|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Players of wizards in PF1 who were able to solve every situation, every encounter, often on their own, being unable to understand a changed paradigm to the point they keep asserting that the class is broken or made poorly is something that’s just not going to change unfortunately. The choices in PF2 design to bring wizards to a similar level of ability overall as other classes can only ever be understood by them as a mistake, it also seems to be perhaps unsurprising that many of the same players dislike or refuse to join in team work, a core facet of PF2 mechanics.
About prepared casting, I find mandatory for these characters to have expert on Crafting and crafting magical items, so they can inscribe their scrolls in the downtime. For this the prepared have a huge advantage, as they can create items with spells known, instead with spells that they already can cast normally like in the case of repertoire. Is much more usefull to craft 4 Knock scrolls then don’t prepare it, than just creating from your repertoire as mere extra slots but with the spells using one of your valuable repertoire count.While that is true, it is only true for certain campaign types - not universally.
Crafting isn't any better than just buying those scrolls. And both prepared and spontaneous casters have the ability to cast scrolls of spells from their entire tradition list. So for the general case, buying 4 Knock scrolls and then never bothering to learn the spell in either Repertoire or spellbook is completely viable and will cost less (no need for crafting or Magical Crafting).
That’s why I mention the game style. If using the GMG option about not having magical shops or limiting them greatly, instead having the vending machine for exchanging money by whatever you want on demand, it makes difference.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Players of wizards in PF1 who were able to solve every situation, every encounter, often on their own, being unable to understand a changed paradigm to the point they keep asserting that the class is broken or made poorly is something that’s just not going to change unfortunately. The choices in PF2 design to bring wizards to a similar level of ability overall as other classes can only ever be understood by them as a mistake, it also seems to be perhaps unsurprising that many of the same players dislike or refuse to join in team work, a core facet of PF2 mechanics.
Similar level, but not same level. The comparison with the Sorcerer being the obvious one.
Also, with the remastered Witch and the future remastered Oracle, the Wizard has a chance to become the worst caster in the game with no real area where it shines.
Some players would prefer the Wizard to be as good as other casters, which is definitely a legitimate complaint.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Spontaneous was considered clearly and universally worse than prepared and not in any way equal in 3.x. I genuinely have no idea how you missed this but prepared casters were always tier 1 spontaneous were tier 2. They're finally more equal nowThe only thing that I have given any thought to is to take spell substitution out of the Thesis feature of the class and make a standard feature of all Wizard's. This would allow the Wizard to be more flexible without really increasing the power any and it stop the need to predict all the spells that you would all day at the same time the character is only able to change their spells when they are in exploration mode (with some possible risk).Should be a class feature as it was in PF1, which is what made prepared casting on par with spontaneous casting. Now spontaneous casting is clearly better in PF2.
And should be a class feature for all prepared casters. You should be able to change prepared spells or prepare them as needed. They went backwards in design making prepared casters locked in at the same time each day and inadvertently made spontaneous casting with signature spells the far superior option in play.
Not sure why experienced game designers would miss this, but it surprised me and was one of my early fixes to bring prepared casters back to parity with spontaneous. To me it was a big design mistake they should fix.
No. Spontaneous is better now, by a good margin.
I did not miss that prepared was tier 1. But the reasons for that are many. They eliminated an enormous amount of power from prepared with the overall reduction in power in magic. The ability to prepare as needed was another example of Paizo taking too many measures to reduce something in power when the initial measures were the most important.
The most important way that Paizo nerfed prepared casting was by making spells themselves much, much weaker.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Doesn't change the fact that it's his preference. It's his preference based on his experience. But the designers are saying the wizard is pretty much performing to their expectations in their systemYou keep making assumptions based on your personal preferences. You've literally had one of the lead designers for this game explaining where they're coming from and the data they are using and yet you keep insisting they built their class wrong because it doesn't line up with your preferences.It is not preferences. It is personal experience. But yes Deriven has had sufficient explanation.
The designers are not saying this at all. What they are saying according to their data is that the majority of the player base is not displeased with the wizard. That's fine.
But performance wise, I know I'm right. The wizard has certain weaknesses and performance issues that are measurable and correctable. You can show it in performance and you can illustrate the reasons why in real game play.
If you will notice, the majority of posters on this forum are posting something is fine absent evidence other than subjective feeling. They are showing moments where they made some useful impact and felt good on a personal level or illustrating white room math in an idealized situation.
That's expected. Wizard casting with their proficiency is going to be able to occasionally impact the game in the same way any caster can impact the game landing a spell with fail or some great result.
It's more once you delve into comparative performance over long-term play that you see the problems.
You will notice in the remaster two of the classes getting the most looked at are the wizard and the witch. The six hit point prepared casters. So if all of us having problems are wrong, then why are they doing something to adjust them?
They likely won't adjust them in the fashion some of us want or everything we want. But us bringing up the problems will hopefully have helped make the wizard a better and more competitive class in the long run. That's all I care about.
I like the wizard class. I been playing wizards since the class first came out. The wizard is a legendary class in Dungeons and Dragons and thus Pathfinder. We all understand the need to reduce their power, but they went too far and it should be pushed back up some.
Most of this is subjective. I don't enjoy the bard. But I'd never argue the reason is its performance. It's a well built, powerful class, but I don't enjoy the gameplay or the theme.
I do greatly enjoy the wizard, it is one of my favorite classes. But it underperforms most other caster classes wanting to fill a similar role. I don't care for that at all. The wizard...the iconic wizard...should be a top tier caster class like the fighter and rogue are top martials and the cleric is the best healer. It's how I feel about the class and why I continue to push for its improvement.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You keep making assumptions based on your personal preferences. You've literally had one of the lead designers for this game explaining where they're coming from and the data they are using and yet you keep insisting they built their class wrong because it doesn't line up with your preferences.I find it very strange that after over a decade of 3E and PF1 all the methods to make prepared casting more palatable were removed in PF2. They had taken data and experience to make prepared casting as it was in 3E and PF1 with more ability to prepare as needed and tossed it out the window making prepared casting very locked in in PF2.
Then they took all the experience they had with spontaneous casting and greatly improved it in PF2 with Signature spells and more spells in the repertoire and more ability to pick up spells as needed for certain classes.
It's like we took steps forward for spontaneous casting and steps backward for prepared casting. It didn't make a lot of sense to me.
I am not making assumptions. I am making observations. Not sure why after playing PF1 you think the game designers are infallible. That game was broken for nearly the entire time and it took the designers years to fix what the player base told them was broken. You saw their fixes come out slowly, but surely.
PF2 itself is a big change due to the player base's problems with PF1 and all they wanted fixed. So Paizo does listen and make fixes, though it takes them a while because they are busy and want to go slow so as not to break anything.
Well, some of us are telling them again certain classes have problems. We're telling them what those problems are and why. We're hoping they fix it faster than they did in PF1 given the digital nature of the modern game.
I don't think the Paizo designers in any way consider themselves infallible or their game perfect. They may use different feedback mechanisms than the forum posters, but they'll listen to problems and fix them.
Just like they're doing with the witch and wizard.
These arguments about the designers knowing their game perfectly is a ridiculous one. They miss stuff all the time. There are many intelligent players on these forums who take this game a little more seriously than their standard players in terms of delving into numbers and nitty gritty rules bits that push the problems to be fixed with reasons why.
I've done this with clear explanations. I don't everything to be changed exactly to what I want. That would be dumb on my part. I do know what I've illustrated is right which is why these answers to my criticisms are so weak.
Spontaneous casting is clearly better in PF2, not equal.
Item bonuses to attack roles would be more effective for low level casters and cantrip use, not real impact on the game.
Spell Substitution should be a feature for all prepared casters to keep them on par with spontaneous. It would be the prepared equivalent of Signature Spells trading time for the ability to adjust during the adventuring day.
Wizards and witches need better feats and support for class builds and features.
None of this asking is for a return to PF1 power. Just quality of life upgrades to make these classes more competitive and the game in general more fun. All these folks arguing against the above changes have this idea it will hugely impact their game and it won't. I've already done this stuff in my home campaign, game runs just fine.
I can even explain why the above additions doesn't break the game because of all Paizo other balance points in the game that prevents simple adjustments from breaking the balance.
Just more push back for changes that would make life better for everyone.
|
| 17 people marked this as a favorite. |
But performance wise, I know I'm right. The wizard has certain weaknesses and performance issues that are measurable and correctable. You can show it in performance and you can illustrate the reasons why in real game play.
You constantly say this sort of thing, and you absolutely do not have the data to say this - no one does (not even Paizo). You have data about performance at your table, you don't have data about the overall performance across all tables. Your table is not somehow objectively correct, nor is it more important. Any conclusions you are making can only be said with the confidence you have about your own table. Other table's preference for different sorts of adventures differs from yours, and that affects relative performance. Other table's interpretation of unclear rules affects relative performance. Other table's preference for different classes, for different spell lists, for different combat lengths, for different tactics, for different party sizes, for different GMing styles all affect relative performance. None of those have objectively correct ways to play the game, and you cannot possibly have experience with all of these different ways of playing.
I am not of the belief that the wizard is perfect in its current state - I think their feats are overall relatively uninteresting to me, and I'd rather many more feats like convincing illusion that give fun new ways to interact with magic. But you very consistently claim that you have data that somehow conclusively proves some reality of PF2, and you don't - you have data that conclusively proves it happens at your tables. That's good and meaningful data, but you can't use it with intellectual honesty to try and forcibly justify changes to the system by Paizo.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My big concern with the Wizard in PF2 is not that the arcane spell list isn't good enough, or that you don't get enough spells, or any of that. It's mostly that relative to the other primary casters, the Wizard's class feats aren't very exciting.
I think this is easily fixable in the remaster.
| 21 people marked this as a favorite. |
Deriven, I am sorry, but you cannot dismiss all out of combat utility options as meaningless, because “out of combat is meant to be just role play and not mechanics” and then decide your personal play experience is universal and demonstrably prove able as changes that should be made to game for the benefit of every one. Your changes work great at your table, that is wonderful! Keep using them. Insisting that spontaneous casting is just more fun than prepared casting because it is for you, and your incredibly combat centric style of play is missing the forest for your own little tree. Play PFS sometime. Prepared casting is incredibly effective in PFS scenarios. Play with a FM that plays social and skill encounters that have real consequences for the story arc and party goals, and then scoff at using spells to accomplish automatic successes or large circumstance bonuses for difficult checks. Play a cat and mouse intrigue campaign.
There are so many different ways to play PF2 that pretending like one table counting gross damage over encounters is the critical balance observation to base overall game development around ends up sounding like dismissing anyone else’s actually play feedback because you don’t like the way they play the game.
You can keep saying “these changes work at my table and are fun.” No one is going to try to take that away from you. But I promise that many developers have seen your suggestions and they are not just waiting for you to extol their virtue one more time before they finally realize that you are right and they are wrong.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The designers are not saying this at all. What they are saying according to their data is that the majority of the player base is not displeased with the wizard. That's fine.
But performance wise, I know I'm right. The wizard has certain weaknesses and performance issues that are measurable and correctable. You can show it in performance and you can illustrate the reasons why in real game play.
Look many of your points are fine in isolation. We are just saying the problem is not that big.
If you will notice, the majority of posters on this forum are posting something is fine absent evidence other than subjective feeling. They are showing moments where they made some useful impact and felt good on a personal level or illustrating white room math in an idealized situation.
Please don't try to dismiss other peoples play experience.
You will notice in the remaster two of the classes getting the most looked at are the wizard and the witch. The six hit point prepared casters. So if all of us having problems are wrong, then why are they doing something to adjust them?
They likely won't adjust them in the fashion some of us want or everything we want. But us bringing up the problems...
The biggest change has happened already which is moving the expecations on Recall Knowledge so it can't be dismissed like you do. It is a useful option you seem to miss. Bringing the witch into this is not reasonable everyone agrees that is clearly under done.
One of my planned Wizards does not even have any Focus spell (Universalist flexible caster with Sorcerer Archetype for extra slots) so can see if there can be different play styles and how it matters.
The Wizard works nicely in more realistic settings where it can shine with its extra proficiencies, languages and int based skills. I can ensure you that if you like that stuff you enjoy the Wizard a lot, as is just my style.
Yes, the Wizard can be improved something, some focus spells are just ignorable and don’t have more options (just 2 per school), some feats could be better (now they join conceal and silent spell when noticed the lack), and we will have to look at how work the new schools.
Also miss some more metamagics, specially one that would make you use your 3rd action in a round by round basis for those who don’t want to use weapons. But another solution could be adding to spells the option of longer casting, including extra rounds not only 3 actions.
One of my planned Wizards does not even have any Focus spell (Universalist flexible caster with Sorcerer Archetype for extra slots) so can see if there can be different play styles and how it matters.
(Just mentioning, Remaster Universalist will get both Hand of the Apprentice and a bonus first level feat.)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
... the Wizard has a chance to become the worst caster in the game with no real area where it shines.
Some players would prefer the Wizard to be as good as other casters, which is definitely a legitimate complaint.
I reckon it's only as legitimate as any other preference for casters, and not every preference can be fulfilled at once in the single product. There's a lot of good Arcane spells, and Wizard has never stopped being the caster with access to the most slots, flexibility, and situational boons for casting them — their feats can be boring, sure, but some of them are very good in those niches, and they've often been dismissed or kind of ignored in discussions of the class spanning back to the start of the edition. Arcane Thesis is also weirdly scorned despite being rather unique among caster subclass options and having some powerful options other casters don't get. ¯\_('•')_/¯
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I adore the arcane thesis. I think it was a brilliant divergence from the other game and will pair well with the new schools to create an academic class identity for the remastered wizard.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some days I wonder what is the point of continuing a conversation where the primary question has already been answered by a designer, and yet it continues on and on rehashing the same old points and arguments while we have multiple threads that touch on the same general subject with the same people speaking the same phrases past each other?
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some days I wonder what is the point of continuing a conversation where the primary question has already been answered by a designer, and yet it continues on and on rehashing the same old points and arguments while we have multiple threads that touch on the same general subject with the same people speaking the same phrases past each other?
I think for some they believe if they keep doing it eventually Paizo will see it and make changes or something.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't know PF2e had a Wizard class.
Do you mean Arcane Sorcerer?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also worth noting that the wizard is going to be big beneficiary of the remaster's increase in focus spell use. Your college's signature spell is going to be reliably castable in every encounter. If it's a combat spell, that's a 'positive power level' buff.I don't agree with this. Barring multiclassing the Wizard is the only focus spell user who seems incapable of getting a second focus point before level 8 and it's impossible for a wizard to ever get a focus pool of 3.
You know, I'm not feeling particularly convinced by arguments that require "barring multiclass" anymore. Maybe it is because I'm playing Baldur's Gate 3 where the cost of multiclassing can be so much higher than PF2. Or maybe it is because the new spellcasting proficiency changes make multiclass spellcasters so much better. Archetypes just feel like the meta choice for a lot of builds, and a lot of tables which care about the meta use free archetype anyway. They can fix an awful lot of things that might be missing from your class.
Psychic is a good patch for focus spells. Loremaster can make any wizard a knowledge junky and Loremaster's Etude nets you another focus spell. They are often better than what your class natively gets-- compare the extra cantrip feats with any caster multiclass. There is a higher opportunity cost, but it is only that it keeps you from taking other archetypes for a while. Having an option native to your class does feel better, but I'm not sure how meaningfully better it actually is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some days I wonder what is the point of continuing a conversation where the primary question has already been answered by a designer, and yet it continues on and on rehashing the same old points and arguments while we have multiple threads that touch on the same general subject with the same people speaking the same phrases past each other?
It hasn't been answered, but it will be soon.
The wizard is one of the classes getting changes meaning the Paizo designers have listened and realize the class has some issues. It may not be all the changes people want, but it will be some of them. We'll see if it is enough.
I'd be fine if these threads didn't pop up until the Remaster hits, which is soon. Then we can see where the wizards stands and if I can get rid of a few of my house rules, which would be nice.
The wizard is the class I had to create the most house rules for to make them worth playing in comparison to all these other casters that keep coming out with cooler and more interesting abilities. I'd sure like that to change.
I'd love these threads to go away because you don't see them with any other class other than he witch and wizard. I hope with this remaster they do such a good job shoring these two classes up, they become like sorcerer, druid, or bard threads...nonexistent.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
If only there was a way for these threads to stop appearing.
It's not as if Deriven started the thread.
and Wizard has never stopped being the caster with access to the most slots, flexibility, and situational boons for casting them
Not really. Flexibility is the Sorcerer's thing. As of slots, the Sorcerer has roughly the same number of them.
As of now, if you want to play a spell slot base caster and you don't care of being Prepared or Spontaneous nor Int or Cha based you play a Sorcerer.
So the Wizard thing is Int-basex Prepared casting, like the Witch. Pre remaster, the Witch is overshadowed by the Wizard. But the remastered Witch seems to get a significant boost which may change things.
So what will be the remaining niche for the Wizard? Spell slot based Int based Prepared casting? That's a rather small niche. The Wizard shouldn't be a niche class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
and Wizard has never stopped being the caster with access to the most slots, flexibility, and situational boons for casting themNot really. Flexibility is the Sorcerer's thing. As of slots, the Sorcerer has roughly the same number of them.
As of now, if you want to play a spell slot base caster and you don't care of being Prepared or Spontaneous nor Int or Cha based you play a Sorcerer.
So the Wizard thing is Int-basex Prepared casting, like the Witch. Pre remaster, the Witch is overshadowed by the Wizard. But the remastered Witch seems to get a significant boost which may change things.
So what will be the remaining niche for the Wizard? Spell slot based Int based Prepared casting? That's a rather small niche. The Wizard shouldn't be a niche class.
I'm pretty sure 4 slots with spontaneous casting and 4 slots with prepared casting are the sorcerer's and wizard's respective niches and have been that way since the start of the edition.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Deriven, I am sorry, but you cannot dismiss all out of combat utility options as meaningless, because “out of combat is meant to be just role play and not mechanics” and then decide your personal play experience is universal and demonstrably prove able as changes that should be made to game for the benefit of every one. Your changes work great at your table, that is wonderful! Keep using them. Insisting that spontaneous casting is just more fun than prepared casting because it is for you, and your incredibly combat centric style of play is missing the forest for your own little tree. Play PFS sometime. Prepared casting is incredibly effective in PFS scenarios. Play with a FM that plays social and skill encounters that have real consequences for the story arc and party goals, and then scoff at using spells to accomplish automatic successes or large circumstance bonuses for difficult checks. Play a cat and mouse intrigue campaign.
There are so many different ways to play PF2 that pretending like one table counting gross damage over encounters is the critical balance observation to base overall game development around ends up sounding like dismissing anyone else’s actually play feedback because you don’t like the way they play the game.
To be fair, there isn't a whole lot of out-of-combat utility a Wizard gets that other classes don't also get. Water Breathing, Flight, Teleport, etc. are all available to other classes. They are at-best passable, and really it only shines when Spell Substitution is allowed to take place, since this gives you pseudo-Spontaneous benefits while sticking with a Prepared chassis, and ensures you get the most out of your slots.
I would have to disagree with Prepared being incredibly effective compared to Spontaneous, since Prepared is far less forgiving in the spells that you need to have with you compared to Spontaneous, which can be somewhat fixed via Wands, Scrolls, Staves, and other consumables. There are also other mechanics where it is more forgiving as well (such as Counterspell) if you invest in them. That isn't to say that it has no value, but again, with spell bloat being the way it is, when Spontaneous can still have nearly the same amount of useful spells as Prepared and doesn't need to worry about if they want 1 or 3 Slows/Hastes for the day, saying Prepared is valuable because it has about a couple hundred useless/niche spells to pick from doesn't really help matters any, since now we are enabling trap spells in addition to trap builds as a reason for Wizards to be a "good" class. Next thing you know, we're going to say Armor Assist is an awesome feat because being able to don your armor in half the time is important, even though things like Ready runes and Instant Armor exist, which trounce said feat easily. In this example, the Armor Assist is the Wizard, and the Ready rune and Instant Armor are Sorcerer and Bard.
Coming from someone who has played a Wizard from 1 to 20 and has had a few sessions with zero combat in them, I probably would have done much better with a Sorcerer invested in social skills by comparison, since using spells like Charm Person/Dominate are too obvious anymore, and Wizards with the whole Conceal Spell thing aren't very efficient due to lack of ability and expected proficiency progression, and anything else I contributed was more from being a player (AKA System Mastery) than it was being a Wizard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Out of combat spells from scrolls are great. My wizards use them all the time. I have never had a GM allow for any kind of subtle casting with them though.
In a Free Archetype Outlaws of alkenstar game I was in, I played a high CHA Illusionist with the Dandy archetype. OoA is a campaign where casters really shouldn't be good, but end up being twice as good as in other campaigns. Electric Arc all by itself is a show-stopper cantrip in that campaign. It is also a campaign that has tons of infiltration/raid/heist style encounters, plus a lot of investigation to do. You generally have a couple of days between any challenge so there is a lot of opportunity for crafting (what was intended) but also a lot of time for using information gathering spells/divination on days where you will have 0 encounters before facing a day where you will have a massive string of encounters together. I don't think anyone in the party would have preferred my character be a sorcerer than a wizard for that campaign.
A wizard with high deception and high stealth is an incredibly flexible character. You really want stealth if you are going to be doing any invisible scouting. Scouting without invisibility requires cover or concealment. I am guessing they decided that is enough uses for stealth for a caster that they don't need silent spell to work around stealth anymore
Conceal spell is getting even easier to use in the remaster. While I appreciated how good it was before, if you built into it, it pretty much took a free archetype to do so, so I get the decision. I do hope there is something stating that the subtle trait still requires some kind of skill check in situations where the caster is under observation because just free "cast spells without anyone noticing" can really derail campaigns, but I guess we will see soon enough.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Coming from someone who has played a Wizard from 1 to 20 and has had a few sessions with zero combat in them, I probably would have done much better with a Sorcerer invested in social skills by comparison, since using spells like Charm Person/Dominate are too obvious anymore, and Wizards with the whole Conceal Spell thing aren't very efficient due to lack of ability and expected proficiency progression, and anything else I contributed was more from being a player (AKA System Mastery) than it was being a Wizard.
I've had amazing success with multiple sorcerer characters dedicated into wizard for the Conceal/Silent Spell feats. 10/10 would recommend.
But performance wise, I know I'm right. The wizard has certain weaknesses and performance issues that are measurable and correctable. You can show it in performance and you can illustrate the reasons why in real game play.If you will notice, the majority of posters on this forum are posting something is fine absent evidence other than subjective feeling. They are showing moments where they made some useful impact and felt good on a personal level or illustrating white room math in an idealized situation.
That's expected. Wizard casting with their proficiency is going to be able to occasionally impact the game in the same way any caster can impact the game landing a spell with fail or some great result.
It's more once you delve into comparative performance over long-term play that you see the problems.
.
No. Wizards and spellcasters play no differently than the minmaxxed way they did in 1e. The difference is that you can't just buff yourself to a ridiculously absurd level the same way you could in 1e. It still swings the game pretty drastically in ways that are really useful.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
[
Not really. Flexibility is the Sorcerer's thing.
This really depends on what you mean by flexibility.
On a day to day basis using your standard spell load out then yeah the sorcerer has more flexibility.
But on those occassions when you need a completely different spell load out and know that in advance then the wizard has immensely more flexibility than the sorcerer.
In most campaigns the second type is much rarer than the first but in almost all campaigns it is more important on those occassions when it comes up.
That is why I really like the Flexible Spellcaster. Admittedly I tend to use it on classes like druid who have a whole lot of good options NOT involving their spells and so can better afford the cost.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In most campaigns the second type is much rarer than the first but in almost all campaigns it is more important on those occassions when it comes up.
I've never seen the second type. Ever. For me it's a unicorn.
My casters always have a bunch of utility scrolls and it fully covered anything unexpected I've ever faced.If you have examples where you absolutely needed a very specific spell load out feel free to share your experience.
Deriven, I am sorry, but you cannot dismiss all out of combat utility options as meaningless, because “out of combat is meant to be just role play and not mechanics” and then decide your personal play experience is universal and demonstrably prove able as changes that should be made to game for the benefit of every one. Your changes work great at your table, that is wonderful! Keep using them. Insisting that spontaneous casting is just more fun than prepared casting because it is for you, and your incredibly combat centric style of play is missing the forest for your own little tree. Play PFS sometime. Prepared casting is incredibly effective in PFS scenarios. Play with a FM that plays social and skill encounters that have real consequences for the story arc and party goals, and then scoff at using spells to accomplish automatic successes or large circumstance bonuses for difficult checks. Play a cat and mouse intrigue campaign.
There are so many different ways to play PF2 that pretending like one table counting gross damage over encounters is the critical balance observation to base overall game development around ends up sounding like dismissing anyone else’s actually play feedback because you don’t like the way they play the game.
To be fair, there isn't a whole lot of out-of-combat utility a Wizard gets that other classes don't also get. Water Breathing, Flight, Teleport, etc. are all available to other classes. They are at-best passable, and really it only shines when Spell Substitution is allowed to take place, since this gives you pseudo-Spontaneous benefits while sticking with a Prepared chassis, and ensures you get the most out of your slots.
I would have to disagree with Prepared being incredibly effective compared to Spontaneous, since Prepared is far less forgiving in the spells that you need to have with you compared to Spontaneous, which can be somewhat fixed via Wands, Scrolls, Staves, and other consumables. There are also other mechanics where it is more...
Casters are more than only their spells, like skills.
The Int based characters get extra languages that in some games can be important, and also some few extra trained skills, with the max when Int to +6. It is not bad to have those extra for getting Athletics or Stealth that maybe others Charisma or Wisdom based cannot due to the lack of skills at start.
And finally the casualization they applied to what I think was different (just reading the GMG) also hurts the Wizard real utility for that Crafting. In a game where you don’t just go to the vendor and purchase whatever you want, in other words, you cannot purchase the scrolls you want on demand with vendors having them at the moment, it changes a lot.
With a more strict set the Wizard value increases exponentially, then the game must target all the possible gameplays.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Happy to be the Unicorn!
Spell substitution with a decently full spell book and a campaign setting where casting spells visibly in large communities is frowned upon or draws attention is a kind of flexibility that a sorcerer can’t really touch. My outlaws of Alkenstar game fit that bill. Hell’s rebels. Agents of Edgewatch in places. Age of ashes in places.
Then there is stuff like wilderness exploration, but it is only going to last couple of weeks or a month. Maybe retraining works for it, but being fully prepared to bypass major environmental hazards 4 or 5 days out of 7, then spend a day doing full recon, then loading out for battle on the last day was something my cleric did often in AoA book 2. I could just (and did) have scrolls for combat in case I needed to in a day I had prepared for wilderness exploration, but 40+ scrolls of wilderness exploration spells would have been really costly for the month we were in the jungle.
Happy to be the Unicorn!
Spell substitution with a decently full spell book and a campaign setting where casting spells visibly in large communities is frowned upon or draws attention is a kind of flexibility that a sorcerer can’t really touch. My outlaws of Alkenstar game fit that bill. Hell’s rebels. Agents of Edgewatch in places. Age of ashes in places.Then there is stuff like wilderness exploration, but it is only going to last couple of weeks or a month. Maybe retraining works for it, but being fully prepared to bypass major environmental hazards 4 or 5 days out of 7, then spend a day doing full recon, then loading out for battle on the last day was something my cleric did often in AoA book 2. I could just (and did) have scrolls for combat in case I needed to in a day I had prepared for wilderness exploration, but 40+ scrolls of wilderness exploration spells would have been really costly for the month we were in the jungle.
And what spells did you actually cast?
Endure Elements, Negate Aroma and things like that I suppose. In those cases yes is pretty handy. But is only an example about flexibility of changing 1 spell per week (retraining) vs changing all your spells in a night (resting).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And what spells did you actually cast?Happy to be the Unicorn!
Spell substitution with a decently full spell book and a campaign setting where casting spells visibly in large communities is frowned upon or draws attention is a kind of flexibility that a sorcerer can’t really touch. My outlaws of Alkenstar game fit that bill. Hell’s rebels. Agents of Edgewatch in places. Age of ashes in places.Then there is stuff like wilderness exploration, but it is only going to last couple of weeks or a month. Maybe retraining works for it, but being fully prepared to bypass major environmental hazards 4 or 5 days out of 7, then spend a day doing full recon, then loading out for battle on the last day was something my cleric did often in AoA book 2. I could just (and did) have scrolls for combat in case I needed to in a day I had prepared for wilderness exploration, but 40+ scrolls of wilderness exploration spells would have been really costly for the month we were in the jungle.
Spells I cast at least once a day during exploration days during the hex crawl part:
Dream message (coordinating things back at our Headquarters a continent away, or checking in with various allies that were at different camps, all with consent, telling them I would be communicating with them this way)
Wander’s Guide
Animal vision (cleric of Ketephys) - my cleric had the animal trainer archetype for the second book of AoA, it was very useful. I retrained out of it in the downtime between book 2 and 3.
+ status, sometimes with local animals, sometimes with a bit of summoning animals like birds
Pass without Trace, rank 4 (not at the start of book 2 but in the middle it got to be pretty awesome for keeping our movements secret, when the cultists were really getting mad at us and trying to track our movements, our wizard was regularly using nondetection on us at the same time when things were really heating up).
Read Omens
Water breathing or water walk or sometimes both were pretty useful when we were close to a river, especially when the weather was bad and the river was roaring ( I think we used these maybe 5 or 6 times during the hex crawl section of the adventure)
Comprehend languages (started as a 2 spell, mostly to spy on cultists, but eventually started memorizing it as rank 3 because it was so useful when we would find a settlement).
I think there was only one location where we really needed Endure elements but it was useful there.
Then in Book 3, which is more urban intrigue there were a whole host of spells that switched out with these.
Maybe I got so much use out of these spells because our whole party treated book 2 like we were a guerrilla resistance movement and the enemy was pretty active and not just sitting still waiting for us to pick them off location by location. It was a really fun book to play through.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Either way, classes shouldn't be balanced around niche playstyles and campaigns but rather what can reasonably be expected in a published adventure.
High Int giving extra skills/languages isn't a class thing, especially not a wizard thing. Also wizards start with 1 less trained skill than most classes. Saying its cause they have a high int is like saying fighters should start with less weapon proficiency because they will have a high strength/dex. There isn't a good reason for it.
Wizards day to day flexibility is super niche and campaign dependent. Usually it can be replaced with an arcane sorc who buys scrolls (same as the wizard is apparently supposed to do to increase slots).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Either way, classes shouldn't be balanced around niche playstyles and campaigns but rather what can reasonably be expected in a published adventure.
High Int giving extra skills/languages isn't a class thing, especially not a wizard thing. Also wizards start with 1 less trained skill than most classes. Saying its cause they have a high int is like saying fighters should start with less weapon proficiency because they will have a high strength/dex. There isn't a good reason for it.
Wizards day to day flexibility is super niche and campaign dependent. Usually it can be replaced with an arcane sorc who buys scrolls (same as the wizard is apparently supposed to do to increase slots).
This has always appeared as a goofy complaint to me. Wizards will always have 2+4, a fighter will most likely have 3+0, but at most 3+3 which is equal. Genuinely a wizard is not going to actually have fewer trained skills than most classes. It's just not going to happen unless you don't get a +4 in intelligence. This is a non-complaint and it doesn't matter
Coming from someone who has played a Wizard from 1 to 20 and has had a few sessions with zero combat in them, I probably would have done much better with a Sorcerer invested in social skills by comparison, since using spells like Charm Person/Dominate are too obvious anymore, and Wizards with the whole Conceal Spell thing aren't very efficient due to lack of ability and expected proficiency progression, and anything else I contributed was more from being a player (AKA System Mastery) than it was being a Wizard.I've had amazing success with multiple sorcerer characters dedicated into wizard for the Conceal/Silent Spell feats. 10/10 would recommend.
I would have actually bothered to go Sorcerer dedication instead of Rogue if my attributes could have afforded it (since they have feats that would augment my spellcasting greatly). Sadly, since I need to maintain my saves, and Intelligence is my primary attribute, I couldn't reasonably afford it in a sensible amount of time.
I have a player in another group that has gone this route, though I have noticed their shortcomings in the way of reduced Strength and Constitution (the latter of which has caused instant drops in the earlier levels), whereas my character would not have gone down that easily.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This has always appeared as a goofy complaint to me. Wizards will always have 2+4, a fighter will most likely have 3+0, but at most 3+3 which is equal. Genuinely a wizard is not going to actually have fewer trained skills than most classes. It's just not going to happen unless you don't get a +4 in intelligence. This is a non-complaint and it doesn't matterEither way, classes shouldn't be balanced around niche playstyles and campaigns but rather what can reasonably be expected in a published adventure.
High Int giving extra skills/languages isn't a class thing, especially not a wizard thing. Also wizards start with 1 less trained skill than most classes. Saying its cause they have a high int is like saying fighters should start with less weapon proficiency because they will have a high strength/dex. There isn't a good reason for it.
Wizards day to day flexibility is super niche and campaign dependent. Usually it can be replaced with an arcane sorc who buys scrolls (same as the wizard is apparently supposed to do to increase slots).
Its a non complaint in your opinion but you provide no reason as to why wizard baseline starts behind and they effectively start 1 trained skill behind other classes before stats? Why should they ztart with less skills on the base chassis? Alchemists also have int as a main attribute but don't start with less skills.
So they are behind (by 1 trained skill) where they should otherwise be for base class + int. This kind of means they need the extra int just to catch up in mumber of trained skills.
Just because something is a 'nom-complaint' to yoy doesn't mean it isn't itrational or illogical and makes little to no sense. Why should wizards start with less skills than others before stats?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Casters are more than only their spells, like skills.
The Int based characters get extra languages that in some games can be important, and also some few extra trained skills, with the max when Int to +6. It is not bad to have those extra for getting Athletics or Stealth that maybe others Charisma or Wisdom based cannot due to the lack of skills at start.
And finally the casualization they applied to what I think was different (just reading the GMG) also hurts the Wizard real utility for that Crafting. In a game where you don’t just go to the vendor and purchase whatever you want, in other words, you cannot purchase the scrolls you want on demand with vendors having them at the moment, it changes a lot.
With a more strict set the Wizard value increases exponentially, then the game must target all the possible gameplays.
To a point. There were a couple things I did with skills as a Wizard, but a large amount of it was mostly skill training into things I could already do, like RK, learning spells, etc. to have more reliable results from them. I also even invested in the Rogue dedication Skill Mastery feat a couple times, which gave me even more skill feats to work with, and a couple added skill trainings (though of course never more Legendary skills, which is fine; Master skills are still pretty potent).
At a certain point I didn't need to invest in languages because of the Tongues spell, which, when heightened, lasts 8 hours. It was useful to take Multilingual up until that point, and at least it still works in anti-magic zones, but at that point I was basically "burning" skill feats because I didn't have much else to work with, since Arcane skill feats don't amount to much, I already have enough of the Crafting feats, and the Society ones basically undermine one another eventually (I did take Legendary Linguist, meaning I basically could communicate with anyone anyway, undermining the 2-3 times I took Multilingual).
A lot of people actually suggest to instead invest in the Additional Lore skill feat, which isn't terrible, since it's free scaling and essentially utilizing your Intelligence for related RK skills, but it is either too niche or GM dependent, and in either case I find that characters are basically pulling at straws in an attempt to make use of the skill. Maybe if I had knowledge of what to expect in the upcoming adventure path, but otherwise...no, I'd rather try and get a skill feat that gives me something more than just variant skills.
In that same campaign, I actually crafted a couple runes after dissecting the recipe(s) for them for our martials (even though later I took Craft Anything); Keen is nice and hard to come by, after all. But otherwise we could have done without; really, I could have boosted a separate skill to Legendary and kept it at Expert/Master for the Scroll Savant feat, but since we faced several constructs up until that point, and knowing what spells I need to have prepped to actually affect them is important, I was kind of "forced" to invest in the skill fully for both the party and myself. And of course, the one entity that I needed it most on, I didn't have time to prepare accordingly, nor would I have ever expected to prepare that kind of spell for it in the decades I have invested in this hobby.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the wizard received more skill ups, then that would be something. Skills are so easy to acquire in PF2, you would have to try to start with fewer than 5 or 6 skills, which is 1/3rd of all available skills. No one is playing a wizard for the skills. Everyone knows the skill classes are the rogue and the investigator.
On every other class, pick your combat skill for escape or something, then pick something else you can make useful like Crafting for a wizard. Crafting may not be great, but wizards can use it fairly well for crafting consumables and occasionally items.
Skills are not a reason to play a wizard.
Varied and powerful spellcasting is why you play a wizard. Just so happens that isn't as good as it used to be and the wizard is still stuck with that schtick.
Though one thing I do give the wizard which I don't mention much is they do have some of the best level 20 caster feats. Most will never see them, but the wizard level 20 class feats are great. If you do see level 20 as a wizard, it won't be easy to pick just one of those level 20 wizard feats. Almost all of them are interesting and powerful.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think Wizards are supposed to be "the skills class" so much as "I know that because I studied it" class. So rather than "more trained skills" I think it would be appropriate to let Wizards use their considerable INT for RK checks for Religion and Nature, because those are things you *could* have studied.
You should be able to know "which mushrooms are safe to eat" because of your exhaustive studies in Mycology rather than "intuition".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even though I'm a bit tired of these kinds of threads, I just want to chime in to say that as long as the remaster makes their feats a bit better (which I'm sure Paizo will do) and bake in Spell Substitution (not that sure, but I really hope they do) Wizards will be more than fine even with the changes to schools.
Well, personally I'd also want them getting auto upgrades in Arcana, but I want Paizo to do that on all the skill reliant classes and being honest, I don't think that will ever happen.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As for skills additional free lores (or additional lore) feats would go a long way to improving the academic feel of the class.
Less boring class feats would help but with the changes so spell proficiency becomes universal dedications for MOAR spell slots (if that is the niche of the class) is fine.
Prepared casting is not really an advantage and often worse in the moment that spontaneous and signature spells, scrolls cover my need for prepared casting readily enough. I would like more ability to swap or heighten spells im combat even if it was just the much more limited corriculum spells.
I would love better focus spells but we'll see what comes out of the remaster.
Wizards aren't far from being a c9mpetitive choice its just 'MOAR spellslots' especially with the '3' challenging encounters per day is not a great selling point. For me more spell slots is about longevity and if that isn't a factor is weakens more spellslots being an advantage. You need less spellslots if you have less encounters.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even though I'm a bit tired of these kinds of threads, I just want to chime in to say that as long as the remaster makes their feats a bit better (which I'm sure Paizo will do) and bake in Spell Substitution (not that sure, but I really hope they do) Wizards will be more than fine even with the changes to schools.
Well, personally I'd also want them getting auto upgrades in Arcana, but I want Paizo to do that on all the skill reliant classes and being honest, I don't think that will ever happen.
This and better designed focus spells would probably do it for me.
Fortunately the Spell Substitution Thesis for free is a super easy fix. Even though I implemented, it doesn't get used too often. But it is nice to have when it does come up to be able to use the wizard's vaunted spell versatility without having to wait a day for those that don't want to take that thesis.
I know waiting a day is often nothing. But it feels terrible in the imagination. Imagining the wizard having to say, "Hey guys. I know you can kick living the crap about of this encounter without me changing spells, but I'd sure like to be able to do something useful. So can we wait a day for me to redo my spells so I can have the right one?"
Then you imagine the fighter, rogue, and cleric rolling their eyes and thinking, 'This trash again. We gotta camp and and wait for this guy to have his proper spells. When we can go in, squash everything, and heal through it."
But in the real world the wizard player is an actual persons, so you feel a bit impolite not doing it so they can feel better about their character. I don't care for that kind of class feature design. That's why I made sure that it wasn't going to happen in my campaign. Waiting 10 minutes to change out a spell is fine like waiting for someone to get a focus spell back or do some healing. Waiting a day is a real disruption in verisimilitude and looks and feels ridiculous in the mind's eye.
At least that is how I felt about it and made the change to ensure I didn't have to deal with the issue for my wizard players. It's bad enough their focus spells are a joke and their save spells don't work 50% of the time or so like most casters. No use adding insult to injury by making them jump through a hoop to use their spell versatility class feature.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, personally I'd also want them getting auto upgrades in Arcana, but I want Paizo to do that on all the skill reliant classes and being honest, I don't think that will ever happen.
Yes, I'd like to see them do what they did with inventor and craft, or at least add some feats like Brilliant Crafter to do it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As for skills additional free lores (or additional lore) feats would go a long way to improving the academic feel of the class.
Hmm. I was hoping that wizard school would wind up granting a free skill training in additional to what they have now, to bring wizards up to baseline everyone else shares, but that might be interesting too. If wizard school gave out 2 free lore skills, at least one of which dealing with a creature type (my brain immediately went "oozes" for civic wizards, though a more serious suggestion might be humanoids), that could be cool.