| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here is how I would do an unleashed wizard:
I would make arcana a free auto scaling skill, but I wouldn't give free additional lores. Along with this I would give Knowledge is Power as a bespoke level 1 class feature but it's -1 to save/ac on success and -2 on critical success. I would take the theses and turn them into feats of various levels. Staff nexus as is becomes a first level feat, spell substition becomes a 2nd or 4th level feat, spellshape thesis is either level 1 or 2. Spell blending gets put between 4 and 8. Familiar thesis is likely scrapped but the familiar feat remains. Wizards becomes the only caster with a level 1 feat by default, and gets a feat like combat flexibility at level 9. Wizards simply get 4 slots and arcane bond starts as it is now, but gets an additional use at 10 and at 20, universalist is scrapped.
Wizard schools instead of having a dedicated slot now give you spells from the other three traditions not on the wizard spell list appropriate to the theme of the school. Mentalism might give synesthesia for example, and boundary might give summon fey or wall of flesh. Potentially each school could now get 3 focus spells, or 2 focus spells and wizards get a class ability or feat like "you may spend a focus point instead of an additional action for a spell shape" and that this would allow you to also use the additional action and apply two spellshapes on one spell
Ofc more spellshapes should be designed for the wizard as wizard exclusives. Wizard should get a spellshape that changsd the origin location of a spell to a different square than the wizard much like the psychic amp warp space. A spellshape feat that changes spell damage types, and to list a few metamagics from 1e that might be good fits for wizard specific feats: sickening spell (adds sickened as a rider), apocalyptic spell (creates difficult terrain), burning spell (adds persistent damage), contagious spell (spell can spread to additional targets), fearsome spell (frightened as a rider), lingering spell (gives a spell without a duration a duration, hard to implement probably), rime spell (adds encumbered as a rider), and the list of 1e metamagic is long so I'll stop here, but maybe the riders that apply conditions can be condensed into one feat that lets you choose one as you cast
Experimentally I would try to design a way wizards could instead of using spellshapes as normal with actions would instead apply them to spells as they prepare them like in 1e but how to do this probably requires significant retooling and is likely a headache, but this would become the niche that should be protected for wizards if I could get it working. I think this idea would get scrapped and prove too difficult
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo has gotten more than enough feedback from us, that we do not much care for the current Wizard iteration, or their response (or lack thereof) in the Remaster, and their response (or, again, lack thereof) essentially amounted to "Everyone else doesn't have a problem with it, the problem stems solely from your perception, deal with it." So there is no point in constantly bringing up that the Wizard is not very fun as a class compared to other options.
Once again, nah.
I’ll continue to say that it is a lacklustre and poor version of the product I want. If they are determined to keep this version of the Wizard in place then, fine.
But, as a compromise, sell me the product that I clearly want to buy.
Make the Wizard2.
I’ll go on the record and say that no one will care how much of the toes it steps on from the current Wizard. Those toes are already red and bruised enough that it won’t make a difference.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My shower thoughts on a wizard rework went like this:
-Completely remove the ability to buy spells. Wizard now effectively has a fixed number of spells known. This is PF2E; just kill the sacred cow that's giving wizard an untenable ceiling to balance against compared to everyone else. Give wizards a stable floor and ceiling on their versatility.
Facinating, but this is not a signifcant factor in how I rate wizards. I don't mind if they get access to all the spells in the book. In PF2 the spells are not really hyperspecialised or overpowered in any one situation.
Facinating, but this is not a signifcant factor in how I rate wizards. I don't mind if they get access to all the spells in the book. In PF2 the spells are not really hyperspecialised or overpowered in any one situation.
I agree the spells in PF2E generally aren't hyperspecialized or overpowered, but that's why I think it works. In PF2E, the level of versatility I'm giving wizard doesn't blow out the game.
For me, the main point of the change is to give wizard easier access to their versatility, via both the drain bonded item change and the increase to spells learned at levelup. The latter would eliminate table variance in spells known, and the former would make it play better with less accommodating tables.
Capping spells known and the change to heightening for wizard feels right to me in order to keep the 3 prepared slots + 1 superflex slot in line with sorc's four less flexible slots, more than anything else. It would be kind of rude to sorc if wizard had even one slot they could use to cast basically any spell in their spellbook (excepting reaction spells, because of how DBI works).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Facinating, but this is not a signifcant factor in how I rate wizards. I don't mind if they get access to all the spells in the book. In PF2 the spells are not really hyperspecialised or overpowered in any one situation.
I agree the spells in PF2E generally aren't hyperspecialized or overpowered, but that's why I think it works. In PF2E, the level of versatility I'm giving wizard doesn't blow out the game.
For me, the main point of the change is to give wizard easier access to their versatility, via both the drain bonded item change and the increase to spells learned at levelup. The latter would eliminate table variance in spells known, and the former would make it play better with less accommodating tables.
Capping spells known and the change to heightening for wizard feels right to me in order to keep the 3 prepared slots + 1 superflex slot in line with sorc's four less flexible slots, more than anything else. It would be kind of rude to sorc if wizard had even one slot they could use to cast basically any spell in their spellbook (excepting reaction spells, because of how DBI works).
Turning wizards spontaneous makes them no longer feel like a wizard is my issue. Learning spells, being able to fill up a spell book, and deliberately prepping cool spells is peak wizard action. Prepared castings not having to learn heightened versions is also something which turns even the baseline into a lot of day to day versatility. At level 4 your don't know 7+4 spells, you know 7+11 spells. At level 6 you know 7+11+15 spells and so on. Each lower rank spell is a potential spell for your higher rank slots and it was said by mark seifter that it was deliberate that heightened spells were as good as the rank of spells they were heightened to. It's a little more granular than this as some spells don't heighten much or often, but most do
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Turning wizards spontaneous makes them no longer feel like a wizard is my issue. Learning spells, being able to fill up a spell book, and deliberately prepping cool spells is peak wizard action. Prepared castings not having to learn heightened versions is also something which turns even the baseline into a lot of day to day versatility. At level 4 your don't know 7+4 spells, you know 7+11 spells. At level 6 you know 7+11+15 spells and so on. Each lower rank spell is a potential spell for your higher rank slots and it was said by mark seifter that it was deliberate that heightened spells were as good as the rank of spells they were heightened to. It's a little more granular than this as some spells don't heighten much or often, but most do
Facinating, but this is not a signifcant factor in how I rate wizards. I don't mind if they get access to all the spells in the book. In PF2 the spells are not really hyperspecialised or overpowered in any one situation.
I agree the spells in PF2E generally aren't hyperspecialized or overpowered, but that's why I think it works. In PF2E, the level of versatility I'm giving wizard doesn't blow out the game.
For me, the main point of the change is to give wizard easier access to their versatility, via both the drain bonded item change and the increase to spells learned at levelup. The latter would eliminate table variance in spells known, and the former would make it play better with less accommodating tables.
Capping spells known and the change to heightening for wizard feels right to me in order to keep the 3 prepared slots + 1 superflex slot in line with sorc's four less flexible slots, more than anything else. It would be kind of rude to sorc if wizard had even one slot they could use to cast basically any spell in their spellbook (excepting reaction spells, because of how DBI works).
This is purely your personal preference.
Wizards had the means to obtain spontaneous like casting in PF1 and felt wizardly.
The wizard is more about intellectual magic, not about prepared casting. The wizard feels more wizardly by coming up with spell tactics and being very erudite, which was very well done in PF1 because intelligence was an extremely strong casting stat. In PF1 the casting stats were Wis, Int, and Cha whereas in PF2 the casting stats are Wis, Cha, Int.
Intelligence gives you next to nothing for investing in it since skills are now based on skill ups over skill points. Given the low number of starting skills for a wizard and all the easy ways to obtain a trained skill, intelligence providing additional skills merely allows them to reach parity with every other class.
Changing out spells I understand being the purview of the wizard for the feel of intellectual use of magic, but whether those spells are cast spontaneously or prepared should be irrelevant. The cleric and druid are prepared, but I don't hear arguments about their ability to prepare perfect spell lists or their magic being intellectual. Even the witch isn't discussed in this fashion and they are also intelligence based.
Once again 5E moved the wizard to spontaneous, still feels very much like a wizard.
So this is merely personal preference and has zero bearing on the wizard. Even the Arcanist was spontaneous with wizard preparation abilities and still felt fine in PF1.
Turning wizards spontaneous makes them no longer feel like a wizard is my issue. Learning spells, being able to fill up a spell book, and deliberately prepping cool spells is peak wizard action. Prepared castings not having to learn heightened versions is also something which turns even the baseline into a lot of day to day versatility. At level 4 your don't know 7+4 spells, you know 7+11 spells. At level 6 you know 7+11+15 spells and so on. Each lower rank spell is a potential spell for your higher rank slots and it was said by mark seifter that it was deliberate that heightened spells were as good as the rank of spells they were heightened to. It's a little more granular than this as some spells don't heighten much or often, but most do
They're not spontaneous in this theoretical rendering. They're fully prepared outside of the DBI slots. DBI is already a more limited form of a spontaneous slot anyways.
Wizard being able to upcast "for free" did not give it any meaningful advantage over a sorcerer with its limited upcasting in 2E. (Frankly, I think the only reason Sorcs can't freely heighten is that spontaneous would be far too versatile without the signature spell limitation—far more versatile in practice than most prepared casters could hope to be. Signature spells were an artificial limitation imposed on spontaneous casters to nerf them; free heighten was not a benefit given to prepared classes.)
Wizard upcasting for free just meant it didn't have to go out of its way to fill its spellbook 50 times over, and spell learning costs didn't have to account for it. It is just a much less painful design for a class that can buy spells. It did not give it much of a real advantage over a spontaneous caster.
Upcast spells are usually slightly worse than a spell of that level. It'll usually lack useful riders, range, AoE size, or something else when compared to an on-level spell.
Universalist wizard also still upcasts for free in my shower thought change.
I don't expect everyone to like that set of changes, since it slaughters sacred cows on purpose. But I think it's more in line with the design ethos of PF2E generally and deals with several of the issues complained about in the thread ad nauseam.
PF2E is a game that intentionally slaughters 3.5-ish design in favor of something very different, and I think the 3.5-ish wizard and the 3.5-ish wizard fantasy could not be expressed in this system if you tried because it is purposely designed to never let it exist. As the system is designed, the only things it can express from 3.5-ish wiz are "I have a spellbook, can learn new spells, and can cast prepared spells"—which are, incidentally, about the only aspects in which the current wizard feels like old wizard, and the only parts of that wizard fantasy it fulfills even remotely effectively. You simply aren't able to turn entire combats (or even the entire game world) into a lateral thinking puzzle in 2E the way you would in 1E, and that's by design. You aren't allowed to be a skills class, and that's by design. You aren't allowed to be good at knowledges by yourself, and that's by design.
It is far better to accept all this and build a class that functions like a PF2E class, has PF2E-like strengths and weaknesses, and is not actively fighting the system design at every turn for its identity. Wizard tried to cling to too much of its 1E identity and was gutted in the process, because its 1E identity literally breaks the design rules of PF2E at every turn—rules created partially in response to how strong it was, rules designed to not let it even exist.
In practice, PF1E wizard's playstyle and power is fundamentally tailored to a combat as war game. It cannot meaningfully be recreated in a combat as sport game like PF2E.
Why would a PF1 bonded item that’s limited to once per day be rude to sorcerer
Because if spells known weren't limited, then it's a spontaneous slot with a cap of every possible (affordable) option in the game. That seems quite rude to a sorcerer to me. Also, it's usable once at each spell rank per day in this rendering, not once per day flat. That is significantly stronger than 1E bonded item, which also required you to give up a familiar.
PF1 wizard was rude to PF1 Sorcerer in general. PF1 Sorc was a great class, but wizard is just... wizard. The classes are far more comparable in 2E than they ever were in 1E.
Mind you Sorcerers are given status bonus to damage that no Wizard player ever considered ‘rude’, and they are being made class feature instead of feat with added benefit of applying to healing spells now. They are also given a new focus spell that gives maximum -3 to enemy saving throw.
That imperial bloodline focus spell is rude to wizard, and wizards are just glad they can probably poach it. They're extra sad they can't poach dangerous sorcery on top of that, now that they're all archetyping Sorc anyways.
Also don’t forget Sorcerers (and everyone else) can already learn spells. Arcane Sorcerer can even ‘prepare’ a spell each day from their spell book. Learning spell is already balanced by the new wealth system in 2e, since it would still cost a wizard a significant sum that can otherwise be spent on magic items and scrolls (which comes close and sometimes perform even better as ‘silver bullet’ then preparing from your spell book)
We've talked about this sort of thing ad nauseam in this topic. I'm aware. Arcane evolution and similar feats do not allow a Sorc to approach a wizard's ability to use their wide variety of spells known. It's helpful, sure. But it is one spell (or one signature spell) a day. That is nothing like unfettered access to prepare anything in your spellbook.
Spell costs are only somewhat balanced by gold, as lower level spells that have useful heightens are disproportionately cheap for their value as levels increase. Same goes for low-level one action/reaction spells.
This is purely your personal preference.
Wizards had the means to obtain spontaneous like casting in PF1 and felt wizardly.
The wizard is more about intellectual magic, not about prepared casting. The wizard feels more wizardly by coming up with spell tactics and being very erudite, which was very well done in PF1 because intelligence was an extremely strong casting stat. In PF1 the casting stats were Wis, Int, and Cha whereas in PF2 the casting stats are Wis, Cha, Int.
Intelligence gives you next to nothing for investing in it since skills are now based on skill ups over skill points. Given the low number of starting skills for a wizard and all the easy ways to obtain a trained skill, intelligence providing additional skills merely allows them to reach parity with every other class.
Changing out spells I understand being the purview of the wizard for the feel of intellectual use of magic, but whether those spells are cast spontaneously or prepared should be irrelevant. The cleric and druid are prepared, but I don't hear arguments about their ability to prepare perfect spell lists or their magic being intellectual. Even the witch isn't discussed in this fashion and they are also intelligence based.
Once again 5E moved the wizard to spontaneous, still feels very much like a wizard.
So this is merely personal preference and has zero bearing on the wizard. Even the Arcanist was spontaneous with wizard preparation abilities and still felt fine in PF1.
5e wizard definitely feels less like a wizard outside of the Order of Scribes wizard, but more over the suggestion made doesn't make the wizard better or solve any issues with it. Instead it just homogenizes spellcasters which would exacerbate the issue not alleviate it. If wizards should feel like spell tacticians then feats which allows wizards to deploy spells in such a way that they gain maximal tactical advantage with them is where we should look instead of making them a crappy sorcerer
They're not spontaneous in this theoretical rendering. They're fully prepared outside of the DBI slots. DBI is already a more limited form of a spontaneous slot anyways.
Wizard being able to upcast "for free" did not give it any meaningful advantage over a sorcerer with its limited upcasting in 2E. (Frankly, I think the only reason Sorcs can't freely heighten is that spontaneous would be far too versatile without the signature spell limitation—far more versatile in practice than most prepared casters could hope to be. Signature spells were an artificial limitation imposed on spontaneous casters to nerf them; free heighten was not a benefit given to prepared classes.)
Wizard upcasting for free just meant it didn't have to go out of its way to fill its spellbook 50 times over, and spell learning costs didn't have to account for it. It is just a much less painful design for a class that can buy spells. It did not give it much of a real advantage over a spontaneous caster.
Upcast spells are usually slightly worse than a spell of that level. It'll usually lack useful riders, range, AoE size, or something else when compared to an on-level spell.
Universalist wizard also still upcasts for free in my shower thought change.
I don't expect everyone to like that set of changes, since it slaughters sacred cows on purpose. But I think it's more in line with the design ethos of PF2E generally and deals with several of the issues complained about in the thread ad nauseam.
PF2E is a game that intentionally slaughters 3.5-ish design in favor of something very different, and I think the 3.5-ish wizard and the 3.5-ish wizard fantasy could not be expressed in this system if you tried because it is purposely designed to never let it exist. As the system is designed, the only things it can express from 3.5-ish wiz are "I have a spellbook, can learn new spells, and can cast prepared spells"—which are, incidentally, about the only aspects in which the current wizard feels like old wizard, and the only parts of that wizard fantasy it fulfills even remotely effectively. You simply aren't able to turn entire combats (or even the entire game world) into a lateral thinking puzzle in 2E the way you would in 1E, and that's by design. You aren't allowed to be a skills class, and that's by design. You aren't allowed to be good at knowledges by yourself, and that's by design.
It is far better to accept all this and build a class that functions like a PF2E class, has PF2E-like strengths and weaknesses, and is not actively fighting the system design at every turn for its identity. Wizard tried to cling to too much of its 1E identity and was gutted in the process, because its 1E identity literally breaks the design rules of PF2E at every turn—rules created partially in response to how strong it was, rules designed to not let it even exist.
In practice, PF1E wizard's playstyle and power is fundamentally tailored to a combat as war game. It cannot meaningfully be recreated in a combat as sport game like PF2E.
Unlike others I do not think wizards should be skill users, at all. I think if you have spells you should not be as good with skills. I only mildly agree with people that they should be alright at recall knowledge as it fits the studious theme and the design philosophy behind the arcane tradition being about giving tools to exploit weaknesses. There is one huge issue I have with 5e style vancian casting(it's still vancian), which is that it is so similar to spontaneous that it either steps on their toes and makes everyone homogeneous. If we are to bring 5e style preparation to Pathfinder we can't and shouldn't do this until 3E and in that game spontaneous gets a major change which helps differentiate it. Wizards and sorcerers should feel significantly different in their relationship to spells
I'm going to refine my homebrew and post it at some point
Of course prepared vs spontaneous casting is a personal preference. If you take the wizard’s prepared casting away, then the game loses any option for playing a 4 slot arcane prepared caster. But the game already has a 4 slot spontaneous arcane caster. So you’d just be taking away one style of play because you like the other better, and the game already has an archetype that does the whole “wizard with spontaneous casting.”
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let me know if this thread swerves back from 6-20 paragraphs of homebrew that no one is going to read to 2-6 paragraphs of the same complaints being endlessly repeated. That’s the good stuff I can’t get enough of.
My bad for bringing PF1 into this discussion, but I still don’t think a single spontaneous spell slot to cast any spell they managed to have their hands on and spent gold learning for Wizard is that rude to Sorcerer. Especially when each of the more power classes all have their own unique abilities others can’t take. It’s like saying fighters having +2 is rude to the other martial, or starlight magus is rude to Eldritch archer. Maybe it is, but it looks to me like Paizo don’t mind, and players probably wouldn’t mind so much if the class they want to play ALL have something uniquely powerful.
For what it's worth, I do think those are rude to each other. Fighter is especially frustrating. Seeing the fighter have something like 25-33% fewer misses than you (note that I said fewer misses, not more hits) is pretty unfun.
That sort of conception of what's rude (in the scope of PF2E, at least) does inform my choices. If you disagree, I understand, though.
I’m glad you agree imperial sorc focus spell is rude, but if we look at Oracle, sorcerer changes suddenly become very polite…I think even if oracle stays 3 slots the other changes are still enough to put them at tier 0 among spell casters now. If Paizo have no issue making powerful classes, why do they need to keep Wizard in its current spot? They never worried about fighter or magus or the new oracle stealing others show?
In general, I'd say it seems like the design team philosophy changed somewhat over time, probably as design leads and so on changed. I get the feeling if wizard were remade in PC2 by whoever made oracle, we'd be looking at a significantly different class than what we got in PC1.
Unlike others I do not think wizards should be skill users, at all. I think if you have spells you should not be as good with skills. I only mildly agree with people that they should be alright at recall knowledge as it fits the studious theme and the design philosophy behind the arcane tradition being about giving tools to exploit weaknesses. There is one huge issue I have with 5e style vancian casting(it's still vancian), which is that it is so similar to spontaneous that it either steps on their toes and makes everyone homogeneous. If we are to bring 5e style preparation to Pathfinder we can't and shouldn't do this until 3E and in that game spontaneous gets a major change which helps differentiate it. Wizards and sorcerers should feel significantly different in their relationship to spell
For what it's worth, my primary concern is that wizard should end up with a unique, flavorful, and compelling mechanical identity in the context of PF2E. It doesn't need to look like the PF1E Wizard for me to be satisfied; it could be totally different.
For example, a casting class built and balanced around the following Hypothetical Ability could make a really cool wizard, even though it doesn't resemble any traditional wizard mechanic:
During your daily preparations, or when you refocus, choose any one spell from your spellbook that is at least two ranks lower than the highest rank spell you can cast. You can cast that spell as a focus spell. When you cast it in this way, it is heightened to one rank below the highest rank of spells you can cast. You may only have one spell selected to use as a focus spell in this way at a time.
Rule #1 is never target Fortitude Saves.Interesting, so extrapolating from this would you recommend kineticists just avoid Extract Elements, Tremor, Retch Rust, Glacial Prison, etc. *because* those target Fort?
It is not like a Kineticist cannot do anything else meaningful in combat that this is the only way they can contribute. Singular element kineticists will have those pit falls, and if they don't plan around them accordingly, they are set up for failure regardless.
This is not the "gotcha" moment you think it is.
Paizo has gotten more than enough feedback from us, that we do not much care for the current Wizard iteration, or their response (or lack thereof) in the Remaster, and their response (or, again, lack thereof) essentially amounted to "Everyone else doesn't have a problem with it, the problem stems solely from your perception, deal with it." So there is no point in constantly bringing up that the Wizard is not very fun as a class compared to other options.Once again, nah.
I’ll continue to say that it is a lacklustre and poor version of the product I want. If they are determined to keep this version of the Wizard in place then, fine.
But, as a compromise, sell me the product that I clearly want to buy.
Make the Wizard2.
I’ll go on the record and say that no one will care how much of the toes it steps on from the current Wizard. Those toes are already red and bruised enough that it won’t make a difference.
Continue all you want, but it doesn't mean much if everyone and their grandma already knows that the Wizard is not spectacular. Especially when Paizo acknowledges it and says "We don't care, don't like it, find a product you do." Even if they did want to make changes, they had an opportunity and chose not to.
Those aren't the toes they are concerned with, the issue becomes that the Wizard wasn't fundamentally broken like the Alchemist was (and still somewhat is), so even being lackluster is like saying PF1 Fighter/Rogue had a problem, when really the problem was the floor and ceiling disparity in that game. That problem is not present here, so Paizo won't step in and fix it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like a thing that's fairly common in my experience in edition shifts in these sorts of games is that if an option you enjoyed playing in the previous edition isn't as much fun to you as the old one was, you are free to pick something else.
Like in PF1 the fighter was, if not weak, needing a high degree of systems mastery to make good. If you didn't like that, there were other comparable options that filled a similar niche which performed better.
By most accounts the Sorcerer, Druid, Cleric, Witch, Psychic, and Bard are all pretty good. So if I was unhappy with the state of the Wizard, I would play something else.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know that I think it will be likely, but it seems to me that the most probable post PC2 errata that could affect the wizard would be for some of the new spells in the PC2 to be added to existing wizard schools.
I personally wouldn't love it, as it would mean that you couldn't really play a wizard from the book the class is published in, but if there are incredibly thematic spells relevant to the various schools, I could see at least an alternative curriculum list getting put together for tables that want those. I still personally think the curriculum spell limits issue is way overblown and has minimal impact on the class, but just embracing more flexibility with it, like offering more than one curriculum list for each school officially with a "GMs, for real, be flexible with your players so they have fun already," reminder to show tables how easy it is to make something functional for every player would be a very easy fix for the thing that seems to have brought out the most outrage from the remaster change.
Well lets look at the actual progression a wizard receives as they level.
Spells - The main draw of any full caster.
Proficiencies - Typical full caster growths
Arcane bond - no progression but you get to cast any rank of spell you used up that day so it has a sort of implicit scaling.(this ability so seriously strong since it means wizards are a 5 slot caster not 4 when looking at top slots. it also allows flexibility to recast anything prepared that day. For some reason its dismissed in this thread when looking at class power budget)
School spells - you get the level 1 focus spell.
School curriculum - Again implicit scaling since you get a new spell known at each rank on top of the ones the standard wizard spellcasting provides. This also comes with the 4th spell slot at that rank to cast it or a heightened spell learned at a lower rank. (This is what a lot have complained about but its not really what is lacking in the remastered wizard. Choose a school that has spells you want to use and if no such school exists ask your GM to get some of the school spells swapped out for something else that makes sense. This is literally in the rules)
Arcane thesis - Some of these scale to a degree explicitly and others scale implicitly. There are no feats that improve the bases thesis like other classes get for their subclasses. The wizard gets one of these with no chance to get a second later like other classes do as well. (this is the part of the class that is actually rather underdeveloped for how important it is to the theme.)
I would say if the wizard was going to be improved on it doesn't need to be changed away from prepared casting. There are many people out there that love this style of casting and the sorcerer is there for those that don't. it just needs more development in the arcane theses.
I dont think the curriculm spell lists need to change at all but players and GMs view of those lists as set in stone is off. What some may not like is the subjective nature of what fits the theme for swapping and in that respect they would have a good reason to see how limited swapping can get at some tables.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Of course prepared vs spontaneous casting is a personal preference. If you take the wizard’s prepared casting away, then the game loses any option for playing a 4 slot arcane prepared caster. But the game already has a 4 slot spontaneous arcane caster. So you’d just be taking away one style of play because you like the other better, and the game already has an archetype that does the whole “wizard with spontaneous casting.”
Prepared versus spontaneous are not play styles. Prepared is an anachronism that even D&D moved away from.
The wizard still has its own style with intellectual magic and the ability to change out spells. Spontaneous versus prepared changes nothing but create an inconvenient tracking situation for spells for prepared casters as well as trapping them in bad or useless choices unless they choose a single Arcane Thesis.
They had rules in place to ensure this did not happen in PF1. They removed all those rules from PF2 that made prepared casting in PF1 tolerable. I am still not sure what in the design room made them do this while at the same time reducing spell slots.
In PF1 you had a massive number of spell slots with your intelligence reaching up to 36 in optimal circumstances. This provided an enormous number of spell slots which could be left open to fill throughout the day. You also didn't mind slotting some spells twice because you had so many spell slots. Then you had metamagic which the wizard was clearly best at when metamagic feats were actually powerful. Now the wizard does metamagic the same as everyone else and more like the sorcerer in PF1.
So prepared is not worth it now. It's all bad with none of the good unless the wizard is forced into a single Arcane Thesis to allow them to change in at least a somewhat reasonable time.
The sorcerer in PF1 had a vastly reduced spell list which made the wizard even better. But now the sorcerer has 36 spells, up to 45 spells in their repertoire, with signature spells and stuff like Occult and Arcane Evolution which further allow them to be very versatile casters.
The changes between PF1 and PF2 eliminated the vast majority of advantages prepared had and boosted spontaneous so they have very few of the disadvantages of PF1. It was like a double nerf for prepared casters by removing PF1 bonuses and boosting spontaneous casting in PF2.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Arcane thesis feat: Uncited (Wizard 4). Leads to: Unread (Wizard 8).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Prepared versus spontaneous are not play styles. Prepared is an anachronism that even D&D moved away from.
This is just patently absurd. Spontaneous versus prepared are categorically playstyles
I am really confused as to how the topic got on the subject of wizards being spontaneous. That wasn't what I was suggesting, and as far as I can tell, no one else did either (except maybe Deriven a long while ago).
I can respect that you disagree on approaches like giving wizard PF1 bonded item. I do also think a straight +2 is one of the worse ways of giving class identities.
Nevertheless I’m still leaning towards giving classes unique but POWERful abilities that represent their class identities. To me bonded item doesn’t seem to intrude on what sorcerers are suppose to be good at, but we can agree to disagree. It’s a fine balance when it comes to giving classes powerful abilities.
The power ceiling was historically a bit too managed for me to feel comfortable designing that sort of thing into PF2E, really. PF1E DBI is a level 14 feat tacked onto a rare archetype not applicable to most games. That speaks volumes to me about how controlled the power levels are for arcane casters, and the assumed value of PF1E DBI. (Maybe that's changing with PC2.)
To be honest, I would personally prefer a game where classes had more unique and bespoke high points. But PF2E has mostly differentiated classes via their main action compression abilities, spells, and focus spells, and settled on most forms of strength being subtle. A lot of theoretically interesting ideas are incompatible with how the game has been designed.
Oh and I think the real reason +2 feel so much more powerful isn’t just fewer misses, or even more hits, it’s also a higher crit rate. Coupled with spells like heroism, abilities and spells that gives to circumstance bonus to hit, status debuff from spell-caster and flanking, fighters can have ridiculous crit rates that melts through even +2 or +3 enemies.
The crit rate is part of it, too, but as a player you're more likely to notice how much more often you're missing than how much less you're critting.
Also, as a related tangent, I'm going to say that I think Heroism (and fortissimo courageous anthem, to a lesser degree) is fundamentally broken in the context of the game math. It is broken in the same way Ancestral Memories (that is the Sorc focus spell, right?) is. It's a buff that's just not factored into the game's DC and defensive scaling. It ends up being worryingly strong next to other choices. Heroism is the best prebuff in the game bar none.
I think your proposed hypothetical ability is cool, might seem a bit underpowered to me because of the new focus spells, and the fact that all damage/summon/counteract spells have strict progression model over ranks. Focus spells like imaginary weapon and cantrips like live wire are deemed overpower because they exceeds that model. (i.e., 2d6 per rank for heightened damage spells, 1d4 per rank for heightened cantrips, 1d8s for focus spells, smaller dices or slower progression for damage spells with extra effects). Therefore, giving focus spells that are heightened to lower than your highest rank, even if they are spell slot spells made focus, still seem a bit weak. You wouldn’t waste actions casting a lower ranked damage/incap/summon/counteract spell in a severe or extreme combat, even if they are free. If the combat is easy, then it wouldn’t feel like an impactful ability.
FWIW, my read on the relative power of these sorts of abilities (before PC2, at least) was as follows.
-At-will spell-like powers are about two ranks behind a max rank spell in power. This is about where a spammable kineticist ability like flying flame sits.
-For most classes*, powers with limited uses an encounter—such as focus spells and overflow actions—are roughly one or one half a rank behind a max rank spell in raw numeric scaling and additional effects. They are typically two ranks behind (or more) in terms of targets, riders, AoE size, etc.
-Powers with limited uses per day (such as spell slots) set the bar and ceiling for current power scaling.
Live Wire and Imaginary Weapon are both outliers. Live Wire is almost certainly due a day one errata; Imaginary Weapon was designed for a class with more limited spells per day, and I don't think they thought through how good poaching it is. I don't consider those the "expected" power level of these abilities.
For most full casters, focus spells are sort of "good" filler spells; they're intentionally worse than top level slots, but they're designed to grant you a degree of additional longevity. It's fine if they're not as impactful in a severe or extreme fight, as that's when you'd likely blow more permanent resources anyways. I disagree that they'd fail to be impactful in easier encounters; kineticists feel impactful all the time, for example, and their baselines sit in this zone.
*Wizard focus spells are weirdly bad. So are Arcane Witch focus spells. Arcane sorc doesn't have this issue.
Hence my proposal is to give wizards a second thesis at a later level, possibly restricting spell blending to only be taken at that level and making it merge only, and to repackage the premaster focus spells that don't have a school (like old divination) as 'minors' with 2 school spells that can be taken via feat.
Unsure about a full second thesis; that strikes me as too strong. But I do think every wizard could probably afford about half a thesis's worth of additional power added to the class at no cost. That could be a late upgrade to your bonded item that gives you 2-4 uses of drain bonded item on first level spells (to copy part of staff nexus's power); allowing every wizard to spell blend a single additional slot one rank lower than the highest rank of spells they can cast; granting a limited amount of uses of spell substitution a day; baking a single max rank split slot into the class; or something similar.
Well lets look at the actual progression a wizard receives as they level...
In general, I disagree the school spell lists are fine (GM fiat on basic functionality is not okay—see Investigator, which they still didn't completely fix) and I agree thesis is slightly underdeveloped.
I don't think being a 5 slot caster is integral to wizard; universalists don't get it, and the 5th slot is fairly restrictive. I feel wizard has 5 slots not because it's a strong USP, but to compensate for their expected inefficiencies in spell use and lackluster per-encounter options when compared to spontaneous casters.
In general, I disagree the school spell lists are fine (GM fiat on basic functionality is not okay—see Investigator, which they still didn't completely fix) and I agree thesis is slightly underdeveloped.I don't think being a 5 slot caster is integral to wizard; universalists don't get it, and the 5th slot is fairly restrictive. I feel wizard has 5 slots not because it's a strong USP, but to compensate for their expected inefficiencies in spell use and lackluster per-encounter options when compared to spontaneous casters.
Universalist is the exception put in place for players who dont like any of the other schools. Going by what 5 out of 6 schools do is more than fair when talking about the class in general.
Heres the thing about swapping spells the way they set it up. It presents a non exhaustive list of spells the school could have available rather than a strict one that cannot be altered. Additionally the schools can adopt on theme spells at a table that are newly printed because thats actually what they book allows. The GM involvement is to keep it from getting out of hand but there is no reason to refuse a spell that is on theme within the arcane tradition.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Prepared versus spontaneous are not play styles. Prepared is an anachronism that even D&D moved away from.This is just patently absurd. Spontaneous versus prepared are categorically playstyles
Stop with the hyperbole. They are not playstyles, never were.
They were just design choices. Prepared is an unnecessary, outdated anachronistic design choice from decades past when Gary Gygax chose what we know as prepared from the Jack Vance Dying Earth series for personal style reasons, not play-style reasons.
Sorcerer and other spontaneous casters came into being in 3E as some designers wanted a different style of spellcasting mirroring a different fantasy archetype. I played from the red box set to now and I don't recall spontaneous casters until 3E/PF1.
In PF1 it was pretty easy to obtain spontaneous like casting for a few spells as a prepared caster with Spell Mastery and Spell Perfection.
Then PF1 designers fused prepared and spontaneous into the Arcanist.
It didn't change the play-style at all. You still designed magical strategies based on spells and cast. Prepared casters had so many slots in PF1 that prepared and spontaneous had barely noticeable differences.
Only reason we even notice spontaneous versus prepared in PF2 is because prepared is not as good now so you really notice the low number of slots.
Prepared versus spontaneous are not play styles. Prepared is an anachronism that even D&D moved away from.This is just patently absurd. Spontaneous versus prepared are categorically playstylesStop with the hyperbole. They are not playstyles, never were.
They were just design choices. Prepared is an unnecessary, outdated anachronistic design choice from decades past when Gary Gygax chose what we know as prepared from the Jack Vance Dying Earth series for personal style reasons, not play-style reasons.
Sorcerer and other spontaneous casters came into being in 3E as some designers wanted a different style of spellcasting mirroring a different fantasy archetype. I played from the red box set to now and I don't recall spontaneous casters until 3E/PF1.
In PF1 it was pretty easy to obtain spontaneous like casting for a few spells as a prepared caster with Spell Mastery and Spell Perfection.
Then PF1 designers fused prepared and spontaneous into the Arcanist.
It didn't change the play-style at all. You still designed magical strategies based on spells and cast. Prepared casters had so many slots in PF1 that prepared and spontaneous had barely noticeable differences.
Only reason we even notice spontaneous versus prepared in PF2 is because prepared is not as good now so you really notice the low number of slots.
let me make the case then for them being different playstyles and not just hyperbole.
As a sorcerer you make choices at level up. You roll with those choices into situations picking the best of what you have for whatever is happening in the moment. There is no planning for the day ahead in terms of spells, you have what you have and you go until you run out.
A wizard doesnt play well if you just pick a general selection of good spells and role out. Doing this is going to be worse than a sorcerer. Instead they have more spells to choose from each day, and its important to go into a day of adventuring with some understanding of what youll need to prepare. The difference in playstyle comes from spending time gathering information in all the number of ways a wizard and the party can do it.
The thing is some tables like that kind of background gathering info stuff spending days in gathering info in town/following up to understand something in libraries/picking up clews on the dungeon ecology or habits of a mark and on and on and some tables just go encounter to encounter without doing that stuff. Wizards cant function when they cant put together some inkling of what the party is getting into. Its a limitation, and if the spells available to them dont provide advantages then its a limitation without a benefit.
The sorcerer can just go in with magic missile, slow and any other spell that just works no matter what you use it on. The wizard can too but they also can have earthbind when they know they need to take down fliers, Shrink to get through tiny openings, Ventriloquism if somehow thats the spell that will get the party ahead somehow, or maybe they want to cast nightmare on a foe the party is hunting to make them get sloppy or maybe that day you also prepared sleep in a high slot to combo with nightmare and not suffer from incapacitation.
There are interesting things to set up but a sorcerer wouldn't be good at this kind of thing because they need to pick staple spells and not mess around with things like nightmare or sleep.
Heres the thing about swapping spells the way they set it up. It presents a non exhaustive list of spells the school could have available rather than a strict one that cannot be altered. Additionally the schools can adopt on theme spells at a table that are newly printed because thats actually what they book allows. The GM involvement is to keep it from getting out of hand but there is no reason to refuse a spell that is on theme within the arcane tradition.No, the way they set it up was giving a fixed list, then suggest that the GM might want to change it, but with no guidance on what that means. It's no different from saying you can swap spells for a sorcerer's blood magic if the GM thinks they thematically fit, and nobody uses that possibility to argue for or against the relative power of sorcerer bloodline.
Also the schools themselves are poorly done. No consistency in spells granted per rank (mostly because of Ars Grammatica) and once again, uncommon spells granted by a common feature I will harp on this no matter how much people want to pretend that it's just a GM skill issue. We can only evaluate the wizard based on what the actual text says, not what some skilled GM can homebrew, and what the text says is that wizard schools are kinda bad, really.
OK. lets use the text.
Curriculum Spells: You automatically add some of the
spells listed in your school’s curriculum to your spellbook.
At 1st level, you add a cantrip and two 1st-rank spells
of your choice. As soon as you gain the ability to cast
wizard spells of a new rank, choose one of the spells from
your curriculum of that rank to add to your spellbook.
A superscript “U” indicates an uncommon spell. Your
GM might allow you to swap or add other spells to your
curriculum if they strongly fit the theme.
GM might allow means exactly that they didnt set the curriculum spell list in stone. It is not homebrew to follow this prompt and work with the GM on picking different spells that fit the theme.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's reasonable to consider "I do not want to have to choose what spells I prepare each day, even if this means I am less versatile" and "I am okay choosing which spells to prepare each day if this buys me versatility" are, if not playstyles, at least valid expressions of player preference.
Like I really want a spontaneous primal spellcaster that's not the sorcerer. I would enjoy this more than the druid.
I think i might understand what Derivan means. When they are in combat they are throwing out spells, and probably the same ones.
If thats happening then its a situation where the sorcerer has a huge advantage of having the spells in their repertoire that a wizard with the time knowledge and preparation in advance would have selected from their spell book.
But playstyle can be considered more holistically and also mean all of the lead up to combat and sometimes for the wizard avoiding or changing it with the right spell a sorcerer wouldnt bother with because they set themselves up mainly to fight.
Let’s assume that I, Unicore, am a player that just wants to be able to have the option to cast as many possible different spells as I can as a character. That is what I value and want out of a character and I want to be able to change a spell that I can cast with 10 minutes of time.
I could go Sorcerer as one option:
Sorcerer level 7
Rank 1 (4 options)
2+1 any spell
1 bloodline spell
1 of these can be a signature spell
Rank 2 (5 options)
2+1 any spell
1 bloodline spell
1 of these can be a signature spell
Rank 3 (6 options)
2+1 any spell
1 bloodline spell
1 of these can be a signature spell
Rank 4 (6 options)
2 any spell
1 bloodline spell
21 spells as a base plus
720 gp all spent on scrolls
There are 100 rank 1 arcane spells in rulebook and Lost Omen line only (lets avoid adventure spells for now since those are largely campaign specific and maybe you swap 1 or 2 of them out for some of these other scrolls. Let’s assume you only really want to be able to cast about 25% of these, so that is 100 gp on scrolls. These are scrolls though so you only get the rank 1 use out of these (this is where wizards can really pull ahead) any of these you want to cast at heightened levels you need to pay extra for.
Rank 2 has 99 spells. If you want 25 of these as scrolls at 12 gp each , that is going to run you 300 more gp. This is still in the realm of feasible, but very unlikely, still this is an exercise in “I want to be able to cast all the spells I possibly can” as a character goal.
Rank 3 drops off to 85 spells, but they cost 30 gp each, so at level 7, it is going to be tough to have even 10 of these.
Rank 4 has 74 spells, but at a cost 70 gp each, at level 7 you maybe have 1 of them, although it will have cost you 1 rank 3 scroll, one rank 2 scroll and 2 rank 1 scrolls.
So your sorcerer maybe has
27 rank 1 spells available
30 rank 2 spells available
15 rank 3 spells available
7 rank 4 spells available
Or a total of 79 possible spells they could cast. I could just buy level 1 scrolls to increase that number, but that would weaken my character over all, especially in comparison to what a spell substitution wizard can do:
Level 7 spell substitution Ars Grammatica wizard:
Rank 1 - 7 options
5+2 any spells
2 curriculum spells
Rank 2 - 12 options
4 any spells
1 curriculum spell
7 rank 1 spells that can heighten
Rank 3 - 17 options
4 any spells
1 curriculum spell
12 rank 1 and 2 spells that can heighten
Rank 4 - 20 options
2 any spells
1 curriculum spell
17 rank 1, 2 and 3 spells that can heighten
So without any scrolls at all (and thus no new learned spells) my wizard is sitting at 56 possible spells they can cast.
Doing the math on the scrolls with the learning is difficult so instead I am just going to say that my wizard is spending half the money, and I am going to round down.
12 rank 1 scrolls
12 rank 2 scrolls
5 rank 3 scrolls.
But if I learn these spells, then I actually end up with an additional
Rank 1 - +12 options
Rank 2 - +24 options
Rank 3 - +29 options
Rank 4 - +29 options
For easily 150 possible spells I can cast in a day.
I think it is fair to say that is essentially double, especially as critically succeeding on learning spells halves the cost and is very easy to do with magical short hand or spell book prodigy.
These are 2 very different characters who will play very differently in a game. Both are options for me, but the wizard really gives me a lot more flexibility than folks on these boards give it credit. And as a Spell Substitution wizard, I can start everyday loaded out with very basic combat spells in most of my slots and still have this flexibility any time I have the time to stop and look around and figure out what could be coming next.
Prepared versus spontaneous are not play styles. Prepared is an anachronism that even D&D moved away from.This is just patently absurd. Spontaneous versus prepared are categorically playstylesStop with the hyperbole. They are not playstyles, never were.
They were just design choices. Prepared is an unnecessary, outdated anachronistic design choice from decades past when Gary Gygax chose what we know as prepared from the Jack Vance Dying Earth series for personal style reasons, not play-style reasons.
Sorcerer and other spontaneous casters came into being in 3E as some designers wanted a different style of spellcasting mirroring a different fantasy archetype. I played from the red box set to now and I don't recall spontaneous casters until 3E/PF1.
In PF1 it was pretty easy to obtain spontaneous like casting for a few spells as a prepared caster with Spell Mastery and Spell Perfection.
Then PF1 designers fused prepared and spontaneous into the Arcanist.
It didn't change the play-style at all. You still designed magical strategies based on spells and cast. Prepared casters had so many slots in PF1 that prepared and spontaneous had barely noticeable differences.
Only reason we even notice spontaneous versus prepared in PF2 is because prepared is not as good now so you really notice the low number of slots.
let me make the case then for them being different playstyles and not just hyperbole.
As a sorcerer you make choices at level up. You roll with those choices into situations picking the best of what you have for whatever is happening in the moment. There is no planning for the day ahead in terms of spells, you have what you have and you go until you run out.
A wizard doesnt play well if you just pick a general selection of good spells and role out. Doing this is going to be worse than a sorcerer. Instead they have more spells to choose from each day, and its important...
There is no case to be made. Plenty of games do fine with no prepared casting. Plenty of classes do fine. They even made a class doing both, changed nothing.
It's just a handful players holding onto some unnecessary idea and being verbose defending the position that if changed, wouldn't change the game much at all.
D&D 5E changed the wizard so more spontaneous and prepared combined and it was one the most successful iterations of D&D ever made.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You all are confusing spontaneous and prepared for spontaneous not being able to change out spells. That is not at all what I'm talking about. 5E wizard can still change out spells and cast their spells spontaneously meaning heightening at will and using their slots flexibly.
Stop thinking inside little boxes with spontaneous and prepared. They are artificial little boxes chosen by designers, not absolutes.
You can have the wizard change out spells maintaining their versatility while casting all of their spells spontaneously as they wish when the appropriate spell is most useful. Then do the same with a different spell load the next day.
They can still use scrolls, items, and the like just fine.
Casting is casting. We don't need these little boxes any more. Spell slots are limited now. Spells are all balanced. Metamagic works the same for everyone now whether prepared or spontaneous.
Using the Dying Earth prepared casting and forgetting spells just isn't a necessary longer. Not even the original game that used this that we all talk around known as D&D is even using it any longer. They blended spontaneous and prepared into one casting paradigm and it works just fine.
Even PF2 allows this for bards and sorcerers to some degree and it works just fine.
Being able to change out spells has nothing to do with prepared casting as it works just fine to prepare spells for your repertoire or spells known and cast them spontaneously.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Deriven, I don’t want to lose spell slots to flexible casting, which is what trade off PF2 has put on what you are asking for. It is an option already in the game and not one everyone who plays a wizard wants. It also plays really weirdly with spell substitution, which is the thesis that I feel gives the PF2 Wizard the most dynamic and interesting playstyle of any D&D/variant Wizard I have played. Leaving slots open is nothing like having those slots prepared, but being able to change them every time my party stops to heal. I swap spells around after almost every encounter and use up more of my spell slots every day than I have been able to with any other caster I have played. It really feels like getting the most out of my spell slots.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Being spontaneous and prepared simultaneously is an extremely large power boost and should eat up a significant portion of the power budget. Spontaneous prepared, aka flexible casting, should probably be limited to 2 slots per rank. It's absurdly powerful. 2 slots and next to no unique class features. Sorcerers would look pathetic in comparison otherwise. Combining this with Spell Substition means you just get access to your whole spell list. You have every silver bullet pretty much exactly as you need it. Absurd
Casting is casting. We don't need these little boxes any more. Spell slots are limited now. Spells are all balanced. Metamagic works the same for everyone now whether prepared or spontaneous.
Also I very vehemently disagree with this. Kinds of magic, approaches to magic, should feel very different. Wizards and Bards quite literally interact with and see the world in entirely different ways. Bards tap into some kind of Jungian collective unconscious for their magic, and wizards do like esoteric science nonsense, while sorcerers are like the athletes of spellcasters practicing using the magic inherent within them. When you play one of these the mechanics should reflect these differences, and right now prepared casting reflects a difference that makes wizards feel just that extra but wizardy. My only contention is that prepared casting doesn't add much flavor-wise to clerics and druids, especially clerics. It's great for the witch, magus and wizard though
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
snip
Rank 4 spells means you're 7th level. The WBL for a 7th level character stipulates 1 permanent 6th level item, 2 5th, 1 4th, 2 3rd, and 125 gp in currency. So realistically, the game expects you to have 125 gp to use for consumables at this level. It would not be "tough to have even ten [rank 3 spell scrolls];" it should be impossible at most tables. If you had a GM that let you sac permanent items to buy scrolls, they'd use the lump sum total, and you'd only have 720 gp total in wealth.
Further, your heighten math is misleading without listing the exact spells chosen, as many spells do not heighten every level (like magic missile) or only gain heighten benefits at specific levels (like haste).
It's likewise just odd to ignore arcane evolution in this context, since assuredly this Sorc would take it. This all further ignores a lot of other realities of item selection, feats, and so on.
Then there's just the low value of casting a wide variety of spells in this game. Regardless of how fun it is—and I agree it is fun—there are far fewer spells worth taking and using regularly than those that are not. Even if there were more that were useful, we're talking about learning so many spells that you start getting into functional overlap with the rest of your party members' abilities and even your own spells. Spells are not all equally valuable, and spell knowledge gives heavily diminishing returns.
Overall, the argument glosses over a lot of things and those glosses make the argument look a lot better than it is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
snipRank 4 spells means you're 7th level. The WBL for a 7th level character stipulates 1 permanent 6th level item, 2 5th, 1 4th, 2 3rd, and 125 gp in currency. So realistically, the game expects you to have 125 gp to use for consumables at this level. It would not be "tough to have even ten [rank 3 spell scrolls];" it should be impossible at most tables. If you had a GM that let you sac permanent items to buy scrolls, they'd use the lump sum total, and you'd only have 720 gp total in wealth.
Further, your heighten math is misleading without listing the exact spells chosen, as many spells do not heighten every level (like magic missile) or only gain heighten benefits at specific levels (like haste).
It's likewise just odd to ignore arcane evolution in this context, since assuredly this Sorc would take it. This all further ignores a lot of other realities of item selection, feats, and so on.
Then there's just the low value of casting a wide variety of spells in this game. Regardless of how fun it is—and I agree it is fun—there are far fewer spells worth taking and using regularly than those that are not. Even if there were more that were useful, we're talking about learning so many spells that you start getting into functional overlap with the rest of your party members' abilities and even your own spells. Spells are not all equally valuable, and spell knowledge gives heavily diminishing returns.
Overall, the argument glosses over a lot of things and those glosses make the argument look a lot better than it is.
Im glad you brought up arcane evolution, I had a thought about it that I didnt get to last time.
The sorcerer taking arcane evolution only gets spells at the spell rank of the scroll they learned it from. Arcane evolution doesn't make spells that are not already in repertoire signature. This means getting heightened versions to make that one selected spell for the day is going to cost more gold than the wizard getting the same spell at the lowest rank possible and still able to heighten it to any rank above it available.This may matter a lot for some spells and pretty much means any incapacitate spell is not worth the sorcerer's time to pick up using the arcane evolution feature. that is unless you are using it for what i think is its better feature, to get an additional signature spell for the day for a spell already in the rep.