interaction an int caster with Loremaster and Cognitive Crossover to reroll your failed Loremaster checks into Arcane/Occult is much better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a lot more than that depending on feats and thesis. Scroll savant is 2 more spells perday by itself, and spell mastery while level 20 is 4 more. Staff nexus is variable but can give you more top level or low level slots depending on what you need, and spell blending gives more top level slots ofc. Bond conservation and superior bond gives an extra slot minimum and bond conservation can really do wild stuff if you don't have to move. Universalist can take that to a pretty potent extreme and combine it with staff nexus to enable it. A lot of this is tech-y, feat dependent and thesis dependent, but it does result in quite a lot more slots compared to everyone elseIt has one more spell slot than a Sorcerer if they are a specialist school caster, it has a passable (but not specialized enough) spell list, and the number of "encounter defining spells" is still relatively limited. I will say that my most potent use of a spell at 19th level was a 6th level Mass Slow, but it required poor rolls on the GMs part.I don't love the wizard class I don't like prepared casters and for the most point I find the classes feat to be fairly dull.
But I don't get people casting it as a
a weak class, it has the most spells per day over every class and access to a great list of spells from 1- 10 at later levels a wizard could easily have multiple encounter defining spells per encounter.It is a class the particularly struggles at low levels before spells get good (all of its class power is in spells rather than unique actions and focus powers) but that isn't a unique problem for wizards and from level 7 plus it's one of the strongest casters in the game.
So while the wizard may not have the prettiest exteriors or be that fun to drive but it's motor is solid prescion engineering and will get you where you need to go.
To summarise the wizards fundamentals are fine it could do with some glitz and a fancy paint job.
Scroll Savant requires extraneous skill investment that may or may not be taken (given how circumstantial Crafting is, not every Wizard will invest in it). Granted, it's probably one of the best Wizard feats that are available, it's also not a guarantee, just like how the claim of "Bards are better at Lore checks because of Bardic Lore" isn't a guarantee either. Spell Mastery is probably a feat I should have looked at more, since 10th level spells are actually really, really bad, thus making Archmage's Might pretty terrible by proxy, but now we're talking about 20th level characters that are probably not going to see the light of day between close to a hundred or so tables of players, in which case it's about as relevant as white room math. I haven't tinkered with Staff Nexus, and Spell Blending is practically crucial if you want to have more staying power by taking away irrelevant lower level slots (even with Spell Blending I was struggling to fill lower level slots with useful/helpful spells) and acquiring more useful higher level slots.
Bond Conservation/Superior Bond requires careful planning and can easily backfire based on enemy tactics, though I have actually seen it used effectively in play twice so far (I actually didn't take those feats on my Wizard because I was too afraid of getting screwed over, and because it's rough on an already rough action economy class), and having to constantly configure lower level slots to trigger this with loses oomph pretty fast (and there's also the question of whether you can "chain" them from a single use, which could be considered TGTBT territory). It definitely seems to fare better with Universalists, since they can utilize Arcane Bond once per spell level, instead of once per day, I'll give it that, and honestly, I would say with this combo, Universalists can cast more spells than even specialized Wizards. But again, it requires proper planning and the enemy not messing up those plans (which can easily happen, by the way), in which case we're planning for best case scenarios, which is once again about as relevant as white room math.
Just as well, I don't think people are considering hypothetical slots as part of the class' power (especially since a fair amount of those are opt-in), otherwise we can just throw wands and scrolls and staves and other items into the mix if we are comparing hypothetical slots available, which kind of defeats the purpose of comparing what a class can do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bardic Lore is complete ass. Good luck making a Bard with the Int to make trained-only RK checks. If you want that kind of interaction an int caster with Loremaster and Cognitive Crossover to reroll your failed Loremaster checks into Arcane/Occult is much better.
Compared to Maestro Muse, yeah. Even Polymath is better, since you get pseudo-preparation benefits that scale interestingly in the endgame. But I'd rather boil that down to an improper balance between Muses than the effect itself being bad, since if it scaled up based on, say, spellcasting proficiency, it'd be pretty potent, since the only bad thing about it is the scaling. Kind of like how the Warrior Muse is currently pretty bad (and probably not going to get much better in the Remaster by the looks of things).
I imagine it is better to go the Loremaster route, but the factor that the Wizard needs to invest in that stuff from out-of-class really only tells me that Wizards have less tools to deal with Lore skills than the Bard does, which was ultimately the point I was making. Bardic Lore might not be great, but it's more than what the Wizard gets in-class, which is jack and bupkis.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I overall like the wizard
It was never the strongest option
Now with other classes getting buffs and, so far my the looks the wizard getting a nerf. That sucks. They will still be playable.
The issue with the wizard was both , vague theme and some options just being a lot better
Blending and substitution are better then meta magic, familiar and staff almost every time.
Low level feats were meh.
Until remaster, there was strong argument for non universalist wizards because they had a large number of spells to choose from, some had decent focus spells though not great.
Even if the focus spells are better in the remaster, if I have to sit through dead bonus slots that don't scale well, I'm just going to play the universalist, or another class.
Overall I'm disheartened. The class will remain playable, but I liked the wider selection of spells. I love paizo but they've repeatedly shown they prioritize narrative over balance when it comes to something being mechanically weak. So I'm fully expecting the school spell options to be, for the most part, narrative instead of good in the long run.
Personally I don't want to be level 10 with 3 dead slots I'll never use.
This also limits the usefulness of flexible caster archetype, one of my favorites, because I could select good spells for those bonus slots to bolster me.
Maybe paizo will prove me wrong, but my hopes in this specific subtext of their design habits, I'm not hopeful
A class being "playable" doesn't really mean much, since Swashbuckler, Investigator, Witch, and Alchemist are all similarly "playable." But that doesn't mean the community isn't going to tear into their apparent flaws and see them for what they are, which is subpar.
Don't get me wrong, I think it would be interesting to see a 4-person party of this composition be done as a sort of "challenge mode" for PF2, but being "playable" doesn't translate to being "fun to play." I want the Wizard to be the latter, because being the former isn't really enough to me.
I've played an Investigator from 1st all the way to 14th level (I believe the characters will retire by 15th), and while I had some neat features with the methodology I took (Forensic Medicine and Medic dedication), I honestly kind of felt like a worse Rogue, being restricted by my DAS action economy and being able to only make one good strike in a round. In fact, the only reason why I wanted to go Investigator was to see how far I could push my in-combat healing, and even compared to a spellcaster, it's pretty bad. It has good burst, but being restricted to once (maybe twice) per person hasn't been enough for some fights, and being forced to basically take an hour "break" between each combat to reset timers isn't a very helpful tactic.
And I've had a friend play an Alchemist for 2 levels (4th and 5th), and they have expressed their frustrations with the class to the table (and our table has noticed other frustrations with the class as well), between the lack of proficiencies, DC scalings, damage values, etc. They just weren't happy with it compared to a class as boring as Cloistered Cleric, which actually had the staying power needed with the proper DC scalings and damage opportunities.
Remember the golden phrase "No gaming is better than bad gaming?" Same concept here. "No classes is better than bad classes." Really, if a class is stated to be the "worst" because we simply have to pick a worst, then it says a lot about the balance of the game. The factor I can't really make that distinction about the class balance of PF2 means there is still a ways to go (perhaps even another edition) before I can say that the only "worst" class is one I have to draw randomly from a hat; that would be the ideal scenario for balance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't agree that past level 7 a wizard is one of the more powerful classes. I've not seen this in play.
Some seem to like the wizard and do well enough with it. I don't find the PF2 wizard very compelling like I did every previous version of the wizard other than 4E.
I think the other caster classes are more versatile in build options and abilities. They bring a lot more to the table than the wizard in the PF2 group dynamic. They are a lot more fun to build than a wizard.
That's my experience. I look at the wizard as a lower tier caster with boring to ineffective feat options and class chassis.
I hope that improves in the remaster.
Scroll Savant requires extraneous skill investment that may or may not be taken (given how circumstantial Crafting is, not every Wizard will invest in it). Granted, it's probably one of the best Wizard feats that are available, it's also not a guarantee, just like how the claim of "Bards are better at Lore checks because of Bardic Lore" isn't a guarantee either. Spell Mastery is probably a feat I should have looked at more, since 10th level spells are actually really, really bad, thus making Archmage's Might pretty terrible by proxy, but now we're talking about 20th level characters that are probably not going to see the light of day between close to a hundred or so tables of players, in which case it's about as relevant as white room math. I haven't tinkered with Staff Nexus, and Spell Blending is practically crucial if you want to have more staying power by taking away irrelevant lower level slots (even with Spell Blending I was struggling to fill lower level slots with useful/helpful spells) and acquiring more useful higher level slots.
Bond Conservation/Superior Bond requires careful planning and can easily backfire based on enemy tactics, though I have actually seen it used effectively in play twice so far (I actually didn't take those feats on my Wizard because I was too afraid of getting screwed over, and because it's rough on an already rough action economy class), and having to constantly configure lower level slots to trigger this with loses oomph pretty fast (and there's also the question of whether you can "chain" them from a single use, which could be considered TGTBT territory). It definitely seems to fare better with Universalists, since they can utilize Arcane Bond once per spell level, instead of once per day, I'll give it that, and honestly, I would say with this combo, Universalists can cast more spells than even specialized Wizards. But again, it requires proper planning and the enemy not messing up those plans (which can easily happen, by the way), in which case we're planning for best case scenarios, which is once again about as relevant as white room math.
Just as well, I don't think people are considering hypothetical slots as part of the class' power (especially since a fair amount of those are opt-in), otherwise we can just throw wands and scrolls and staves and other items into the mix if we are comparing hypothetical slots available, which kind of defeats the purpose of comparing what a class can do.
I would argue less that this is hypothetical power and more that these are feat and action taxes if I was to pick a complaint. For scroll savant luckily crafting is getting buffed, and I forgot that once you get master spell proficiency you got up to three and at legendary 4, so it's even better than I remember. This is just straight up an auto pick if you ask me and maybe should be a wizard specific skill feat instead of a class feat or something because I will say it does feel like a feat tax.
But anyways I think it's incorrect to say say "well why don't we throw staves, wands and scrolls into the mix" because those same staves, scrolls and wands that you would get in the campaign will be there atop these features you can pick to get more slots, it doesn't affect the consideration here because these feats and features are still atop whatever hypothetical magic items any given caster would get
I think we should assume that a wizard is going to pick these auto include feats and that these are feat taxes which maybe shouldn't compete with stuff like metamagic
I don't agree that past level 7 a wizard is one of the more powerful classes. I've not seen this in play.
Some seem to like the wizard and do well enough with it. I don't find the PF2 wizard very compelling like I did every previous version of the wizard other than 4E.
I think the other caster classes are more versatile in build options and abilities. They bring a lot more to the table than the wizard in the PF2 group dynamic. They are a lot more fun to build than a wizard.
That's my experience. I look at the wizard as a lower tier caster with boring to ineffective feat options and class chassis.
I hope that improves in the remaster.
Wizard lacks severely in "eye-popping" features, this is true. Convincing Illusion fits the bill, but it's difficult to use for much the same reason I was talking down bardic lore earlier (though the payoff for jumping through those hoops is higher). If I want to build a brainy caster Psychic has a lot more cool factor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand the whole spells to do things as being special when skills are equally effective. I read these things of people using some spell to get past guards and I'm wondering where the Intimidate Group Coercion PC is or the Diplomacy player.
Stealth is effective for sneaking by guards as well.
It seems some folks are making this automatic if a spell is used and I'm wondering if they are making people roll if a spell isn't used. Spells are not automatic and skills and skill feats allow you to do quite a bit that someone might try to accomplish with spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is a pipe dream. While you personally may not find those classes fun, others do. Paizo has to try to cater to the many not the few.
The Wizard is indeed a pipe dream, given that it's already at the printers and we've seen the preview posted by the devs; we'll have to wait an entire new edition for that dream to come true, and even then that might not happen, simply because they will probably simply republish the class as it is in this hypothetical 3rd edition, since we've gotten confirmation that Paizo sees nothing wrong with the class as-is.
As for "catering to the many, not the few," there have been plenty of others who have voiced their concerns for these classes, not just myself, so acting like it's strictly a personal problem doesn't track.
I don't understand the whole spells to do things as being special when skills are equally effective. I read these things of people using some spell to get past guards and I'm wondering where the Intimidate Group Coercion PC is or the Diplomacy player.
Stealth is effective for sneaking by guards as well.
It seems some folks are making this automatic if a spell is used and I'm wondering if they are making people roll if a spell isn't used. Spells are not automatic and skills and skill feats allow you to do quite a bit that someone might try to accomplish with spells.
I would say that spells make taking certain skills at-least feasible, or at least reduce the number of checks (or skills) required to complete a task. For example, infiltrating a guard house, a Veil spell would make you all look like guards taking a prisoner to jail, thereby negating the need for a Disguise check, or Charm Person could basically let you ignore making a Diplomacy check (should they fail the save).
It's different if, for example, you have an Antimagic Prison you're trying to break into, or the guards have Truesight on them to attempt to disbelieve the illusion of the Veil spell, or they succeed at a Charm Person spell and recognize magic was cast. But saying players using spells to take precautions or to negate having to make checks or perform activities seems more like punishing spells just to punish them instead of taking them for what they should be capable of doing without any countermeasures put against them. Heck, even Veil having a simple "guards make a Perception against your Spell DC" might be better than if you have party members trying to fake being guards with a Deception skill (of which not everyone will be good at).
Also, Stealth has the issue of having to roll multiple times and being screwed by a bad roll, or being forced to rely on the character with the worst Stealth score (if any) if you have the Quiet Allies feat. There's also the factor that you need to be Concealed or Covered to utilize/benefit from Sneak (unless you have Legendary Sneak or something equivalent), which isn't always a guarantee. And no, pulling a Solid Snake and crouching around in a box doesn't count. So acting like skills are superior to spells at all times because they can just be done at-will doesn't track, given that the limited use of the spell is probably just as consequential as the failed roll of a skill in terms of drawing attention/causing combat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would argue less that this is hypothetical power and more that these are feat and action taxes if I was to pick a complaint. For scroll savant luckily crafting is getting buffed, and I forgot that once you get master spell proficiency you got up to three and at legendary 4, so it's even better than I remember. This is just straight up an auto pick if you ask me and maybe should be a wizard specific skill feat instead of a class feat or something because I will say it does feel like a feat tax.
But anyways I think it's incorrect to say say "well why don't we throw staves, wands and scrolls into the mix" because those same staves, scrolls and wands that you would get in the campaign will be there atop these features you can pick to get more slots, it doesn't affect the consideration here because these feats and features are still atop whatever hypothetical magic items any given caster would get
I think we should assume that a wizard is going to pick these auto include feats and that these are feat taxes which maybe shouldn't compete with stuff like metamagic
If it's opt-in, then it's hypothetical, by proxy of being able to pick different feats. And if we want to argue feat tax, then we can add in the lack of comparable feat choices as another complaint, since a big thing behind feat taxes in this edition is because there's practically no other significant choices. I have no clue how crafting is getting "buffed," but it doesn't seem like it's going to be all that helpful or effective regardless, since rarity has the issues of both finding access to an item (either by purchasing it or having a formula for it), as well as the materials to craft it (since I imagine a rare item is going to be using, well, rare materials, something that the town might not have access to). For the 20 levels that I've played the Wizard, the capacity to craft has only come up, like, once, when I was commissioned by the party Bard to inscribe a Keen rune into his Gill Hook (of which I "broke down" a Keen Runestone prior to learn its inner workings and created a formula for it, then spent half its value putting it back together). Just as well, changing it to a skill feat isn't going to change it from being "must-have," it's just changing which feat type it burns, and honestly, Skill Feats >>>> Wizard Feats 90% of the time.
We are talking about a feat that gives you temporary scrolls each day, which are consumable items, so the idea that we can't take non-temporary items into consideration in determining how much spell power a Wizard can have is absurd, especially since they indeed have a Thesis revolving around staff usage.
What some people consider "auto-pick" others won't even pick up as feats. For example, the Wizard we have in one of our groups is not improving Crafting, meaning they will not be taking Scroll Savant, good as it might be. (Having used it myself, it was definitely awesome for stocking day-long buffs and having a Disintegrate on hand for a quick entrance/exit, or simply destroying an object that is hazardous, all of which has come up in actual play.) But assuming build choices isn't exactly any more helpful than saying "Bardic Lore" as an excuse for Bards being better at Lore skills than Wizards, even if it's more Lore support than the Wizard class ever gets.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've mentioned this in other threads on this topic, but I will reiterate, because I think it's a decent buff to wizards (and witches):
The remastered version of Magical Shorthand turns a success on Learn a Spell into a critical success. Assuming the Learn a Spell activity hasn't changed, this does allow a caster to learn all spells at half price. So assuming you have access to all the spells you want, you can now roughly have twice as many in your spellbook.
If it's opt-in, then it's hypothetical, by proxy of being able to pick different feats. And if we want to argue feat tax, then we can add in the lack of comparable feat choices as another complaint, since a big thing behind feat taxes in this edition is because there's practically no other significant choices. I have no clue how crafting is getting "buffed," but it doesn't seem like it's going to be all that helpful or effective regardless, since rarity has the issues of both finding access to an item (either by purchasing it or having a formula for it), as well as the materials to craft it (since I imagine a rare item is going to be using, well, rare materials, something that the town might not have access to). For the 20 levels that I've played the Wizard, the capacity to craft has only come up, like, once, when I was commissioned by the party Bard to inscribe a Keen rune into his Gill Hook (of which I "broke...I would argue less that this is hypothetical power and more that these are feat and action taxes if I was to pick a complaint. For scroll savant luckily crafting is getting buffed, and I forgot that once you get master spell proficiency you got up to three and at legendary 4, so it's even better than I remember. This is just straight up an auto pick if you ask me and maybe should be a wizard specific skill feat instead of a class feat or something because I will say it does feel like a feat tax.
But anyways I think it's incorrect to say say "well why don't we throw staves, wands and scrolls into the mix" because those same staves, scrolls and wands that you would get in the campaign will be there atop these features you can pick to get more slots, it doesn't affect the consideration here because these feats and features are still atop whatever hypothetical magic items any given caster would get
I think we should assume that a wizard is going to pick these auto include feats and that these are feat taxes which maybe shouldn't compete with stuff like metamagic
The opt in argument feels more like an excuse to not consider the potential power so you can complain about the wizard being weaker. It's there, it is powerful, every wizard can have it. You also opt into other obvious choices like 18 intelligence, it doesn't mean we should measure the power of the wizard by ones with 10 or 12 intelligence. On crafting, I believe the changes to it were mentioned in the very first remaster stream and the biggest issue of time was being addressed in pretty significant ways. It's also very silly to say "it makes consumable items" when it only does in a technical fashion, in a practical fashion it adds more spell slots. They are free, you spend no time to craft them and they don't require a check to make. They are automatically made on preparation. They are functionally additional spells slots
I don't understand the whole spells to do things as being special when skills are equally effective. I read these things of people using some spell to get past guards and I'm wondering where the Intimidate Group Coercion PC is or the Diplomacy player.
Stealth is effective for sneaking by guards as well.
It seems some folks are making this automatic if a spell is used and I'm wondering if they are making people roll if a spell isn't used. Spells are not automatic and skills and skill feats allow you to do quite a bit that someone might try to accomplish with spells.
I would say that spells make taking certain skills at-least feasible, or at least reduce the number of checks (or skills) required to complete a task. For example, infiltrating a guard house, a Veil spell would make you all look like guards taking a prisoner to jail, thereby negating the need for a Disguise check, or Charm Person could basically let you ignore making a Diplomacy check (should they fail the save).
It's different if, for example, you have an Antimagic Prison you're trying to break into, or the guards have Truesight on them to attempt to disbelieve the illusion of the Veil spell, or they succeed at a Charm Person spell and recognize magic was cast. But saying players using spells to take precautions or to negate having to make checks or perform activities seems more like punishing spells just to punish them instead of taking them for what they should be capable of doing without any countermeasures put against them. Heck, even Veil having a simple "guards make a Perception against your Spell DC" might be better than if you have party members trying to fake being guards with a Deception skill (of which not everyone will be good at).
Also, Stealth has the issue of having to roll multiple times and being screwed by a bad roll, or being forced to rely on the character with the worst Stealth score (if any) if you have the Quiet Allies feat. There's also the factor that you need to be...
Skills are still powerful enough where the spells of old are not what they once her. You can accomplish many of the same activities with skills and skill feats.
It seems to me some folks want to act like changing a spell out suddenly makes an encounter easy or possible, when it could be that way even if you don't have that spell and someone like your rogue is using their skills to get the party past.
It should be not some kind of determining factor indicating a caster is more powerful and thus should do less damage or have less effective abilities because their spells somehow allow an ability to bypass obstacles that can't be done with skills or clever play during exploration or downtime or even when devising strategies in modules.
When the Remaster comes out, I'm going to commit to playing a wizard from 1 to 20 just to finally do it even if I have to gut out the low levels to reach the levels where they might be good. I don't have experience with the wizard beyond level 11 playing it because every time I burned out on the class's boring feats and class chassis.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The opt in argument feels more like an excuse to not consider the potential power so you can complain about the wizard being weaker. It's there, it is powerful, every wizard can have it. You also opt into other obvious choices like 18 intelligence, it doesn't mean we should measure the power of the wizard by ones with 10 or 12 intelligence. On crafting, I believe the changes to it were mentioned in the very first remaster stream and the biggest issue of time was being addressed in pretty significant ways. It's also very silly to say "it makes consumable items" when it only does in a technical fashion, in a practical fashion it adds more spell slots. They are free, you spend no time to craft them and they don't require a check to make. They are automatically made on preparation. They are functionally additional spells slots
18 Intelligence is nowhere near as much of an investment as ranking up a not-so-useful skill for a later feat, since you are essentially locking yourself out of another more useful Legendary skill for it, whereas the game's math is assumed you are starting with an 18 in your KAS, and ranking it up at each given opportunity.
And really, saying "This one specific build is why the class is good" does more to demonstrate why the class is awful more than it does to demonstrate why it's good, because now we are straight-jacketing the class to be played in one way, and only one way, to be effective, when the entire point of a class is that it can be played multiple different ways and still be effective. "One true build"isms are supposed to be gone in this edition. The Wizard still subscribing to that is more proof of it being bad instead of the opposite.
Skills are still powerful enough where the spells of old are not what they once her. You can accomplish many of the same activities with skills and skill feats.
It seems to me some folks want to act like changing a spell out suddenly makes an encounter easy or possible, when it could be that way even if you don't have that spell and someone like your rogue is using their skills to get the party past.
It should be not some kind of determining factor indicating a caster is more powerful and thus should do less damage or have less effective abilities because their spells somehow allow an ability to bypass obstacles that can't be done with skills or clever play during exploration or downtime or even when devising strategies in modules.
The spells not being what they once were is practically the point of the new edition, because the spells being what they once were broke the system in ways that made it unplayable/Rocket Tag. If you want that stuff back, then PF2 is not the system for you, plain and simple.
Depends on if the encounter can be defeated with non-magical means. It could be that having a Dispel Magic on hand means the enemy isn't utilizing Mirror Images, or Haste, or Charming/Dominating your party member for the entirety of the fight, thereby making it significantly harder, since your only solutions are to either power through it, or to beat down a party member who is no longer contributing positively to the combat. But is it always going to work out? No. And that's fine. Having Magic be the solution to everything is both boring and also puts way too much narrative power in the spellcaster's hands, when they still already have more narrative power than martials anyway.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Skills are still powerful enough where the spells of old are not what they once her. You can accomplish many of the same activities with skills and skill feats.
It seems to me some folks want to act like changing a spell out suddenly makes an encounter easy or possible, when it could be that way even if you don't have that spell and someone like your rogue is using their skills to get the party past.
It should be not some kind of determining factor indicating a caster is more powerful and thus should do less damage or have less effective abilities because their spells somehow allow an ability to bypass obstacles that can't be done with skills or clever play during exploration or downtime or even when devising strategies in modules.
The spells not being what they once were is practically the point of the new edition, because the spells being what they once were broke the system in ways that made it unplayable/Rocket Tag. If you want that stuff back, then PF2 is not the system for you, plain and simple.
Depends on if the encounter can be defeated with non-magical means. It could be that having a Dispel Magic on hand means the enemy isn't utilizing Mirror Images, or Haste, or Charming/Dominating your party member for the entirety of the fight, thereby making it significantly harder, since your only solutions are to either power through it, or to beat down a party member who is no longer contributing positively to the combat. But is it always going to work out? No. And that's fine. Having Magic be the solution to everything is both boring and also puts way too much narrative power in the spellcaster's hands, when they still already have more narrative power than martials anyway.
If you have read my posts, it's quite clear I don't want PF1 back.
My problem is don't sell me on the wizard's ability to do things no one else can do when that is patently false. Skills do a lot of what spells used to do. You can accomplish a lot of the so called special things a wizard does with spells with skills.
The argument is a wizard can change out their spell load to do all these things that others cannot do and that isn't true. There's a lot of ways to accomplish similar acts.
That means the wizard class power budget should not be built on the idea of the old PF1 wizard being able to do everything by changing out spells when that isn't how the game works any more.
You can't keep saying, "The wizard isn't like PF1 any more, so learn to live with it" while some are claiming, "The wizard can still change out spells and do everything like the PF1 wizard."
That isn't true. You can do a whole lot with skills now, which is by design. A well built rogue is highly useful in a group much like a wizard with a ton of skills and skill feats at a high level. They can do things to get past guards, disarm traps, get by hazards, interact with NPCs to successfully navigate social situations, and the like.
So continuing to build up Schrodinger's wizard as this thing that exists in PF2 while underselling what other classes can do is building false expectations with the class.
I've played a few wizard up to 11, multiple druids, multiple sorcs, a bard to 17, as well as classes like a rogue to 15, a fighter to 16, a barbarian to 17. I've played a lot of classes to high level.
The wizard doesn't do anything that trumps what these classes do by changing out their spell load. Often the simplest solution works of just kill the enemies and a lot of classes do it as well or better than the wizard. As far as casting control spells, blasting spells, and the like, plenty of classes do that well as well.
Schrodinger's wizard doesn't exist in PF2. Yet you have players valuing spell slots like Schrodinger's Wizard still exists and undervaluing focus abilities and the general ability to do a lot of damage and acquire necessary mobility and other tricks that work as well as anything in the wizard arsenal.
So can you explain to me why the wizard is still Schrodinger's Wizard in the arguments by players claiming the class needs no extra work, but those of us experience playing a lot of classes clearly know that Schrodinger's Wizard no longer exists and high quality focus spells, skills, and ancestry feats provided a lot of what you need to win the game without a wizard ever even being part of the party.
They do nothing uniquely great and a good focus spell or skill provides as much sustainability as a spell slot for daily adventuring.
On a side note, do you know how fast a martial plows through mirror image? That spell is not great now. It has a maximum of three images. I cannot see spending a dispel magic on a mirror image. It provides 3 extra images. The only time an image isn't removed is if a martial crtically misses. A regular misses removes an image. So a single martial can practically render mirror image useless in one round by themselves and two martials chew through mirror image like it doesn't exist. Once I read how mirror image works in PF2, I never spend any resources getting rid of a mirror image.
Now invis is powerful in PF2. I do acquire resources for dealing with invis. That is necessary. Same as flight.
Haste is a fairly weak spell now. An extra movement or strike can be nice, but I'd rather spend the slot on slow. I usually take haste, but I find I rarely use it because it isn't necessary. I'd rather cast heroism with slow.
Dominate provides a save every round unless they critically fail. I used this spell against a party and even with the dominated PC acting as an enemy, the caster got wrecked because 2 action casters against a group of high level PCs is a recipe for dead. They ignored the PC and wrecked the caster.
Charm isn't much better considering any hostile actions you take against the PC end it. The PC can still attack your allies if they are assaulting your friends. They also don't feel compelled to fight their party. And once again unless it is a mass charm, the party will kill the dude. Then there is a chance the wizard itself may fail the charm save and fail the counteract check if the enemy caster is high enough to land an incap spell on a party.
Cleric or druid likely has a much better chance of resisting a dominate or charm than a wizard. They have an equal chance to get rid of it if they have a dispel magic. Ideally you'd want a sorc with dispel magic as a sig spell who can cast dispel at the right level enough times to be sure to make the counteract check.
And an Arcane Sorcerer with one of those "weaker" focus spells can use Arcane Countermeasures as a focus spell reaction to reduce the spell's level by 1 and provide a +2 status bonus to the save, AC or what not to resist the spell. I guess a wizard has a similar spell to the focus spell Arcane Countermeasure to do the same thing. I'm not sure what it is, but I'm sure it exists and someone will tell me what that spell is that works with no counteract check.
In my experience, suddenly not dying when a +3 boss is on me because I cast mirror image while my dragon throat weakness proccing manifold missiles is out damaging the fighter... And the rest of the party is working on keeping me alive/beating it's ass because I'm the only one reliably damaging it
Honestly mirror image just needs to save me for that round and it's worth it
Skills are still powerful enough where the spells of old are not what they once her. You can accomplish many of the same activities with skills and skill feats.
It seems to me some folks want to act like changing a spell out suddenly makes an encounter easy or possible, when it could be that way even if you don't have that spell and someone like your rogue is using their skills to get the party past.
It should be not some kind of determining factor indicating a caster is more powerful and thus should do less damage or have less effective abilities because their spells somehow allow an ability to bypass obstacles that can't be done with skills or clever play during exploration or downtime or even when devising strategies in modules.
The spells not being what they once were is practically the point of the new edition, because the spells being what they once were broke the system in ways that made it unplayable/Rocket Tag. If you want that stuff back, then PF2 is not the system for you, plain and simple.
Depends on if the encounter can be defeated with non-magical means. It could be that having a Dispel Magic on hand means the enemy isn't utilizing Mirror Images, or Haste, or Charming/Dominating your party member for the entirety of the fight, thereby making it significantly harder, since your only solutions are to either power through it, or to beat down a party member who is no longer contributing positively to the combat. But is it always going to work out? No. And that's fine. Having Magic be the solution to everything is both boring and also puts way too much narrative power in the spellcaster's hands, when they still already have more narrative power than martials anyway.
If you have read my posts, it's quite clear I don't want PF1 back.
My problem is don't sell me on the wizard's ability to do things no one else can do when that is patently false. Skills do a lot of what spells used to do. You can accomplish a...
You don't want PF1 spells level of impact but are complaining about how PF2 spells aren't impactful. Probably because, back when spells were impactful, it broke the game. Your request for spell functionality in this edition is a paradox. If spells became more impactful, it breaks the game, just like it did in PF1, and if they don't, then they are functionally useless, like they seem to be now. (Except in the hands of NPCs, though I will say it is sad NPCs make better spellcasters than PCs, but I am sure that was also true in PF1.)
As for selling Wizards doing things no one else can, I mean, I've said plenty of times that you can substitute a Wizard for any Arcane spellcaster and it will pan out the same if not better, but that wasn't your claim, which is "Spells are worse than or at best equal to skills."
Just as well, skills were useless in PF1. Why use skills when magic did the same thing except better? Now, when we flip it on its face, we're complaining about magic being useless, when, in the previous edition, it was the opposite.
It just seems to me you valued the balance points of PF1 more than the balance points of PF2. Hence why the obvious "just go play PF1" solution is offered at every turn: it provides the balance levels you seek. And if you like a lot of the PF2 mechanics, just use the Unchained Action Economy with the fundamental/property rune scaling and rules. EZClap.
Skills are still powerful enough where the spells of old are not what they once her. You can accomplish many of the same activities with skills and skill feats.
It seems to me some folks want to act like changing a spell out suddenly makes an encounter easy or possible, when it could be that way even if you don't have that spell and someone like your rogue is using their skills to get the party past.
It should be not some kind of determining factor indicating a caster is more powerful and thus should do less damage or have less effective abilities because their spells somehow allow an ability to bypass obstacles that can't be done with skills or clever play during exploration or downtime or even when devising strategies in modules.
The spells not being what they once were is practically the point of the new edition, because the spells being what they once were broke the system in ways that made it unplayable/Rocket Tag. If you want that stuff back, then PF2 is not the system for you, plain and simple.
Depends on if the encounter can be defeated with non-magical means. It could be that having a Dispel Magic on hand means the enemy isn't utilizing Mirror Images, or Haste, or Charming/Dominating your party member for the entirety of the fight, thereby making it significantly harder, since your only solutions are to either power through it, or to beat down a party member who is no longer contributing positively to the combat. But is it always going to work out? No. And that's fine. Having Magic be the solution to everything is both boring and also puts way too much narrative power in the spellcaster's hands, when they still already have more narrative power than martials anyway.
It is power that the class has that anyone can spec into for minimal investment in a skill. The question is about the power of the wizard. This is power, measuring the class on its power requires looking at the best version of the class. A complaint that the powerful builds are in a narrow band, only two thesis and you are expected to pick up scroll savant, bond conservation and superior bond, is not a complaint about the class being bad, it's again a complaint about feat taxes. Remember you said "wizards only get one extra spell slot" and the OP talked about the power of the class. This is the power, this is good on the metric of power and utilizing the class to the fullest potential is how you measure the class's power
The class is good, as in, it does powerful things, it does them well, when we talk about power we must look at the class using every advantage it gets. Technically speaking we shouldn't judge sorcerers based on focus spells because they are all opt in. Which one you get for your bloodline is opt in, whether you pick up the second and third are feats, also opt in. This goes for a lot of class features we use to describe a class's power and we recognize there when we talk about other class's power that to do so we look at the best possible version or versions, but this is not afford to the wizard by you here. If your complaint is they don't have enough build variety, then shift it from "wizard bad" because it isn't, to "wizard needs more variety" which are entirely different problems
Its not a contradiction to think that one game had one side be too good and that a different game needs to boost a side a bit more. This is not a binari option.
Also is it really that crazy that in a game sold for its balance that people will complain when something is not balanced like the rest? The more I converse here the more I think that when people say "PF2 is balanced" what they really mean is "PF2 favors martials and buffers". Which is not bad, but it certainly is not balanced.
Well, frankly the whole question of spells or skills to solve problems thing is a two way street. Spells still solve these problems, Deriven I asking why we should use spells to solve them when skills can, to which the same question can be asked in reverse. Much like most of Deriven's complaints about wizards or the arcane school you can flip it the other way around. Spells still help you solve challenges out of combat that skills can also solve. Both are valid approaches and worth while. What problems you solve with spells will typically be whatever your party doesn't have skills for, as a contingency plan for those skills, or where the spell is more certain to succeed than a skill, as skill checks are no guarantee, and some situations you can't afford to botch. There is also simple stuff, why care that your strength martial can use athletics to clear big gaps when the rest of the party can't, and you can use wall of stone to make a bridge?
When the Remaster comes out, I'm going to commit to playing a wizard from 1 to 20 just to finally do it even if I have to gut out the low levels to reach the levels where they might be good.It looks to me like Paizo tried to make damaging cantrips about equivalent to kineticist 1st-level impulses. So for example, Caustic Blast has the same initial damage progression as Tremor (d8, and an extra d8 every 2 levels). It has the same range, 30'. Both are saves with no partial damage on a fail. Both are 2 action. Tremor is 10' burst with potential knockdown while Blast is 5' burst with potential persistent damage.I'm not here to argue that wizards are sad. But that math is, I'm sorry to say, wrong.
Tremor is 1d10 every two character levels. Caustic Blast is 1d8 every two spell ranks. Which means that it's 1d8 every FOUR character levels. That's important.
There isn't a skill in the game that lets you fly. Or teleport. Or step between the planes. Or breathe underwater. The closest you can get to flying is a level 15 legendary feat (hardly a fair comparison point with a level 4 spell slot) which doesn't let you stay in the air. The closest you can get to teleporting or plane shifting is asking the wizard to do it, or WALKING. And the closest you can get to water breathing is, uh, holding your breath with Breath Control? Which gets you (25) x (5 + Con mod)...
As for selling Wizards doing things no one else can, I mean, I've said plenty of times that you can substitute a Wizard for any Arcane spellcaster and it will pan out the same if not better, but that wasn't your claim, which is "Spells are worse than or at best equal to skills."Just as well, skills were useless in PF1. Why use skills when magic did the same thing except better? Now, when we flip it on its face, we're complaining about magic being useless, when, in the previous edition, it was the opposite.
For the record, I agree with you, I was merely playing Devil's Advocate with Mr. Firelion. Thanks for the ammunition though, I wasn't thinking of it at the time.
Its not a contradiction to think that one game had one side be too good and that a different game needs to boost a side a bit more. This is not a binari option.
Also is it really that crazy that in a game sold for its balance that people will complain when something is not balanced like the rest? The more I converse here the more I think that when people say "PF2 is balanced" what they really mean is "PF2 favors martials and buffers". Which is not bad, but it certainly is not balanced.
It's also a fine line, since it seems like pushing these in one direction or the other throws off the balance to the point that one option/approach invalidates the other.
At this point, I think a fair question to ask would be what our expectations of magic/skills are; what niches should they be able to fill or not fill? How should these aspects be balanced between each other? Should they have any overlaps with one another? If so, how can we have these overlaps both make sense and have a balanced aspect about them that each one has its upsides and downsides?
Sorry about that, I should read more carefully. Oops!
You are good, I didn't consider water breathing or flight because it wasn't very common (and other party members prepped for it; I don't remember water breathing being available to Arcane, though), teleport because I prepped and used it all the time to the point it was just second nature, and plane shifting never came up as a necessity in play to warrant it being of value.