| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I’d rather have 1 freezing rain than 2 slow spells. Especially as a scroll of slow is only 30 gp and pretty cheap to have around as a back up. I strongly prefer spell substitution to blending as a thesis, but more top slots are a lot more expensive to recreate than a couple of low level ones, especially on days where you might have 1 or less combat encounter, and you might as well cast another permanent illusory object in your head quarters.
Level 10 Wizard
R1 4
R2 4
R3 4
R4 4
R5 4
This seems like a reasonable tradeoff when the adventuring day calls for more higher slot spells and less lower slot spells.
R1 4 -4 = 0
R2 4 -2 +1 = 3
R3 4 -2 +1 = 3
R4 4 -0 +1 = 5
R5 4 -0 +1 = 5
Also, you are a wizard. You don’t have to commit to blending out the same spells every day, and one of them is probably your school slot, so probably not slow anyway.
It is still not enough to lure me away from substitution, but it is good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nor do you have to spell blend everything every day.
Spell blending looks good when you have 1-3 important encounters in a day. It needs to be backed up with items. But scrolls are cheap. Staves are great for getting out a lot of low level spells you were missing. Every other caster is doing that as well it is just more important for blenders.
However if you take spells which are cast as reactions or single actions you can get a lot of spells out very fast and effectively. So Spell Blending is not the only way to go.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can we take a step back and recognise how weird “Don’t use your only real class feature” is as advice?
Let’s not forget spell blending is an entire class feature, one which offers nothing if not used.
I agree that sometimes not using it is the way to go. But this highlights the problem with the feature, it’s not a benefit of it.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I’d rather have 1 freezing rain than 2 slow spells. Especially as a scroll of slow is only 30 gp and pretty cheap to have around as a back up. I strongly prefer spell substitution to blending as a thesis, but more top slots are a lot more expensive to recreate than a couple of low level ones, especially on days where you might have 1 or less combat encounter, and you might as well cast another permanent illusory object in your head quarters.
Not me. I'd rather have the slows. Slow is a high value spell that works in almost every situation is especially good against high saves or resistant bosses.
I don't spend my money on a lot of consumables. I prefer to have fully built out armor and a weapon on my casters as well as a few skill boosters.
Low level scrolls are fairly cheap early on, but two slows in hand are better than a 5th level locked in slot 95 percent of the time or more.
Don't you take Spell Substitution on your wizards? Why are you suddenly defending Spell Blending like it's good.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can we take a step back and recognise how weird “Don’t use your only real class feature” is as advice?
Let’s not forget spell blending is an entire class feature, one which offers nothing if not used.
I agree that sometimes not using it is the way to go. But this highlights the problem with the feature, it’s not a benefit of it.
It's more wizard's are situational defense when the other classes don't have this problem with their class features.
Everything the wizard has is situational.
That's why the only arguments for the wizard require perfect circumstances where as the bard, sorcerer, cleric, druid, and just about every other caster doesn't need to change their spell load or have an ideal situation to get the job done. They are ready to do the job all the time even if it is just support the martials to win if your magic is suddenly ineffective.
But not the wizard. He needs to have that ideal situation to compete with those other caster classes with all his situational stuff where they try to figure which situations make the wizard look best while the sorcerer always looks good unless of course in a campaign where he's the only condition removal class and they didn't bother to take a condition removal spell. But that's not a bad spell choice or bad party construction, it's just because it's one of the few situations someone can point out where prepared casting was better than spontaneous.
It's why we never see threads or the same arguments used for any caster but the wizard. They're the "situational caster class" that finally reaches parity with the other casters when the right set of circumstances occur.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I give my players Spell Substitution because that at least allows them to feel useful without slowing the party down too much. My group is not the kind of group to wait for "silver bullet" spells because a well built group is the silver bullet for everything. A wizard asking for time to get a perfect setup looks like they're slowing everyone down if it takes a day.
Then for fun one player likes Staff Nexus. I like Metamagic Master because I'm a hardhead that wants to try to make metamagic work well again. No one touches Familiiar or Spell Blending. They just don't work very well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Level 10 Wizard
R1 4
R2 4
R3 4
R4 4
R5 4This seems like a reasonable tradeoff when the adventuring day calls for more higher slot spells and less lower slot spells.
R1 4 -4 = 0
R2 4 -2 +1 = 3
R3 4 -2 +1 = 3
R4 4 -0 +1 = 5
R5 4 -0 +1 = 5
That looks good to you? Getting rid of all sure strikes and your see invis and your revealing light and your slow for an extra 4th and 5th that is locked in? You have to prepare all those slots and have them chosen in advance if you choose Spell Blending as your thesis. So you are basically locked into that, for one 1 extra 4 and 5 above the sorcerer and 1 level 2 and 3 than the sorcerer and 4 less level 1 spells.
You think that is better than an auto-heightened focus spell you can use all day? Ok. I don't think so myself.
Level 10 Wizard
R1 4
R2 4
R3 4
R4 4
R5 4This seems like a reasonable tradeoff when the adventuring day calls for more higher slot spells and less lower slot spells.
R1 4 -4 = 0
R2 4 -2 +1 = 3
R3 4 -2 +1 = 3
R4 4 -0 +1 = 5
R5 4 -0 +1 = 5
That looks good to you? Getting rid of all sure strikes and your see invis and your revealing light and your slow for an extra 4th and 5th that is locked in? You have to prepare all those slots and have them chosen in advance if you choose Spell Blending as your thesis. So you are basically locked into that, for one 1 extra 4 and 5 above the sorcerer and 1 level 2 and 3 than the sorcerer and 4 less level 1 spells.
You think that is better than an auto-heightened focus spell you can use all day? Ok. I don't think so myself.
Well looking at it net loss is 4 spells for the day, technically those were all first rank slots. For that cost I shifted a rank 2 and a rank 3 for a rank 4 and a rank 5.
Sure strike is great if your using spell attacks but doesnt help save spells. I would not spell blend away those slots if I was counting on using spell attack spells that day.Since you prefer having more casts of slow at rank 3 you could choose not to spell blend those out and end up with 5 rank 3 slots and 1 less rank 5 slot(leaving it at 4 slots).
Just like choosing what to slot at each rank, choosing how much to spellblend would rely on the same assumptions about learning whats to come and planning that wizards need to be ok.
I dont think theres a wrong here, just another tool a spellblender has to customize what they bring with them for the day.
Just to add here, you get 1 more than sorcerer at 4 and 5 plus theres still drain bonded item to squeeze out 1 more of any one spell you prepped and used so technically it could be 6 casts of rank 5 spells for the day.
i would say it depends on the day which is better. Focus spells get more mileage the more encounters in the day with rest in between. Getting to use a top slot spell in 6 encounters seems like its pretty good on a particular day.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I dont think theres a wrong here, just another tool a spellblender has to customize what they bring with them for the day.
Just to add here, you get 1 more than sorcerer at 4 and 5 plus theres still drain bonded item to squeeze out 1 more of any one spell you prepped and used so technically it could be 6 casts of rank 5 spells for the day.
i would say it depends on the day which is better. Focus spells get more mileage the more encounters in the day...
The problem, at least as I see it, is that this both the height of and the entirety of the Wizard's build power.
You use your entire build to obtain marginal advantage over the baseline, no-build-applied version, of another caster. The merits of that advantage are also debatable.
Freezing rain targets reflex, often a worse save and gives you a one action attempt to slow the enemy every round. I find it an excellent boss targeting spell, especially if you can get it out early (with 120ft rang instead of 30) and you if you keep sustaining it, you have a brutal spell to use if the enemy manages to draw in any reinforcements. If the enemy fully engages you on round two, you can even sustain first, then cast a regular slow spell on the enemy if they succeed vs your freezing rain (which at least did some damage), and you can do the whole thing again the next round. I don’t know how many boss encounters you have a day, but if they truly are boss encounters it shouldn’t be too much more than 1 or 2 most of the time.
I give my players Spell Substitution because that at least allows them to feel useful without slowing the party down too much. My group is not the kind of group to wait for "silver bullet" spells because a well built group is the silver bullet for everything. A wizard asking for time to get a perfect setup looks like they're slowing everyone down if it takes a day.
Then for fun one player likes Staff Nexus. I like Metamagic Master because I'm a hardhead that wants to try to make metamagic work well again. No one touches Familiiar or Spell Blending. They just don't work very well.
I actually agree with you on the pacing statement. When the party is pushing through the dungeon or set of encounters, especially if the story provides incentives to do it all at in the same day there is no time to wait for the wizard to go home for a night and read their book.
Expecting that can interrupt some stories that dont make sense to break things up like that.The difference is in how a wizard and party would spend exploration and downtime days figuring out what they can know ahead of time before getting to that dungeon. That is the wizard with the best shot of contributing with spells that either can help the party gain access through alternative entrances, or enable particular tactics at long range, or be ready with spells to target the right saves if they managed that info beforehand at least a few of the things they will encounter.
And when higher rank spells are the right ones for the occasion, giving up some lower rank slots to have more uses of them can be worth it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And yes, the thing about flexibility and the ability to change your spells out every day is that it creates more “situational” power than static power. That was the very point that Michael Sayre was pointing out that has been referenced over and over again in this thread. For players who enjoy the versatility of the wizard it is not a slam to say that the wizard is strongest when exploiting a strong situational awareness. We already knew that. Yes the ability to exploit one’s situational awareness is GM dependent, but that is only a bad thing if you struggle to find GMs aware of how to make playing a wizard more fun for their players.
And the other thing is a sorcerer just doesnt need to do any of that.
That is the strength of the sorcerer. You build them up with a set of spells that work in the most common situations and you have any of them ready to use however much you want with your slots.
The point of arguing for what the wizard can do well was not to put them above the sorcerer. Sorcerers can adapt to unknown situations better and with sorcerers potency and some bloodlines just do more damage. I can talk up the sorcerer all day as its my favorite caster but I also recognize what the wizard can do too.
Actually a sorcerer and a wizard in the same party have a lot of synergy. The wizard can cover RK checks and their preparation informs the sorcerer of which of their spells will get through easiest. The the sorcerer can demoralize or bon mot to lower it even more before either of them start throwing out spells.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Freezing rain targets reflex, often a worse save and gives you a one action attempt to slow the enemy every round. I find it an excellent boss targeting spell, especially if you can get it out early (with 120ft rang instead of 30) and you if you keep sustaining it, you have a brutal spell to use if the enemy manages to draw in any reinforcements. If the enemy fully engages you on round two, you can even sustain first, then cast a regular slow spell on the enemy if they succeed vs your freezing rain (which at least did some damage), and you can do the whole thing again the next round. I don’t know how many boss encounters you have a day, but if they truly are boss encounters it shouldn’t be too much more than 1 or 2 most of the time.
It's a 20 foot burst that targets your allies, does only half damage on a success and no slow, and requires a sustain for a 5th level slot.
Versus a 3rd level that slows on a success, doesn't require a sustain, and can be surgically targeted.
What kind of group do you play in? Really? This would not work in my group. I already tried the area sustain spells. Very rarely can these be used to surgically target in a standard group with martials spread across a battlefield.
If you're boss killing, just target it with the 3rd level slow. Don't spend time trying to have your martials navigate a 20 foot burst that I' m not even sure how you would let your DM set it up.
It's hard enough to land a no duration burst spell before your martials engage and look to flank. The new Gang up has helped that some, but not everyone will have it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And yes, the thing about flexibility and the ability to change your spells out every day is that it creates more “situational” power than static power. That was the very point that Michael Sayre was pointing out that has been referenced over and over again in this thread. For players who enjoy the versatility of the wizard it is not a slam to say that the wizard is strongest when exploiting a strong situational awareness. We already knew that. Yes the ability to exploit one’s situational awareness is GM dependent, but that is only a bad thing if you struggle to find GMs aware of how to make playing a wizard more fun for their players.
If that situational power was strong enough to warrant the weaker wizard on demand versatility, then I could understand it. But it doesn't.
We already have people who believe casters are weaker than martials. Why? Martials are very strong in this edition. I watched a fighter make a boss fight a joke with no save using that Debilitating Shot thing they do while doing damage. I've watched Trip martials turn boss monsters into jokes. I've seen AoE martials with Whirlwind attack or Magus spellstrikers just annihilate stuff.
No preparation needed. No silver bullets. Just slam through entire dungeons and adventures ripping things apart.
Wizards don't cast spells better than any other Legendary caster class.
They don't do attack spells better than a Magus or other spellstriker.
Their versatility is all in the arcane list whereas at least a witch can fulfill other roles and clerics and druids can fulfill other roles as well since primal is great at blasting and even divine can blast now on top of superior class features.
What does this versatility get you? It's all in the arcane list and the arcane list has a lot of missing spells that can help deal with a lot of stuff.
Even now the arguments for the wizard are exactly the same. Spell Blending that when you look deeper at it is more of a limiter than a helper since you lose out on Spell Substitution. And you have to figure out if it's even worthwhile to use Spell Blending in a given day. Seems very few take Spellshape Mastery because Spellshape feats are not very compelling. Some players look forward to charging up their staff just to blow it up by breaking it for that single thrill. Spell Substitution is the main thesis for a wizard that wants to be able to do something without making their party wait a day.
I even clearly showed how the sorcerer with their 36 up to 45 spells with signature spells actually has more top level spell options by a country mile than a prepared caster due to how sig spells and heightening work. So their 4 slows maybe 1 or 2 less than the wizard, but at least they can use those 4 slots in 10 different ways or more.
It's just sad.
If only that were true.
The wizard can cover RK checks
Really?
DC by level puts a level 12 creature at a 27 DC for example. The level 10 wizard is sitting at a 21 in whatever they got to master and that will include any additional lores and isnt including any magic gear to boost one. 6 or up to get a truthful answer doesnt seem bad.Am i setting these DCs too low by using the by level dc table?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I even clearly showed how the sorcerer with their 36 up to 45 spells with signature spells actually has more top level spell options by a country mile than a prepared caster due to how sig spells and heightening work. So their 4 slows maybe 1 or 2 less than the wizard, but at least they can use those 4 slots in 10 different ways or more.
In the moment, with no idea what comes next, the sorcerer has more flexibility with their spells. With even 10 minutes a top level wizard will have multiple hundreds of spells at their finger tips, because of how heightening works.
Also, with a feat like infinite possibilities, an 18th level wizard can have one 7th level spell slot that can be any spell in their spell book. High level wizards never run out of spells to cast or ways to use those spells effectively.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
the wizard is strongest when exploiting a strong situational awareness.
But the Wizard can't exploit this. At least not very well.
Situational awareness is about understanding the position you find yourself in at any given moment. Since the Wizard needs to be front-loaded in their daily prep, their situational awareness doesn't do anything for them in that respect. Foreknowledge / Metaknowledge are the terms you were looking for in that circumstance.
yes the ability to exploit one’s situational awareness is GM dependent, but that is only a bad thing if you struggle to find GMs aware of how to make playing a wizard more fun for their players.
You understand that this is one of the major flaws in the Wizard's design, right? Both player and GM have to do additional work to ensure that the Wizard is on par with the other players, and that work is neither guaranteed nor is its requirement communicated to either player or GM's.
The Wizard's lack of good fallback option is why this why this is a bigger problem for them over say a Druid or a Witch.
If this was truly the design intention for Wizard's, then they should have thrown the "Uncommon" tag on them and added a text box explaining the need for the extra coordination. Leaving it up for discovery, on a case by case basis, is not something that should be true for a Core class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can we take a step back and recognise how weird “Don’t use your only real class feature” is as advice?
Let’s not forget spell blending is an entire class feature, one which offers nothing if not used.
I agree that sometimes not using it is the way to go. But this highlights the problem with the feature, it’s not a benefit of it.
Nope.
That is way too negative a take of my comment. Just that you have the option for low level spells if you want them.
To be clear I am all in on wizards being relatively weak. I think it is very clear now that the class is under done. The imperial sorcerer is much much stronger.
...the PF1 arcane and divine spell lists were divided into four equal parts: arcane, divine, occult, and primal.
LOL. There's nothing equal about them.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I even clearly showed how the sorcerer with their 36 up to 45 spells with signature spells actually has more top level spell options by a country mile than a prepared caster due to how sig spells and heightening work. So their 4 slows maybe 1 or 2 less than the wizard, but at least they can use those 4 slots in 10 different ways or more.In the moment, with no idea what comes next, the sorcerer has more flexibility with their spells. With even 10 minutes a top level wizard will have multiple hundreds of spells at their finger tips, because of how heightening works.
Also, with a feat like infinite possibilities, an 18th level wizard can have one 7th level spell slot that can be any spell in their spell book. High level wizards never run out of spells to cast or ways to use those spells effectively.
And with no preparation a high level sorcerer will have 10 to 14 spells usable in his highest slots as needed, while with 10 minutes you can change out one spell and with infinite possibilities you get to cast a spell 2 levels lower using a max level slot that isn't even heightened, not even heightened, by the sorcerer has 17 spells she can use at level 9 not even including the one spell he can change out per day to get another signature spell or a needed spell.
So what's better? A spell 2 levels lower that doesn't even get heightened to the level of the slot you use while the sorcerer has 5 different spells of his maximum level known, then 8 signature spells he can heighten, then a possibly additional signature spell or just a different max level spell they can pick per day. All of them are actually heightened to maximum level so when they use a heightened dispel magic that is only a level 2 spell in their repertoire, they cast it at a level 9. Whereas Mr. 18th level wizard with Infinite Possibilities casts that dispel magic at level 7.
You see the problem? It's bad. A bad feat.
An 18th level feat casting 2 levels lower in all ways. A sorc has a level 4 feat that gives them a spellbook with a changeable signature spell or an additional spell of any level with a day's notice. A level 2 feat.
Explain to me how the feat quality compares.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And the spell blending thesis is most potent when the spells you are preparing in those higher rank slots are actually native to that rank, not when heightening something since heightened spells are naturally not as potent.
I just wanna make a correction here. Mark Seifter on one fo the Roll for Combat streams said explicitly that heightened spells were designed to be just as good as spells of that level (otherwise what is the point?). This isn't 5e, they actually took this into account and looking at the numbers, especially for damage spells, it appears mostly consistent with this claim
So, I'm working on a Wizard brew I'm thinking of sharing later on. I'm at six pages so far; here's a feat I thought might interest people:
wizard
Prerequisites Trained in Arcana
You can identify and learn new spells on the fly. You gain the Recognize Spell skill feat. When you recognize a spell that’s not in your spellbook with Recognize Spell, you can commit it to memory and attempt to Learn the Spell without requiring a person who knows the spell or magical writing. If you commit a new spell to memory in this way while already committing another spell, you forget the current spell.
You can commit two different spells to memory if you’re an expert in Arcana, three if you’re a master, and four if you’re legendary. If you commit a new spell to memory while committing the maximum number of spells, choose which spell to forget.
I even clearly showed how the sorcerer with their 36 up to 45 spells with signature spells actually has more top level spell options by a country mile than a prepared caster due to how sig spells and heightening work. So their 4 slows maybe 1 or 2 less than the wizard, but at least they can use those 4 slots in 10 different ways or more.In the moment, with no idea what comes next, the sorcerer has more flexibility with their spells. With even 10 minutes a top level wizard will have multiple hundreds of spells at their finger tips, because of how heightening works.
Also, with a feat like infinite possibilities, an 18th level wizard can have one 7th level spell slot that can be any spell in their spell book. High level wizards never run out of spells to cast or ways to use those spells effectively.
I think it’s really telling that the “36-45” number Deriven keeps quoting is only really true for the level 20 Sorcerer, and got exceeded in flexibility by the level 1-10 actual play Wizard example I brought up several pages ago.
You’re 100% correct that if you actually compare them at the same level ranged, the Wizard just… wins in day to day flexibility. That’s literally what they’re designed to do. By the time the Sorcerer has 45 spells the Wizard will probably have had a flexibility in the range of hundreds of spells.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Clearly the wizard is intended to be played only by smart players who know how best to properly utilize its many hidden strengths.
/snark
I agree that things should probably be made clearer and more synergistic than they are currently, but not to the point that things get overly simplified.
...the PF1 arcane and divine spell lists were divided into four equal parts: arcane, divine, occult, and primal.LOL. There's nothing equal about them.
I was wrong. Gortle says arcane is best in Gortle's Sorcerer Guide PF2 Remastered.
Arcane ★★★★
The best spell list, the largest list and the traditional wizard list. The best utilities but missing healing. If you want to play an arcane caster but dislike Vancian magic then Imperial or Draconic is what you are after. The skills are so much better, the comparison is really embarrassing for the wizard. Especially because you can still get a spellbook for that one special spell you need in a situation.
I guess that Paizo did not need to balance the size of the spell traditions because a spontaneous caster who can choose a tradition has the same size of repertoire regardless of the size of the spell list.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Spell blending is situationally strong, but
1) The slot clearly isn't -necessary-, or else 3 slot casters would be hosed. So it's either it's extra power you probably don't need, or you're using it to make up for something 3 slot casters have that you lack. In the former case, it's not strong; in the latter case, it's putting you perhaps on par, but doing so with a pretty low floor. Giving away two potentially useful slots for one slot you must know how to use effectively is a bit rough.
2) In a lot of cases, Spell Blending's primary strength is just in letting you get one more kind of top rank spell prepared than otherwise, not one more cast of a top rank spell than otherwise. It's pragmatically more of a versatility booster.
3) The power of a blended slot becomes hard to evaluate because the thing you gain with higher slots is better action efficiency in many cases, not so much completely new utility—and the scaling on it isn't always as clean or obviously positive as you'd like.
3.1) Let's examine a really simple case: giving up two fireballs for one fireball. Two R3 Fireballs is 12d6 over four actions, and one R5 Fireball is 10d6 over two; I'd say that's pretty good. 5/6ths the damage in half the time is great. It gets better if we blend up to cone of cold instead and get 10d6 of a better damage type and difficult terrain as a rider.
However, as numbers scale, the trade is less obvious. Two R5 Cones of Cold is 20d6 over 4 actions; A R7 Cone of Cold 14d6 over 2 actions. Now we're 7/10ths as effective; still an improvement, but less of one. We have to switch to effects that might have undesirable riders or AoE shapes (specifically, Frigid Flurry or Eclipse Burst—one is a line, and the other is frankly way too big for most combats as a 60 foot burst) to get better efficiency again. There's honestly a strange bit of anti-scaling here, as the AoEs that are less practical become the ones that deal more damage.
3.2) What about trading up debuff spells, though?
Honestly, I think many debuff spells are kind of poorly designed, because they don't scale well in practical efficacy as spell rank increases. Just searching "slowed 1" on the arcane list will tell you that even a 6th rank spell (Lignify or Petrify) is actually worse at slowing a creature than 3rd rank slow in a lot of cases. And few other spells will slow (or do something close) on a successful save; the only one I can think of off the top is Unspeakable Shadow's pseudoslow from forcing the enemy to burn actions, and that's a rank 9 spell. (I might be forgetting one, though.)
The same goes for reaction denial; Roaring Applause is a good upgrade over Laughing Fit, but other than the heightened versions of these spells, it's all downhill from there if what you want is to consistently deny reactions for the rest of the encounter. Wave of Despair can't be sustained, though it is at least AoE; Uncontrollable Dance has incapacitation, a range of touch, and can't be sustained (though it does give 3 rounds of reaction denial without a sustain if it works); and Phantasmagoria's reaction denial only lasts a turn. The rank 3 and rank 6 versions of Slow and Roaring Applause remain the most consistent action economy denial spells, even if higher rank spells may add useful riders in exchange for being less consistent. This is a problem, though, because you want to inflict these statuses consistently. It's why you cast spells that inflict them! It's why slow and roaring applause are good! Doing 16d6 with phantasmagoria is small peanuts compared to removing reactions for the whole encounter (with a spell you can quicken once a day when you're that level, even).
Frightened also doesn't quite scale up as well as I'd like. The following sequence
1st. Fear
3rd. Agonizing Despair/Heightened Fear
4th. Vision of Death
5th. Mirror Malefactors
7th. Tempest of Shades (?)
9th. Unspeakable Shadow
doesn't significantly improve your ability to inflict frightened on a single target until Unspeakable Shadow; doesn't improve your ability to sustain it until Mirror Malefactors (and even that is a more flimsy improvement in practice than I'd like for a fifth level spell); and doesn't pragmatically improve your ability to AoE frightened much past heightened fear. There are noticeable improvements in riders along the way, at least, like added damage and increased targets. But it takes forever for these spells to get better at the core things you cast the spell for.
So Spell Blending is honestly of limited efficacy when it comes to improving your ability to land your important utility spells. These utility spells are among the best in the game, so failing to synergize with them is a mark against the thesis, imo.
===
...When I look all this over, I honestly feel like spell blending's primary benefit is actually just the extra chance at preparing a useful spell, moreso than anything else.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know I shouldn't get my hopes up, but I'm really hoping that Lost Omens: Rival Academies is actually Lost Omens: Wizard support.
I was really worried that we would need to wait a looooong time to get a meaningful list of options for additional schools. A lot of the places where a Wizard school would be had already been covered, so a pretense to just do a whole series was literally needed.
It's also very fun to see that University of Lepidstadt has been made into a literal school. This was fictional school for my Blood Lords Wizard (because the old system did actually allow us to be specific schools through the magic of role playing!). The Lepistadt surgeon archetype is directly the character I was playing.
Here is hoping that the new Runelord is also just "Wizard 2.0" - remove some versatility, add class features.
the wizard is strongest when exploiting a strong situational awareness.But the Wizard can't exploit this. At least not very well.
Situational awareness is about understanding the position you find yourself in at any given moment. Since the Wizard needs to be front-loaded in their daily prep, their situational awareness doesn't do anything for them in that respect. Foreknowledge / Metaknowledge are the terms you were looking for in that circumstance.
yes the ability to exploit one’s situational awareness is GM dependent, but that is only a bad thing if you struggle to find GMs aware of how to make playing a wizard more fun for their players.You understand that this is one of the major flaws in the Wizard's design, right? Both player and GM have to do additional work to ensure that the Wizard is on par with the other players, and that work is neither guaranteed nor is its requirement communicated to either player or GM's.
The Wizard's lack of good fallback option is why this why this is a bigger problem for them over say a Druid or a Witch.
If this was truly the design intention for Wizard's, then they should have thrown the "Uncommon" tag on them and added a text box explaining the need for the extra coordination. Leaving it up for discovery, on a case by case basis, is not something that should be true for a Core class.
I would think if the wizard had a good fall back option it would just become the main option. The class was designed to underperform without
Foreknowledge as you mentioned. metaknowledge however would presume using player knowledge instead of character knowledge and is the antithesis of what the gives the class foreknowledge. It is the use of metaknowledge that makes the table find wizard RK contributions unnecessary.
I don’t really want to invite the rehashing of “wizards are nerfed” or “wizards are OP.”
951 to 985 of 985
Mission failed. We'll get 'em next time.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
the wizard is strongest when exploiting a strong situational awareness.But the Wizard can't exploit this. At least not very well.
Situational awareness is about understanding the position you find yourself in at any given moment. Since the Wizard needs to be front-loaded in their daily prep, their situational awareness doesn't do anything for them in that respect. Foreknowledge / Metaknowledge are the terms you were looking for in that circumstance.
yes the ability to exploit one’s situational awareness is GM dependent, but that is only a bad thing if you struggle to find GMs aware of how to make playing a wizard more fun for their players.You understand that this is one of the major flaws in the Wizard's design, right? Both player and GM have to do additional work to ensure that the Wizard is on par with the other players, and that work is neither guaranteed nor is its requirement communicated to either player or GM's.
The Wizard's lack of good fallback option is why this why this is a bigger problem for them over say a Druid or a Witch.
If this was truly the design intention for Wizard's, then they should have thrown the "Uncommon" tag on them and added a text box explaining the need for the extra coordination. Leaving it up for discovery, on a case by case basis, is not something that should be true for a Core class.
I would think if the wizard had a good fall back option it would just become the main option. The class was designed to underperform without
Foreknowledge as you mentioned. metaknowledge however would presume using player knowledge instead of character knowledge and is the antithesis of what the gives the class foreknowledge. It is the use of metaknowledge that makes the table find wizard RK contributions unnecessary.
RK contributions are unnecessary because RK is just bad a lot of the time unless you can get it as a free action or as a rider on something else.
The RK action economy just is not balanced against figuring things out the hard way. It is cheaper, action-wise, to hit something to find out its resistances than to RK to find out its resistances—especially as levels increase and martials load their weapons with multiple damage types. You will find out what its attacks are when it attacks; there's no need to spend an action on RK to learn that. The only time RK is actually integral is when a creature has a very specific or unusual weakness, which is rare; or when a creature has ability you want to avoid triggering or being targeted by at all costs, especially a reaction—but then again, roaring applause is a generically good spell, so perhaps that doesn't matter as much as it seems. When you add the fact you don't have enough skill increases for all the RK checks, it just starts to feel awful.
If anything, wizard is the person most in need of RK, not the rest of the table—you want to know saves to make it less likely that you'll waste spells.
===
WRT fallback options: for a lot of casters, those are focus spells. I do not think wizard is going to be broken if its focus spells are slightly better, and I would personally take a good suite of fallback focus spells over an extra slot from spell blending etc.
===
The class was not designed to underperform without foreknowledge. It was designed to basically just assume you would perform "fine" if you had a spell that targeted the correct defense in an encounter and "great" if you had multiple such spells and could afford to burn them.
The design intent, afaict, is this. Given that you cast one top rank slot an encounter, and a 3 encounter day is the "baseline," wizard can prepare three top rank spells that each target a different defense, and they'll do great if the day is 3 encounters long and they don't see a defense more than twice (because DBI saves them). Then they have lower level spells for non-scaling utility and debuffs and 1A/R action economy, and maybe as backup save targeting if they're worried. This doesn't really require foreknowledge. It just requires system knowledge.
Even outside the realm of design intent, wizard still performs okayish without foreknowledge because generically useful spells like Slow are so strong. It has a miserable floor if you have no system knowledge, though. You just target saves haphazardly with spells that sound cool and play worryingly ineffectually. You do so little compared to, say, someone who just moves at things and attacks as many times as possible on a martial.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RK contributions are unnecessary because RK is just bad a lot of the time unless you can get it as a free action or as a...the wizard is strongest when exploiting a strong situational awareness.But the Wizard can't exploit this. At least not very well.
Situational awareness is about understanding the position you find yourself in at any given moment. Since the Wizard needs to be front-loaded in their daily prep, their situational awareness doesn't do anything for them in that respect. Foreknowledge / Metaknowledge are the terms you were looking for in that circumstance.
yes the ability to exploit one’s situational awareness is GM dependent, but that is only a bad thing if you struggle to find GMs aware of how to make playing a wizard more fun for their players.You understand that this is one of the major flaws in the Wizard's design, right? Both player and GM have to do additional work to ensure that the Wizard is on par with the other players, and that work is neither guaranteed nor is its requirement communicated to either player or GM's.
The Wizard's lack of good fallback option is why this why this is a bigger problem for them over say a Druid or a Witch.
If this was truly the design intention for Wizard's, then they should have thrown the "Uncommon" tag on them and added a text box explaining the need for the extra coordination. Leaving it up for discovery, on a case by case basis, is not something that should be true for a Core class.
I would think if the wizard had a good fall back option it would just become the main option. The class was designed to underperform without
Foreknowledge as you mentioned. metaknowledge however would presume using player knowledge instead of character knowledge and is the antithesis of what the gives the class foreknowledge. It is the use of metaknowledge that makes the table find wizard RK contributions unnecessary.
A wizard using RK in combat is not prepared. Those are not the fights the wizard will do best in.
A wizard who has RKed well before entering the area on every creature known to roam it? that wizard is prepared.If we are talking in encounter RK then the wizard is just hoping they prepared something good enough. If a wizard was able to RK the days before they will come prepared for at least some of the possible encounters.
And they dont need to have the perfect spells ready for every encounter. If they can make even one of the days encounters easier because of foreknowledge and preparation then theyve done well for that day.
Thats maybe 2 spells prepared based on foreknowledge and the rest set to generally useful ones to cover different situations for that day.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
A wizard using RK in combat is not prepared. Those are not the fights the wizard will do best in.
A wizard who has RKed well before entering the area on every creature known to roam it? that wizard is prepared.
If we are talking in encounter RK then the wizard is just hoping they prepared something good enough. If a wizard was able to RK the days before they will come prepared for at least some of the possible encounters.And they dont need to have the perfect spells ready for every encounter. If they can make even one of the days encounters easier because of foreknowledge and preparation then theyve done well for that day.
Thats maybe 2 spells prepared based on foreknowledge and the rest set to generally useful ones to cover different situations for that day.
1) Ah, yes, the whole "table variance" and "the wizard has to bog down the game for everyone else to justify taking them" issue again.
2) The game doesn't really give you explicit guidance on this, but you generally can't identify creatures that aren't in front of you, or it's done at a penalty. (After all, how would you know what you're trying to identify?) You're assuming a lot about what's "known" here, also. I'd be shocked if any GM let you know about every esoteric magical creature in the woods, especially if their population were in the single digits. It's not hostile GMing to tell you that no one knows what lurks deep in the dark thickets of the wood.
3) Are you really going to not prepare spells with the intent to target 3 defenses anyways? This sounds like a dangerous gambit, as there is almost no case IME where you can actually know every encounter you'll run into. You do not want to be high and dry.
My personal expectation is that a party should know what the absolute most common kinds of enemy are where they're going, and might know a bit about especially notorious or powerful enemies—but that's about it. To use Thistletop in Rise as an example,
Gathering any more information than that will probably entail some level of risk to the party, or at least the use of divination. Divination also isn't without its risks (though many of them are GM dependent, as how the GM handles the scrying sensor's invisibility matters a whole lot).
I don't think that in combat RK is bad specially if the Wizard have Knowledge is Power but they aren't better than any other int based character that can get legendary in 3 skills and can get Unified Theory to allow to use Arcana to RK any non-NPC creature.
So IMO is not bad but I don't see anything special in wizards to RK.
A wizard using RK in combat is not prepared. Those are not the fights the wizard will do best in.
A wizard who has RKed well before entering the area on every creature known to roam it? that wizard is prepared.
If we are talking in encounter RK then the wizard is just hoping they prepared something good enough. If a wizard was able to RK the days before they will come prepared for at least some of the possible encounters.And they dont need to have the perfect spells ready for every encounter. If they can make even one of the days encounters easier because of foreknowledge and preparation then theyve done well for that day.
Thats maybe 2 spells prepared based on foreknowledge and the rest set to generally useful ones to cover different situations for that day.1) Ah, yes, the whole "table variance" and "the wizard has to bog down the game for everyone else to justify taking them" issue again.
2) The game doesn't really give you explicit guidance on this, but you generally can't identify creatures that aren't in front of you, or it's done at a penalty. (After all, how would you know what you're trying to identify?) You're assuming a lot about what's "known" here, also. I'd be shocked if any GM let you know about every esoteric magical creature in the woods, especially if their population were in the single digits. It's not hostile GMing to tell you that no one knows what lurks deep in the dark thickets of the wood.
3) Are you really going to not prepare spells with the intent to target 3 defenses anyways? This sounds like a dangerous gambit, as there is almost no case IME where you can actually know every encounter you'll run into. You do not want to be high and dry.
My personal expectation is that a party should know what the absolute most common kinds of enemy are where they're going, and might know a bit about especially notorious or powerful enemies—but that's about it. To use Thistletop in Rise as an example, ** spoiler omitted **...
I have understood RK to be a way for a GM to tell a player information the PC actually knows about the topic. I didn't take it as the PC gleaning information by looking at the creature. If i am telling them, thats an ogre a slow dull witted brute that preys on other humanoids. Its all information the player is receiving because they succeed on recalling the information. This information would be known to the PC if they are in front of an ogre just as well as hearing from towns folk an ogre has been spotted kidnapping people from the village in the last few weeks.
Creatures: “Can it be reasoned with?” “What environments
does it live in?” “What’s its most notable offensive ability?”
“Is it highly vulnerable or resistant to anything?” “Are any
of its defenses weak?”
Starting here questions like what environments does it live in likely is something a pc asks to help them find where to even look to find such a creature. Asking this of an ogre might help the party decide to search for the ogre and the missing townsfolk in the mountains or the swamps or the woods surrounding the town.
No reason at that point not to RK the ogres weaknesses and saves so the wizard can set the best spells to deal with an ogre living in mountain terrain vs a situation where it was a hag kidnapping children and living in the swamp. Very different spell load out to deal with one situation over the other for a wizard with options.Deriven might say just play a sorcerer instead and cast slow in either situation and thats perfectly valid. But lets say were talking about a level 5 party. and both of these creatures have taken up around the town. The mountains have ogres pushing around some goblins to serve them the area has lots of steep clifs and drop offs making the traversable paths narrow at times and prone to ambushes, the swamps have a hag and its own minions, losts of waterlogged terrain to traverse and natural hazards and creatures that habitate the area in addition to the hag.
What spell load out does a level 5 wizard bring to each situation to help their party? how is it different from a sorcerer instead of a wizard. what roles can each serve for their party.
The only way to actually compare here too is to use a defined sorcerer and a defined wizard. nebulous versions can do anything and thats not what a specific sorcerer and a specific wizard can actually do.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A wizard using RK in combat is not prepared. Those are not the fights the wizard will do best in.
A wizard who has RKed well before entering the area on every creature known to roam it? that wizard is prepared.
If we are talking in encounter RK then the wizard is just hoping they prepared something good enough. If a wizard was able to RK the days before they will come prepared for at least some of the possible encounters.And they dont need to have the perfect spells ready for every encounter. If they can make even one of the days encounters easier because of foreknowledge and preparation then theyve done well for that day.
Thats maybe 2 spells prepared based on foreknowledge and the rest set to generally useful ones to cover different situations for that day.1) Ah, yes, the whole "table variance" and "the wizard has to bog down the game for everyone else to justify taking them" issue again.
2) The game doesn't really give you explicit guidance on this, but you generally can't identify creatures that aren't in front of you, or it's done at a penalty. (After all, how would you know what you're trying to identify?) You're assuming a lot about what's "known" here, also. I'd be shocked if any GM let you know about every esoteric magical creature in the woods, especially if their population were in the single digits. It's not hostile GMing to tell you that no one knows what lurks deep in the dark thickets of the wood.
3) Are you really going to not prepare spells with the intent to target 3 defenses anyways? This sounds like a dangerous gambit, as there is almost no case IME where you can actually know every encounter you'll run into. You do not want to be high and dry.
My personal expectation is that a party should know what the absolute most common kinds of enemy are where they're going, and might know a bit about especially notorious or powerful enemies—but that's about it. To use Thistletop in Rise as an example, ** spoiler omitted **...
“The game doesn’t really give guidance on this” shouldn’t really be followed up by any kind of “can’t”s or “shouldn’t”s. Yes, GMs will get choose whether gathering information in town, talking to local hunters/lumberjacks will result in any useful information. Sometimes, those trips around town are built into adventures themselves, with encounters (social, skill, or even combat) built in, other times the GM might not want to prepare a whole lot about it and might just have the party make a gather information check and give the party information that will make the adventure fun.
Choosing to restrict that information is a choice a GM can make, but not a default one. Rumors of the beast the party is hunting is stock fantasy RPG information though.
Instead of making up arbitrary rules about how tables should handle it, it is probably more valuable to ask if there are ways to make sure everyone can benefit from this kind of adventure design, or if it is turning into a slog for the table. The first time most players learn that trolls regenerate but fire stops it, that is not just a wizard hack. That is a “this creature is going to wreck the party if the players don’t know it and the creature is a solo boss monster” moment. A lot of the newer APs are building in the research subsystem to help figure out what kinds of information will really be adventure necessary. I encourage GMs to really read through the GM core and think about utilizing all the subsystems more in their own game, whether you are playing a pre-written adventure or not. Meeting old hermits on the edge of town with clues about up coming encounters and challenges is old school GM advice. PF2 has all that and then some for bringing the setting to life
...the PF1 arcane and divine spell lists were divided into four equal parts: arcane, divine, occult, and primal.LOL. There's nothing equal about them.I was wrong. Gortle says arcane is best in Gortle's Sorcerer Guide PF2 Remastered.
I guess that Paizo did not need to balance the size of the spell traditions because a spontaneous caster who can choose a tradition has the same size of repertoire regardless of the size of the spell list.Arcane ★★★★
The best spell list, the largest list and the traditional wizard list. The best utilities but missing healing. If you want to play an arcane caster but dislike Vancian magic then Imperial or Draconic is what you are after. The skills are so much better, the comparison is really embarrassing for the wizard. Especially because you can still get a spellbook for that one special spell you need in a situation.
The spell traditions are definitely not the same size. Arcane is much larger. Divine is much smaller. Currently in Nethys:
689 Arcane381 Divine
559 Occult
526 Primal
Arcane is still the best IMHO. But so many spells are shared between traditions, Divine has ways to get extra spells from outside its tradition, and the action economy is the real limit to spell casters.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, yes, the whole "table variance" and "the wizard has to bog down the game for everyone else to justify taking them" issue again.
That's quite the toxic and hypocritical stance you're taking there.
Why is it okay for the ranger to "bog down the game" with their scouting, or the cleric with their healing?
It is perfectly fine for wizards to prepare themselves and the party just as well as it is for the ranger to scout or the cleric to heal.
Bugger off with that nonsense.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Healing, really?
Terrible comparisons.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I even clearly showed how the sorcerer with their 36 up to 45 spells with signature spells actually has more top level spell options by a country mile than a prepared caster due to how sig spells and heightening work. So their 4 slows maybe 1 or 2 less than the wizard, but at least they can use those 4 slots in 10 different ways or more.In the moment, with no idea what comes next, the sorcerer has more flexibility with their spells. With even 10 minutes a top level wizard will have multiple hundreds of spells at their finger tips, because of how heightening works.
Also, with a feat like infinite possibilities, an 18th level wizard can have one 7th level spell slot that can be any spell in their spell book. High level wizards never run out of spells to cast or ways to use those spells effectively.
I think it’s really telling that the “36-45” number Deriven keeps quoting is only really true for the level 20 Sorcerer, and got exceeded in flexibility by the level 1-10 actual play Wizard example I brought up several pages ago.
You’re 100% correct that if you actually compare them at the same level ranged, the Wizard just… wins in day to day flexibility. That’s literally what they’re designed to do. By the time the Sorcerer has 45 spells the Wizard will probably have had a flexibility in the range of hundreds of spells.
And I'm telling you straight up that flexibility isn't needed. I can walk into your game with my 45 spells and wreck everything because I know what the high value spells and what is needed to achieve victory in combat.
For out of combat, I can easily use my Arcane Evolution spellbook to change out at least one spell.
It's about what you can do at the end of the road as I play mostly high level PF2. I do not stay below level 10 very long. It is very rare I play to less than level 15. The sorcerer outperforms the wizard at level 15 the vast majority of the time because it is far better to be able to do something like chain cast a slow or an eclipse burst as needed than to go, "I used my one eclipse burst and arcane bond and i used all my 3 slows, now I'm out of those."
I go to head to head with any wizard with a sorcerer any day of the week for 90% plus of situations in an AP and I will outperform them.
I started off PF2 test running a wizard, then I played other class and found out the sorcerer is the new wizard in terms of what the class did in PF1 or the closest facsimile to that.
I even read the new feat where the sorcerer can now do RK using the Arcane skill for everything earlier than the wizard. That's pretty nuts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...the PF1 arcane and divine spell lists were divided into four equal parts: arcane, divine, occult, and primal.LOL. There's nothing equal about them.I was wrong. Gortle says arcane is best in Gortle's Sorcerer Guide PF2 Remastered.
I guess that Paizo did not need to balance the size of the spell traditions because a spontaneous caster who can choose a tradition has the same size of repertoire regardless of the size of the spell list.Arcane ★★★★
The best spell list, the largest list and the traditional wizard list. The best utilities but missing healing. If you want to play an arcane caster but dislike Vancian magic then Imperial or Draconic is what you are after. The skills are so much better, the comparison is really embarrassing for the wizard. Especially because you can still get a spellbook for that one special spell you need in a situation.The spell traditions are definitely not the same size. Arcane is much larger. Divine is much smaller. Currently in Nethys:
689 Arcane
381 Divine
559 Occult
526 PrimalArcane is still the best IMHO. But so many spells are shared between traditions, Divine has ways to get extra spells from outside its tradition, and the action economy is the real limit to spell casters.
I still think Occult is the best.
It has the best debuff.
The best buff.
Healing.
Good summoming.
Condition removal.
Force, Void, and mental blast damage.
Wall of Force which is the best wall.
Fly
Teleport
It has nearly every high value option available other than energy blasting.
On top of being attached to the bard, sorcerer, witch, and psychic allowing more options to build interesting characters.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have understood RK to be a way for a GM to tell a player information the PC actually knows about the topic. I didn't take it as the PC gleaning information by looking at the creature. If i am telling them, thats an ogre a slow dull witted brute that preys on other humanoids. Its all information the player is receiving because they succeed on recalling the information. This information would be known to the PC if they are in front of an ogre just as well as hearing from towns folk an ogre has been spotted kidnapping people from the village in the last few weeks.
Townsfolk typically know the bare minimum. There is no guarantee anything a townsperson thinks is an ogre is actually an ogre, particularly if they have no expertise identifying creatures. It could be any one of multiple varieties of giant, an oni, who knows what else—anything large enough and scary enough could be called an ogre.
More importantly, my take is that you can't use Recall Knowledge on a topic you're unaware of. For some additional clarification, see also my response to Unicore.
No reason at that point not to RK the ogres weaknesses and saves so the wizard can set the best spells to deal with an ogre living in mountain terrain vs a situation where it was a hag kidnapping children and living in the swamp. Very different spell load out to deal with one situation over the other for a wizard with options.
Deriven might say just play a sorcerer instead and cast slow in either situation and thats perfectly valid. But lets say were talking about a level 5 party. and both of these creatures have taken up around the town. The mountains have ogres pushing around some goblins to serve them the area has lots of steep clifs and drop offs making the traversable paths narrow at times and prone to ambushes, the swamps have a hag and its own minions, losts of waterlogged terrain to traverse and natural hazards and creatures that habitate the area in addition to the hag.
What spell load out does a level 5 wizard bring to each situation to help their party? how is it different from a sorcerer instead of a wizard. what roles can each serve for their party.
There are not significant differences between the loadouts.
I'm assuming we're going to use an Annis Hag and an Ogre Boss. Those have the same save structure, Fort(Strong)>Will(Mid)>Ref(Weak). The biggest difference between the two is that the Ogre Boss has Reactive Strike and Sweeping Hook, so Roaring Applause/Laughing Fit is better against that encounter. But you'd probably have Laughing Fit/Roaring Applause for other encounters on the day you fought the hag, anyways.
Unfortunately, targeting reflex just gives you worse debuffing options. You could maybe use something like Ignite Fireworks to inflict dazzled, which could have okay value if you get multiple dazzles off on the ogre boss+lackeys. (It's only a 10 ft burst, but it's not impossible.) Cave Fangs is probably a good choice to blast on either day, but given our spell slot limitations at level 5, we'll probably have to rely on school slots to blast instead.
Slow is still a fantastic choice that will deny the enemy an action most of the time, even with Fort as their strong save, and you'll want it prepared for the encounters you don't know anything about.
The wizard won't be able to do too much about the terrain on either day. Spider Climb might help on the mountain, but it's probably the wizard himself that needs it. Pave Ground might help with the swamp at GM discretion, but it doesn't strike me as very valuable.
Assuming Battle Magic School and staff nexus, I guess I would probably have something like this for both days:
3rd
Slow | Fear (3rd) | +Fireball
2nd
Ignite Fireworks | (eaten for staff) | Laughing Fit | +Force Barrage
1st
Pocket Library (?) | Enfeeble | Interposing Earth | +Force Barrage
Staff Nexus Staff (Staff of Water? idk):
Spout, Nexus=idk what cantrip
Create Water, Hydraulic Push, Nexus=Fear
I could go a few ways on that first level slot and staff choice, and I could also consider doing True Strike instead of Fear on the staff. (You'll probably want to retrain the Staff Nexus spell into True Strike from Fear at some point, anyways.)
This... just isn't really that different than what a Sorc might take.
“The game doesn’t really give guidance on this” shouldn’t really be followed up by any kind of “can’t”s or “shouldn’t”s.
This is an implicit rule I have repeatedly seen, because the alternative is both abusable and unfun—"I will now attempt to RK on every creature in this level range, just in case."
As a result, you can generally only RK on creatures you've at least heard rumors of, seen signs or traces of, or something similar—and even then, only at a penalty, as such indirect evidence makes it significantly more difficult to be sure you're even recalling the correct creature.
RAW is technically silent on using RK "out of thin air," but everyone I've ever played with frowns upon it. It's an obnoxious metagaming tactic that should not be enabled in any capacity. Besides, the action cost would be pointless if you were intended to do it before combat, and a whole lot of abilities (like Knowledge is Power) would make absolutely no sense.
If the entire party were interested in trying to gather information about possible threats, felt capable of and willing to participate in doing so, and were willing to get enough info that they'd not just be making checks out of thin air, I'd accommodate that. But it's a pretty rare party that both wants to make an adventure out of preparing for their adventure and can do it without people feeling left out. The worst, most common outcome of this play pattern is one person does some scouting on their own for an hour. The better outcome is the GM scrambles to try to figure out how to include the rest of the players in an entirely different scene that you keep switching back to while the one person scouts. It is exceedingly rare that you get the best outcome, where everyone is hitting the pavement—let alone with everyone doing it together—and you can give everyone equal time and attention at the table.
That's quite the toxic and hypocritical stance you're taking there.
Why is it okay for the ranger to "bog down the game" with their scouting, or the cleric with their healing?
It is perfectly fine for wizards to prepare themselves and the party just as well as it is for the ranger to scout or the cleric to heal.
Bugger off with that nonsense.
The efficacy of a cleric's healing is almost entirely agnostic to party tactics.
I'm unsure what you could be referring to with the ranger, either. Are we talking about how some aspects of the ranger make the most sense in woodland campaigns, or how you don't want to take a favored terrain that won't be useful? That's something to talk about before a campaign starts, but won't really require party accommodation at runtime. I'm looking over ranger, and I'm not seeing anything that's parallel to how wizard wants to scout out a day ahead to get ideal spell prep. Is there something I'm unaware of? I admit I'm not the most versed in Ranger.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Did you all read that new sorcerer feat that let's them spend 1 action to RK with the Arcane skill for everything? Why would they give that to the sorcerer?
Now Crossblood evolution doesn't give you a spell from any list, but Greater Crossblood Evolution seems to give you three spells from another bloodline without even making you change out the spells you already have. So you can now end up with 49 spells as a sorcerer at level 18 or so.
I still think Occult is the best.
It has the best debuff.
The best buff.
Healing.
Good summoming.
Condition removal.
Force, Void, and mental blast damage.
Wall of Force which is the best wall.
Fly
TeleportIt has nearly every high value option available other than energy blasting.
On top of being attached to the bard, sorcerer, witch, and psychic allowing more options to build interesting characters.
What Occult is missing is good area damage options. It has some for example Vampiric Exsanguination, Telekinetic Bombardment. But they are higher level and not the best areas.
Post 1000 anyone?
Did you all read that new sorcerer feat that let's them spend 1 action to RK with the Arcane skill for everything? Why would they give that to the sorcerer?
Now Crossblood evolution doesn't give you a spell from any list, but Greater Crossblood Evolution seems to give you three spells from another bloodline without even making you change out the spells you already have. So you can now end up with 49 spells as a sorcerer at level 18 or so.
TAP INTO BLOOD.
You have to be benefiting from a bloodline effect but thats just cast a relevant spell and then use your last action to tap into blood for a arcane RK check that applies to anything.Wow yeah. That is a huge boost for arcane sorcerers. Would this make investing in Int worth it though? Or does it as some would say set up a trap option cause a sorcerer otherwise wouldnt invest in Int?
Looking at it i wouldnt myself call it a trap. It looks good but it fits the pattern of abilities others have called traps in the past.