As a pretty big wizard fan, I actually don't think they would be "overpowered," but it would be a bit of a change in the playstyle. In a sense, there is the idea that a wizard could have access to every spell with enough time and research and that's somewhat considered in the design.
That said, I know that at least for myself, part of the enjoyment of playing a wizard comes from hunting down and curating a spellbook of tools. If that's something that a player isn't interested in (I think I may be in the minority), then I could see playing around with giving them cleric-like access to all the common spells.
Quick EDIT: I will say that this also depends a little on your playstyle at the table. I think the approach to adventures that many tables have adopted as the game has changed is a "day by day" adventure. Which is to say: "Wake up, adventure and face challenges, rinse and repeat." But if you have a group that is slower and more methodical, scouting out opponents and researching weaknesses, and have adventures that play into or reward this playstyle, then a wizard with access to everything could suck a lot of the challenge out by actually always having perfect preparation. Your mileage may vary!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only thing I'd watch out for is spell substitution abuse. After the 3rd time you happen to take 10 minutes downtime and then completely break the DM's prepared content with a super specific spell, they will rapidly lose patience with the house rule.
Even that isn't all that much worse than an Alchemist pulling out just the right elixir. The Alchemist doesn't even need to take 10 minutes to do it.
But it is a bit of a risk.
Some more conservative houserules would be to double or triple the number of spells that the Wizard learns automatically, or to make learning new spells only cost the skill check and access to a source - no gold cost.
Versatility is power, and this sort of homebrew would multiply the instances where the party wizard would have access to exactly the right spell for the occasion, as the arcane list in particular is designed to have lots of specialized tools that are perfectly tailored for certain occasions. If this is power everyone at the table is okay with, that should be fine, but in my opinion it would remain a significant buff to the wizard nonetheless.
|
Without the ability to fully reprepare their Spell Slots during the day (or to eschew preparing the full list so you can continue the process later on) this kind of change really doesn't move the needle all that much even with Spell Substitution though that is CERTAINLY worth taking into account if a Wiz in your group has that Thesis because with their 10 minutes, if you give the party the time and they have the Slots to spare they will be able to pull the answer out of their book though, to be honest, that is MORE accurate to the lore and tradition of how Wizard operated prior to PF2 than anything else.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Versatility is power,
Versatility by itself is not power.
There are two types of versatility. Permanent versatility (or broad build), and temporary versatility.
A broad build type of versatility is a character that has a lot of permanent options that they can use on the spur of the moment. The Ranger focus spell Animal Feature is permanent versatility. It is always available and can provide whatever option is has available immediately. And you don't have to choose way ahead of time which of the options to have available.
Temporary versatility is something that can be very powerful - if it is combined with foreknowledge about what is going to happen later. Wizard's Spell Slots are temporary versatility. You have to choose ahead of time what those versatile options are going to be. And then they lose their versatility. Aside from the Spell Substitution Thesis that was mentioned earlier, the Wizard can't change what spells they have prepared if they pick wrong in the morning. That versatility of the spell slot preparation stops being versatile. Hence the name of 'temporary versatility' - it is only versatile temporarily, or for a limited time (usually during morning preparations).
It is a common mistake in theorycrafting and character ranking to look at a temporary versatility and consider it to be the same as a permanent versatility. But to think that a temporary versatility power is going to always solve whatever challenges are presented because the power will always morph into just the right option available that is needed for a particular challenge - well, that implies that someone pre-read the adventure and is indulging in toxic metagaming. That player knows what is coming up in the adventure and will unerringly set their versatile option to exactly what is needed in the near future.
Versatility is power,Versatility by itself is not power.
There are two types of versatility. Permanent versatility (or broad build), and temporary versatility.
Versatility is power, and you are making a distinction without a difference while failing to grasp the wizard's greatest asset, which very much is that "temporary versatility". The entire point to prepared casters is that their ability to change their spell selection each day allows them to adapt their spells to better match any given situation, a clear benefit over spontaneous casters whose flexibility comes from choosing which spell to cast at any given moment. You say that the wizard can get their spell selection wrong, and that's factored into their power budget just as much as their ability to get their spell selection perfectly right, which will obviously have them be very effective on that day.
You also appear to be insinuating that picking up on basic game cues ("gee, I wonder what kind of enemies we'll find at the Temple of Undeath!") constitutes "metagaming", which is preposterous. The player does not need to read ahead to be able to prepare decently for the next day, and the notion that prepared casters are balanced around maximizing their every spell with perfect foreknowledge is a myth.
With all of this in mind, it stands to reason that a class with access to literally all of the arcane tradition's spells at once is going to have many more perfect answers to choose from in one go, as opposed to the current limited selection they have to build out as they level up. There is a reason why every prepared arcane caster in the game has to start with a limited collection and learn more common spells as they progress, and that's because the arcane list is so powerful and versatile that being able to prepare from all of it at-will would give a caster far more flexibility than any other. Again, I'm not advocating to ban this from the table, as this might just be fine for some players, but I do think it would be wrong to pretend that this wouldn't buff the wizard.
Well, I think it comes down to the question of is the Arcane list as powerful a Tradition that its spell list is powerful enough that being able to pick anything off of it is stronger than the other traditions.
I think that the game developers believe it does have a wider range of spells than the others, but they don't feel that it has more 'powerful' spells than the other traditions.
I think you can look at the other pick-a-list classes to see that I don't believe that they generally consider any one list overtly more powerful than any other specific list.
While the fact there is no class that grants knowledge of the entire spell list for preparation of their spells, that may mean they may consider it as a whole to be more versatile. On the other hand, I think the same is true of the Occult list, unless I'm mistaken. Other pick a list classes are, for instance spontaneous which can't nearly easily make use of wider range as they have a set number of spells they can leverage to build their subset.
So knowing all the spells would likely be a bit of power gain through versatility, but likely not something that would be completely game breaking.
The thing that it might break however is the often-considered theme of the wizard, whom is out trying to track down new spells. If spells are just common knowledge within the wizard community, it reduces one of the common DnD themes to drive such an academic to adventure. the ability to acquire new spells. Note this doesn't absolutely break the wizard either, as if you examine settings like harry potter, it seems that spells are all around them, and learning most (non-exclusive/rare) spells is merely a matter of making a little effort, or visiting a school or library. However, it is none-the-less a significant factor in the historical RPG wizard.
Then if you do this to the wizard, do you do this as well for the Witch and Magus as well?
Then if you do this to the wizard, do you do this as well for the Witch and Magus as well?
I don't think I would mind for Magus, because what is actually worth casting for them is much narrower than for a Wizard, even if they both have the same spell list.
Witch might have some versatility concerns, however as far as the theme I think it would actually make more sense. I don't know of a lot of fiction where someone gets magic through a pact with a powerful entity, but then also has to force feed spells to the familiar that is the intermediary between them and their Patron. That feels a lot more like a gameplay mechanic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is a reason why every prepared arcane caster in the game has to start with a limited collection and learn more common spells as they progress, and that's because the arcane list is so powerful and versatile that being able to prepare from all of it at-will would give a caster far more flexibility than any other.
I'm not sure how much that holds water. We don't see an inherent penalty ascribed to arcane non-prepared casters, even though they should theoretically also have a flexibility advantage (even if being spontaneous limits that somewhat).
We also don't see non-arcane versions of those same casters given compensatory bonuses. Elemental Wizards along Divine, Occult, and Primal Witches all follow the same preparation rules, despite not drawing from the arcane list, nor do they notably receive some other unique advantage for that restriction.
We also have Paizo on record in the past saying that they largely consider the traditions broadly balanced against each other. So per both Paizo's commentary and community interpretation (which often puts Occult near the top and rates Arcane and Primal fairly interchangeably) the whole premise that arcane needs a counterbalance because it's so much stronger doesn't really seem true.
... If you contrast a Primal or Divine Witch with a Druid or Cleric, it doesn't seem like the difference in preparation mechanics even really get factored in.
From all of this, it seems more reasonable to conclude that spellbook mechanics are primarily a flavor mechanic, not a balance one.
I'm not sure how much that holds water. We don't see an inherent penalty ascribed to arcane non-prepared casters, even though they should theoretically also have a flexibility advantage (even if being spontaneous limits that somewhat).
But they don't, though, that's the whole point. Spontaneous casters are locked into their spell selection, so they can't change their spells each day. They very explicitly lack the day-to-day adaptability of prepared casters, and so can't exploit that part of the arcane tradition.
We also don't see non-arcane versions of those same casters given compensatory bonuses. Elemental Wizards along Divine, Occult, and Primal Witches all follow the same preparation rules, despite not drawing from the arcane list, nor do they notably receive some other unique advantage for that restriction.
Yes, and that so far has been an issue, as the Elementalist is infamously weak, as are divine and primal witches with their lack of mechanical support. Paizo explicitly stated the witch was underpowered and that they're going to be buffing the class, so I'm not sure why we're suddenly treating their present state like a pillar of solid design or balance.
We also have Paizo on record in the past saying that they largely consider the traditions broadly balanced against each other. So per both Paizo's commentary and community interpretation (which often puts Occult near the top and rates Arcane and Primal fairly interchangeably) the whole premise that arcane needs a counterbalance because it's so much stronger doesn't really seem true.
Where? I know for a fact that it's the opposite, and Mark Seifter, co-creator of PF2e, explicitly stated that the arcane list is overloaded in large part due to trying to accommodate an overly broad idea of what it means to be a wizard.
... If you contrast a Primal or Divine Witch with a Druid or Cleric, it doesn't seem like the difference in preparation mechanics even really get factored in.
Yes, which is why the witch is getting buffed, because those limitations without compensation are one of several factors underpowering the class.
From all of this, it seems more reasonable to conclude that spellbook mechanics are primarily a flavor mechanic, not a balance one.
Which class do you think is more powerful: the class that can prepare from a list of just one spell, or the class that can prepare from a list of literally every spell in the game?
Given the choice, and all else held equal, which class would you pick: the class that can prepare from a list of spells, or the class that can prepare from that exact same list of spells, plus several more on top?
The only thing I'd watch out for is spell substitution abuse. After the 3rd time you happen to take 10 minutes downtime and then completely break the DM's prepared content with a super specific spell, they will rapidly lose patience with the house rule.
I just don't see this as quite possible in PF2 like it was in other editions. I don't think wizards can ruin anyone's game like this anymore even under these circumstances
It will be a power increase, but not a huge one.
It's potentially strong but depends on the individual player and their knowledge of "what spell would be perfect for this situation".
And even then the "perfect spell" still actually has to stick if it's offensive.
Imagine that a player had perfect foreknowledge of what they were going to encounter, and that would be the absolute best that a wizard with any spell could do.
For me, it would be almost nothing in terms of an increase of power because I simply don't know all the spells well enough. So having access to all common spells wouldn't help me. I tend to play spontaneous casters with broadly applicable spells known. And a repertoire of wands and scrolls for buff and utility spells that don't gain much from casting from my actual spell slots.
The wizard could take all of the money they saved from not having to learn the spells and use it to scribe scrolls, so I do see it as being powerful as the wizard could have almost any known spell ready at any given time.
I just don't see this as quite possible in PF2 like it was in other editions. I don't think wizards can ruin anyone's game like this anymore even under these circumstances
For sure it's much harder to break a combat encounter in 2e, but utility spells are as capable of bypassing content as before.
As an example, say you have to defend an extremely heavy plot-relevant object against waves of attackers and you have 1 hour to prepare for the assault. the knows-all-common-spells + spell substitution Wizard could just prepare Telekinetic Haul and then either leave with the object, hide it, or put it completely out of reach of attackers.
I just don't see this as quite possible in PF2 like it was in other editions. I don't think wizards can ruin anyone's game like this anymore even under these circumstancesFor sure it's much harder to break a combat encounter in 2e, but utility spells are as capable of bypassing content as before.
As an example, say you have to defend an extremely heavy plot-relevant object against waves of attackers and you have 1 hour to prepare for the assault. the knows-all-common-spells + spell substitution Wizard could just prepare Telekinetic Haul and then either leave with the object, hide it, or put it completely out of reach of attackers.
Well, you can move it up to 200 feet unless you expend multiple slots. You can definitely make things slightly easier but it's not super certain and we are talking mid-game, level 9+ so I would assume enemies would have ranged options and spells of their own. From a GM perspective I would be very interested to see if the players could do anything to thwart the enemy with this spell, but I really don't think this is anywhere close to a silver bullet
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the ability of wizards to break adventures with just the right spell is dramatically overestimated in this edition.
Spells that compete with a skill check generally end up rolling against more or less the same AC with more or less similar bonus. That's just a different way of doing things, not completely breaking things.
"Silver bullets" against enemies still need to hit / they still need to fail their saving throws. Which if they're boss monsters is not guaranteed.
I think being at least in the "that's a good spell for that situation" ballpark is actually needed for spellcasting to feel as good as just weapon violence.
So, Clerics and Druids are distinct in having the whole list unlocked, and picking from it each day.
While simply auto-granting Wiz the same would step on their toes, and break the whole personal spellbook fantasy;
What do yall think about the idea of auto-time progression for Wizard?
Specifically, that after X calendar days (AP dependent) the Wizard and Witch are able to add 1 spell to their books?
This still allows for all existing game systems to keep ticking along fine, but supplements their spell acquisition with a sort of "universal basic income" that's not dependent on level up, and can still function when those characters are stuck without access to someone/thing they can Learn A Spell from.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some campaigns get you to level 20 in about two months of game time, others in two decades. Hard to pick a number of calendar days that works for both of them.
So you'd want to tie it to levelup speed. But... that's already in the class, the two free spells you learn every level.
Some campaigns get you to level 20 in about two months of game time, others in two decades. Hard to pick a number of calendar days that works for both of them.
So you'd want to tie it to levelup speed. But... that's already in the class, the two free spells you learn every level.
Yeah, I get the reluctance to make GM dependent mechanics like that, but IMO as the problem of no spell learning access is entirely caused by the campaign, it needs to be addressed by the campaign.
APs could have a suggested rate of spell learning, but it would be intentionally not tied to level-up, as the idea would be to help out in-between level ups and reduce the new-system burden triggered on leveling up.
----------------------------
Though, without that "universal spell learning," doubling or tripling the spells learned on level-up would be a huge help.
But, again, this is such a strange issue to talk about prescriptively, as any time characters have access to Learn a Spell, the issue does not exist, and that bonus would only incentivize one to "wait until the next Lvl up."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, Clerics and Druids are distinct in having the whole list unlocked, and picking from it each day.
While simply auto-granting Wiz the same would step on their toes,
Why is that a niche that needs to be protected?
Do Clerics and Druids have nothing else that makes those classes distinct and valuable?
...Why is that a niche that needs to be protected?
Do Clerics and Druids have nothing else that makes those classes distinct and valuable?
I think the spellbook fantasy could be intact enough if Learn a Spell took a day of downtime, but was auto-success and had access to every option w/o need of a teacher/scroll.
My consideration is more of a "don't take out the jenga tower bricks unless you are super careful" kind of deal.
If Wiz/Witch got blanket full list access, there's a bunch of stuff that would need to be reworked or deleted, such as every named spellbook/Grimoire, where much of the value is the spell list.
Right now, there's even merit to buying niche Staves w/ spells you never learn, but use via the item.
A lot of "exciting loot for your players" for those book casters comes from finding spells to add, and that would be gone.
It's not a reason to say "it couldn't work" but just an acknowledgement that "a lot of things would be affected and need changing"
|
|
On the one hand you have the fantasy of the wizard who's eagerly collecting more spells, struggling sometimes, sometimes having to make sketchy deals to get a particularly rare spell. That's cool.
That's good for some campaigns. Probably good in a campaign like Kingmaker where there's a lot of free time for side adventures.
And then you have other campaigns where it's basically a roller-coaster that doesn't stop until you're done in book six, and barely two months have passed in game time. For those campaigns, a minimum amount of spells learned per level, with no checks or chance of failure, is the way to go. This campaign isn't about side treks.
---
Point being: different campaigns want different things. The class sets a floor (2 auto spells per level) but not much beyond that. But the GM should actually thing about that "beyond that" and what is the right way for that particular campaign. If you're gonna be saving the world in three months, then maybe just raise the auto spells per level number to 5 instead of 2. If there's years of freetime, instead spend some time coming up with a cool downtime mechanic for hobnobbing in wizard dining clubs to get access to more spells.
So the GM should have a more active view on this.
If Wiz/Witch got blanket full list access, there's a bunch of stuff that would need to be reworked or deleted
Eh, not really. You could drop it in as is and you'd just have a wizard that can prepare from a wider range of spells and might save some gold. Obviously that has a significant impact itself, but that's less a knock on effect and more the whole point of such a hypothetical.
The game just doesn't support the idea of a spellbook significantly enough for it to have much in the way of broader ramifications.
On the one hand you have the fantasy of the wizard who's eagerly collecting more spells, struggling sometimes, sometimes having to make sketchy deals to get a particularly rare spell. That's cool.
I agree that it could be cool to see characters struggle to get access to uncommon or rare spells, making a deal that goes wrong for some rare magic that ends up in adventure that gets them the rare magic is cool and rewarding.
But honestly if we defaulted to all non-spontaneous casters knowing all common spells of their tradition I think it would be a very minimal change to the game.