| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So what are the ~30-40 (arcane) spells that a sorcerer can take that would be functionally as good as prepared spellcasting? It seems like this is the key point of contention and it would helpful for people who think this to actually enumerate what they think these spells are to see if there's actually a consensus. I'm sure everyone can agree on the top 10-15, but I wonder about the rest. If there's no consensus here then maybe there's room for the wizard after all.
There is a lot of personal preference here as to what those spells are.
The thing is there are typically only a moderate number of use cases that you need to cover maybe:
control options
movement buff
anti flyer debuff
anti boss debuff
mob takedown
damage type options x5
healing
recovery
anti magic
escape
damage buff
A lot can be covered by items, some by skills/feats and allies. a level 10 sorcerer has 20 spells though, at least 5 of which are signature.
For any only one spell that the sorcerer takes, he can cast it 4 times or maybe a dozen times with the quarter of spells that he wants to signature.
The wizard can cast it once, or he knows less spells. Then he can back one up with his arcane bond. So one max retry. Too bad if the first one doesn't work.
Both caster might take 4 rank 5 spells, say Wall of Stone, Shadow Siphon, Slither, Scouting Eye.
The sorcerer can cast 4 Walls of Stone or none and do 4 Slither instead. Or do 2 Walls of Stone and 2 Fireballs because that was a signature from another rank. The fact that he carried a spell of Scouting Eye that turned out to be not useful today didn't hurt at all.
The wizard can cast 1 of each. 2 of one. If he wants more he has to know it. If he gets something wrong it costs him slots.
The sorcerer has much more flexible than the wizard in combat. Has more useable spells. With Ancestral Memories and Sorcerous Potency gets getter value out of spells too.
Though I do admit it is a fun challenge to get the best use out of the wrong spell you have prepared as a wizard.
When I look at at Wizard I look at Conceal Spell and Convincing Illusion as the abilities I want as a a Sorcerer. That is not much.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another thought to revisit here is how the caster as a 4th member fits into the party.
A party set up for a specific tactic is counting on the 4th member to perform a specific task and do it every combat.
That party will not want a wizard as much as a sorcerer. The sorcerer will just be better at doing that one role better than a wizard.
A party that is more versatile may have characters that can double up on or swap roles with a wizard (as long as were talking about things a wizard can do)
A party that is not balanced can otherwise benefit from the wizard's ability to change roles to meet different challenges on different days.
This is not the sorcerers strength.
Because this is a discussion about wizard being weak. The natural comparison is therefore arcane sorcerer.I honestly don't understand this "throwing the toys out of the pram" issue with Tap Into Blood is.
It being an action instead of a Reaction/Free Action does make it a bit awkward. That awkwardness is far from a deal breaker.
I would LOVE to have a similar option as the Arcane Tap Into Blood for Wizard's. Tying it to School spells would be utter trash, given how much more limited those options are compared to the Sorcerers ability to trigger blood magic. But this should be something Wizards can do.
To reframe this discussion, it's not that Tap Into Blood is the most OMG AMAZEBALLS ability ever.
Its that it takes something that feels like it should be a Wizard feature, and gives it Sorcerers, while the Wizard simply lacks anything like that.
The Wizard should be a knowledge class. But they aren't.
It's a deal breaker for Divine, Occult and Primal sorcerers. This feat is basically pointless for them, and the only way it would make sense would be if the ability was a free action or a reaction.
FYI the reason why Occult is bad is because you need to cast a spell before getting your boosted step. In 99% of scenarios, you've already defeated the purpose of the step by casting a spell, because Reactive Strike is provoked by spells.
Primal and Divine are self explanatory.
Why is this whole discussion centered around Arcane? That's the only part of the feature that does not suck.
That would make sense if the argument was only about the comparison to the Wizard, but it is not.
Try having the wizard and sorcerer in your example both RK a ghoul (or most undead), or better, play a undead scenario, then tell me wizard is still better at RK than Tap into blood imperial sorc.
Or your wizard takes Additional Lore Undead if you are not going to move religion past trained, and is doing better than the imperial sorcerer in Abomination Vaults an undead heavy campaign.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tap into Blood is not just bad for wizards. its bad for the entire party if others wanted to be counted on for some information on some subjects.
Now the imperial sorcerer knows everything. They arent even a class that normally is an RK class with cha as KAS.
It doesnt even matter the logistics involved because the imperial focus spell can be used anywhere to gain a blood magic effect then RK. They dont need a foe to use it.
Level 1 +6 to arcana
Level 5 +11
Level 10 +20
Level 15 +28
That same sorcerer now only needs skill boost items for arcana to further improve their rolls too for any RK check.
They shouldn't make abilities like this at all.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean pretty strange to talk about recall knowelge as wizard niche when other int caster can actually do it better due number of skill at first level
He also have knowelege is power feat but it isnt something unique to him since magus also can use it
His mastery over arcane lore is also something that have zero representation since he dont have anything that make stand from other character that simply level their arcana
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Try having the wizard and sorcerer in your example both RK a ghoul (or most undead), or better, play a undead scenario, then tell me wizard is still better at RK than Tap into blood imperial sorc.Or your wizard takes Additional Lore Undead if you are not going to move religion past trained, and is doing better than the imperial sorcerer inAbomination Vaultsan undead heavy campaign.First of all, you cannot always take undead lore depending on how you interpret the ruling on lore skills. It’s often vampire lore + ghouls lore + zombie lore + lich lore + skeleton lore and some other lore I can’t remember on top of my head. Yes I did play a wizard in undead campaign and took a bunch of lore skill. Guess how many feats it took me? And guess how effective my character is on RKing other creatures and subjects we came across in that campaign?
Secondly, even if for some reason you wizard decides to keep religion as your highest skill and wisdom as second highest stat. They are still only ‘as effective’ as your tap into blood imperial sorcerer. Who has the added benefit of having their thematic skill as their most proficient skill. And once again, guess how effective that wizard is at recalling none-religion things.
Do I really have to explain to you, that I used undead RK as an example to show that for non imperial sorcerer character, how limited dedicating a single skill is at RK, rather than to nitpick a scenario sorcerer can beat wizard in? Because with tap into blood, there are many of them.
Of course you can always take Undead Lore. It's more specific than Religion, so its DC will be -2 compared to RK-Religion. Vampire Lore is specific, so it would be DC -5 compared to RK-Religion. That's how the lore skills work.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Try having the wizard and sorcerer in your example both RK a ghoul (or most undead), or better, play a undead scenario, then tell me wizard is still better at RK than Tap into blood imperial sorc.Or your wizard takes Additional Lore Undead if you are not going to move religion past trained, and is doing better than the imperial sorcerer inAbomination Vaultsan undead heavy campaign.First of all, you cannot always take undead lore depending on how you interpret the ruling on lore skills. It’s often vampire lore + ghouls lore + zombie lore + lich lore + skeleton lore and some other lore I can’t remember on top of my head. Yes I did play a wizard in undead campaign and took a bunch of lore skill. Guess how many feats it took me? And guess how effective my character is on RKing other creatures and subjects we came across in that campaign?
Secondly, even if for some reason you wizard decides to keep religion as your highest skill and wisdom as second highest stat. They are still only ‘as effective’ as your tap into blood imperial sorcerer. Who has the added benefit of having their thematic skill as their most proficient skill. And once again, guess how effective that wizard is at recalling none-religion things.
Do I really have to explain to you, that I used undead RK as an example to show that for non imperial sorcerer character, how limited dedicating a single skill is at RK, rather than to nitpick a scenario sorcerer can beat wizard in? Because with tap into blood, there are many of them.
Of course you can always take Undead Lore. It's more specific than Religion, so its DC will be -2 compared to RK-Religion. Vampire Lore is specific, so it would be DC -5 compared to RK-Religion. That's how the lore skills work.
How many lore subcategories are there? How many times can a character take Additional Lore?
Tap Into Blood's mono-skill is powerful because allows the Sorcerer the chance to roll on a specific reduction not just for things they knew they would need, but for everything they didn't know.
It's a powerful, reflexive, tool that requires no additional investment from the Sorcerer other than leveling up their Arcana.
It's real power doesn't come when compared to another party members +7 Int bonus to a lore skill, its when that +7 is pitted against the +28 the Sorcerer can have for being legendary in Thassilonian Textile Lore.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. Are you seriously trying to say ‘being able to RK with arcana’ is even remotely comparable to ‘being able to recall ANYTHING with arcana’?No, I'm saying an INT-based character will start with a lot more trained RK-relevant skills than a CHA-based one, and that if they do nothing but keep those skills at trained, they're better than your arcana TiB guy though most of levels 1-20 for any such trained RK check.
Inital Training in Classes with Intelligence Key Ability
Alchemist: Crafting and 3+INT skills.Inventor: Crafting and 3+INT skills.
Investigator: Society, Methodology skill, and 4+INT skills. Also skill increases at all even levels.
Psychic (INT subconsious): Occultism and 3+INT skills.
Rogue (Mastermind): Stealth, Society, Arcana, and 7+INT skills. Also skill increases at all even levels.
Witch: Patron skill and 3+INT skills.
Wizard: Arcana and 2+INT skills.
Inital Training in Classes with Charisma Key Ability
Bard: Occultism, Performance, and 4+INT skills.
Oracle: Religion, Mystery skill, and 3+INT skills.
Psychic (CHA subconsious): Occultism and 3+INT skills.
Rogue (Eldritch Trickster) Stealth, Multiclass skill, and 7+INT skills. Also skill increases at all even levels.
Rogue (Scoundrel): Stealth, Deception, Diplomacy, and 7+INT skills. Also skill increases at all even levels.
Sorcerer: One or two Bloodline skills and 2+INT skills.
Summoner: One or two Eidolon skills and 3+INT skills.
Thaumaturge: Arcana, Nature, Occultism, Religion, and 3+INT skills.
We see that the wizard is shortchanged in trained skills compared to other Intelligence-based classes. Assuming that a wizard character has INT +4 and a Charisma-based character has INT +1, the bard matches the wizard in initial training and the rogue and thaumaturge beat the wizard. And the enigma bard has Bardic Lore for Recall Knowledge. So six Intelligence-based classes and three Charisma-based classes (I counted rogue twice) are better than the wizard at Recall Knowledge. Wizard falls in 9th place out of 23 classes.
Usually we compare the wizard to other primary spellcasters: bard, cleric, druid, oracle, psychic, sorcerer, or witch--or to other arcane spellcasters: magus, sorcerer, summoner, or witch. However, when we talk about identifying creatures as a party role, we have no requirement to be a spellcaster.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
At this point, I personally feel like the skills design just isn't conducive to INT-based characters being knowledgebots. Shifting RK for Nature/Religion to WIS was a very clear indication that they didn't want wizard to be RK-man for the whole party. Unfortunately, they also just said "other people can be knowledgeman, just not you lol" and slapped bardic lore onto bard and gave Thaum esoteric lore.
This isn't a fix you can implement now. But looking forward to PF3, I'd like to see the recall knowledge aspects of arcana/nature/religion/occultism/society turned into lores with class-given proficiency progressions—similar to how perception works now. They could key off INT by default, but some classes could have a class feature that alters a few (so Clerics could explicitly use WIS instead, for religion), or the common houserule that you use the higher of INT/WIS for Nature and Religion could be baked into those Lores.
Rebalancing skills after that might not be easy; Arcana/Religion/Occultism/Nature are too weak without RK in them and may need to be folded into other skills, and Society would be so empty it'd practically need to be deleted from the game. It'd probably be worth it, though. The skills system does not feel designed with any consideration for RK, other than the intentional limitation that "one person can't skill increase all the RK skills" and the handwavy safety valve of "BS it with additional lore if you really have to." I don't think either of those are great.
In many ways, this is a more granular extension of what the game already does for classes with a "use this lore for every creature identification" feature, anyways. The game is already using proprietary levers to balance it, too. It compensates for Bardic Lore's slow progression by giving it Lore check DCs that are about 2 lower, and arguably excessively comps thaum by having CHA scaling, perfect proficiency progression, free dubious knowledge, and lower DCs. (The game clearly overweights the "can only be used for creature ID, haunts, and curses" limitation. Most RK checks in the course of play are against creatures, after all.) I feel like just making it so every class has a specifically tuned set of RK abilities would make a lot more sense.
===
That's future-looking, though. In the present, I guess I have the following (mutually exclusive) solutions you could use as homebrew.
Solution 1
This is a more targeted fix for wizard, specifically.
Class-level changes for wizard:
-Give wizard two free trained lore skills at level 1, and give them one additional trained lore skill at 3, 7, and 15. These lores cannot have their proficiency increased except via class features. (Perhaps one each at 1/5/10/15/20 would be better? Unsure.)
-Wizards gain expert proficiency in all the lores they have at level 15, if they don't have it already.
Solution 2
This is a fix intended to make INT more valuable, generally. It's the weakest ability score by a country mile and could use some help.System-level changes:
-At +1/3/5 INT, you become trained in an additional lore skill (in addition to the skill training you receive normally).
-Classes with INT as their KAS are trained in an additional lore skill.
-At and after L15, if your INT is +5, you gain expert proficiency in all lore skills you have.
Solution 3
This is a fix intended to make INT more valuable specifically to INT-based casters, not just to everyone.System-level changes:
-At +4/5/6 INT, you become trained in two additional lore skills (in addition to the skill training you receive normally).
-At and after L15, if your INT is +5, you gain expert proficiency in all lore skills you have.
Solution 4
Similar to solution 2, but uses a different method to accomplish it. This only increases INT's value after character creation, though.System-level changes:
-Every time you put an ability score increase into INT, you become trained in a lore skill of your choice.
-Classes with INT as their KAS are trained in an additional lore skill of their choosing at character creation.
-At and after L15, if your INT is +5, you gain expert proficiency in all lore skills you have.
===
I avoided just giving INT classes the additional lore skill feat, because the automatic scaling is too strong on INT characters relative to the reduced DCs to identify creatures. This is also why the lores gain expert at 15.
For all 4, I would advise no longer using the common homebrew rule of "Nature and Religion can use either INT or WIS." This is because the large amount of lores is intended to help cover that gap.
In solution 2, I don't give an additional lore per additional point of modifier because it strikes me as obviously too strong. I also like +1/+3/+5 as breakpoints because
-+1 ensures you invested at least one increase at character creation into INT over another, traditionally more useful stat
-+3 ensures you are investing in INT past minimum archetyping requirements
-+5 effectively ensures INT is your KAS, or is at least so important to you that you're pumping an otherwise bad stat.
Overall, I'm unsure I like any of these best; it really depends on what you want to solve and how you want to solve it. I think they mostly work, but none of them are jumping out to me as perfect. I'll probably keep iterating.
===
EDIT: Mathmuse's post is important, for sure. I have no clue what they were intending with only the Wizard having 2+INT; it seems like a "four slot arcane casters have to have bad skills!" thing, since Sorc is the only other class with 2+INT.
I might consider adding one or two free trained lore skills to wizard, on top of solutions 2-4. That would probably make the solutions feel better overall. ...Maybe instead of every INT KAS class getting an additional lore? Unsure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean pretty strange to talk about recall knowelge as wizard niche when other int caster can actually do it better due number of skill at first level
He also have knowelege is power feat but it isnt something unique to him since magus also can use it
His mastery over arcane lore is also something that have zero representation since he dont have anything that make stand from other character that simply level their arcana
It is just relative to the Sorcerer because it was a key and perhaps really the only thing that a Wizard could do that a Sorcerer couldn't really do as well, as opposed to Intimidation, Deception, Diplomacy...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's real power doesn't come when compared to another party members +7 Int bonus to a lore skill, its when that +7 is pitted against the +28 the Sorcerer can have for being legendary in Thassilonian Textile Lore.
I don't think this feature works this way. It says "Attempt to Recall Knowledge; you can use Arcana instead of the skill normally needed for that subject." You're using Arcana, not a specific Lore skill.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's real power doesn't come when compared to another party members +7 Int bonus to a lore skill, its when that +7 is pitted against the +28 the Sorcerer can have for being legendary in Thassilonian Textile Lore.I don't think this feature works this way. It says "Attempt to Recall Knowledge; you can use Arcana instead of the skill normally needed for that subject." You're using Arcana, not a specific Lore skill.
I think I could have articulated this better.
By using Arcana in place of any other skill, you effective have your Arcana check in place of whatever the normal check for that roll would be.
If, for some reason, the thing you are attempting to RK on is only accessible via Thassilion Textile lore, to can use your Arcana modifier to make this check. In other circumstances if you were rolling your Thassilion Textile lore, you would be at a +0 due to being untrained.
Specific lore reductions in DC’s aside, its strength is that it allows you to potentially move your RK floor up dramatically.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the topic of RK, I'd suggest a few things:
Akashic Tunnelling
Your peers scoffed at you for suggesting to plumb knowledge from the Akashic Record – after all, its mere existence is the stuff of pure conjecture! Yet you’ve realized what others could not: if you can think of something, that thing exists in some form. From that simple notion, you’ve forged a link to all of the world’s knowledge from within your own mind.
You become trained in Lore, the skill, in addition to any subcategories of Lore you might be trained in, becoming an expert in Lore at 3rd level, a master at 7th level, and legendary at 15th level. You gain the Knowledge is Power feat as an extra feat at 1st level even if you don’t meet its prerequisites, and gain its benefits when you succeed on your Recall Knowledge check, not just on a critical success. The circumstance penalty you apply from Knowledge is Power increases to -2 at 9th level, and -3 at 17th level.
The Wizard in that brew is a 3-slot caster by default and every arcane thesis is dramatically more powerful, hence the above. If we were to bring this down to the level of other current arcane theses, being very good at RK in general could work as something to opt into, and sacrificing more generic power would allow the Wizard to make even better use of this.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think I could have articulated this better.By using Arcana in place of any other skill, you effective have your Arcana check in place of whatever the normal check for that roll would be.
If, for some reason, the thing you are attempting to RK on is only accessible via Thassilion Textile lore, to can use your Arcana modifier to make this check. In other circumstances if you were rolling your Thassilion Textile lore, you would be at a +0 due to being untrained.
Specific lore reductions in DC’s aside, its strength is that it allows you to potentially move your RK floor up dramatically.
I don't think that there's any RK check that cannot be done by one of the seven basic RK skills (Arcana, Occultism, Society, Nature, Religion, Medicine, Crafting). A Thassilion Textile RK would almost certainly also be a Society or Crafting check at a higher DC, for instance.
Not that this significantly alters the floor of Cha characters who use universal lore skills, but I'm fairly certain as a rule no check ever requires only lore skills (except weird feats tied to specific lore skills).
I was just picking a deliberately absurd example for illustration.
The general point is that even if a GM decided that something required a deliberately obtuse check, your floor for RK is at least equal to your arcana modifier, actual DC not withstanding.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Akashic Tunnelling
Your peers scoffed at you for suggesting to plumb knowledge from the Akashic Record – after all, its mere existence is the stuff of pure conjecture! Yet you’ve realized what others could not: if you can think of something, that thing exists in some form. From that simple notion, you’ve forged a link to all of the world’s knowledge from within your own mind.
You become trained in Lore, the skill, in addition to any subcategories of Lore you might be trained in, becoming an expert in Lore at 3rd level, a master at 7th level, and legendary at 15th level. You gain the Knowledge is Power feat as an extra feat at 1st level even if you don’t meet its prerequisites, and gain its benefits when you succeed on your Recall Knowledge check, not just on a critical success. The circumstance penalty you apply from Knowledge is Power increases to -2 at 9th level, and -3 at 17th level.
That's a really fun way to go about it. You just become trained in "Lore" overall.
That is certainly a very powerful option, probably too powerful due to not having a limiting cost in the same way that Ancestral Memories does. I get that the need to have a check in place is somewhat of a limiter, but the trade-off between it and the hard-capped focus point limit makes this too strong as is.
That said, as a key feature of a 3 slot caster, I could certainly see it more.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Wizard in that brew is a 3-slot caster by default and every arcane thesis is dramatically more powerful, hence the above. If we were to bring this down to the level of other current arcane theses, being very good at RK in general could work as something to opt into, and sacrificing more generic power would allow the Wizard to make even better use of this.
This is a cool homebrew. I frankly don't understand why they went with bonded item as a general wizard feature instead of spell substitution.
Somehow I appear to be the only one who thinks it's thematically inappropriate for wizards to be super knowledgeable about things that don't apply to their field to study, which is arcane magic. I do not think wizards are "knowledge man", at all, and I certainly do not think it even makes sense for them to be. You ever see a physicist try to talk about biology, philosophy, economics or politics? Lmfao. Being learned doesn't mean knowing everything
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the deal is that the theme of wizards is "studied so hard the laws of fantasy physics that i know the how to control them to my advantage, even though it is would be usually barred behind bloodline factors, subservience to higher entities or an innate psychic potential"... so, in that "i studied a lot" theme there falls a lot of knowledge.
I think the deal is that the theme of wizards is "studied so hard the laws of fantasy physics that i know the how to control them to my advantage, even though it is would be usually barred behind bloodline factors, subservience to higher entities or an innate psychic potential"... so, in that "i studied a lot" theme there falls a lot of knowledge.
But it isn't "fantasy physics" it specifically just arcane magic. Bards study magic too, and so do Clerics even. I would even say Witches learn their magic, the patron is just the means by which they learn it. Still an Int caster. Leveling up and casting better spells is learning and practicing that magic, the source and kind is just different. Wizards are just specifically academic about it, which should probably mean that they actually would have the most narrow knowledge about things
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the deal is that the theme of wizards is "studied so hard the laws of fantasy physics that i know the how to control them to my advantage, even though it is would be usually barred behind bloodline factors, subservience to higher entities or an innate psychic potential"... so, in that "i studied a lot" theme there falls a lot of knowledge.But it isn't "fantasy physics" it specifically just arcane magic. Bards study magic too, and so do Clerics even. I would even say Witches learn their magic, the patron is just the means by which they learn it. Still an Int caster. Leveling up and casting better spells is learning and practicing that magic, the source and kind is just different. Wizards are just specifically academic about it, which should probably mean that they actually would have the most narrow knowledge about things
Being an intelligence caster doesn't make the theme though, the bard get's their magic because of artistry, the cleric gets their magic because of devotion, the witch get their magic because they make a communion with a supernatural patron... the wizard get their magic because they are a book nerd, that's their theme.
|
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
You ever see a physicist try to talk about biology, philosophy, economics or politics? Lmfao.
Literally hundreds.
It's not about real people knowing everything, which is not a claim anyone is making. It's that the class that is themed around being a scholar should also be able to leverage that theme to engage with the system the game has in place to handle knowing things.
If Bards and Sorcerers can have a claim to be knowledge classes, then so to does the Wizard.
Wizards are just specifically academic about it, which should probably mean that they actually would have the most narrow knowledge about things
While we should be clear that we are drawing a line between fantasy and reality in all these discussions, this is generally not really how academics operate.
Your area of expertise is narrow, and you will know a lot about a very narrow topic, but that is not to the exclusion of other things. Often, to get to your narrow area of genuine expertise, you have to learn a lot of other things. What's more, chances are the friends you've made along the way are in entirely different topics and fields. I've sat through the trials and tribulations of how topological physics relates to next-gen data storage so much over the years that I can indentify a depiction of a skyrmion, but that is very far removed from what I spent years doing.
When it comes to fantasy as well, we tend to get the omni-scientist approach to academics. Your stock scientist character is as well versed in every area of science as the plot demands. Same with the "Professor" trope of characters. It's just a thing.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Somehow I appear to be the only one who thinks it's thematically inappropriate for wizards to be super knowledgeable about things that don't apply to their field to study, which is arcane magic. I do not think wizards are "knowledge man", at all, and I certainly do not think it even makes sense for them to be. You ever see a physicist try to talk about biology, philosophy, economics or politics? Lmfao. Being learned doesn't mean knowing everything
I think the deal is that the theme of wizards is "studied so hard the laws of fantasy physics that i know the how to control them to my advantage, even though it is would be usually barred behind bloodline factors, subservience to higher entities or an innate psychic potential"... so, in that "i studied a lot" theme there falls a lot of knowledge.
But it isn't "fantasy physics" it specifically just arcane magic. Bards study magic too, and so do Clerics even. I would even say Witches learn their magic, the patron is just the means by which they learn it. Still an Int caster. Leveling up and casting better spells is learning and practicing that magic, the source and kind is just different. Wizards are just specifically academic about it, which should probably mean that they actually would have the most narrow knowledge about things
When the PCs need to solve a fantasy physics problem, such as "How is that sailing ship flying without wings?" then the GM asks for an Arcana check. Most other knowledge skills: Nature, Occultism, Religion, and Society--don't cover physics. And the remaining knowlege skill, Crafting, comes closer to physics, but it is engineering instead.
Furthermore, the wizard is not simply the guy who studied arcane magic very hard. The wizard is the highly intelligent guy who studied arcane magic very hard. In earlier editions, high Intelligence improved skills so well that the wizard started with fewer class skills to balance that. Pathfinder 2nd Edition does not have an enormous skill boost from Intelligence, but the wizard still is shortchanged to balance an effect that no longer exists.
As for talking to a physicist, that would be my housemate John. Technically, he was a biophysicist combining physics and biochemistry, before he retired. And he is the son of an English professor. He can talk about biology, philosophy, economics, politics, history, literature, poetry, and cooking. He played the druid Stormdancer in my Ironfang Invasion campaign and currently plays the magus Zandre in my Strength of Thousands campaign.
I am a former academic. Some of my fellow university professors made a breakthrough in one topic and spent the rest of their career investigating the ramifications of that breakthrough. That is narrow. Others became consultants and had to widen their expertise to solve industrial problems. That is not narrow. An adventuring wizard is more like a consultant.
Let me expand my list from comment #1218 to include all classes.
Classes with 9+INT Initial Trained Skills
Rogue: Stealth, one or two Racket skills, and 7+INT skills. Also skill increases at all even levels.
Classes with 7+INT Initial Trained Skills
Thaumaturge: Arcana, Nature, Occultism, Religion, and 3+INT skills.
Classes with 6+INT Initial Trained Skills
Bard: Occultism, Performance, and 4+INT skills.
Investigator: Society, one or two Methodology skills, and 4+INT skills. Also skill increases at all even levels.
Ranger: Nature, Survival, and 4+INT skills.
Swashbuckler: Acrobatics, Swashbuckler's Style skill, and 4+INT skills.
Classes with 5+INT Initial Trained Skills
Oracle: Religion, Mystery skill, and 3+INT skills.
Classes with 4+INT Initial Trained Skills
Alchemist: Crafting and 3+INT skills.
Barbarian: Athletics and 3+INT skills.
Champion: Religion, Diety skill, and 2+INT skills.
Cleric: Religion, Diety skill, and 2+INT skills.
Druid: Nature, Druidic Order skill, and 2+INT skills.
Fighter: Acrobatics or Athletics and 3+INT skills.
Gunslinger: Gunslinger's Way skill and 3+INT skills.
Inventor: Crafting and 3+INT skills.
Kineticist: Nature and 3+INT skills.
Monk: 4+INT skills.
Psychic: Occultism and 3+INT skills.
Summoner: One or two Eidolon skills and 3+INT skills.
Witch: Patron skill and 3+INT skills.
Classes with 3+INT Initial Trained Skills
Magus: Arcana and 2+INT skills.
Sorcerer: One or two Bloodline skills and 2+INT skills.
Wizard: Arcana and 2+INT skills.
Why is the alchemist ahead of the wizard in initial trained skills? Surely the alchemist spends as much time studying formulas as the wizard spends studying arcane spells. Why are the bard, oracle, and swashbuckler so far ahead of the wizard? Their lifestyle does not give them time for extra study, unlike the investigator and ranger. We will ignore the rogue and thaumaturge who are allowed to break the curve because they need many trained skills for their class features to function.
I would be happier if all three classes that had only 3+INT initial trained skills received another trained skill, so the 4+INT would be the default.
Somehow I appear to be the only one who thinks it's thematically inappropriate for wizards to be super knowledgeable about things that don't apply to their field to study, which is arcane magic. I do not think wizards are "knowledge man", at all, and I certainly do not think it even makes sense for them to be. You ever see a physicist try to talk about biology, philosophy, economics or politics? Lmfao. Being learned doesn't mean knowing everything
Sure but it wouldn't be hard to believe a battle wizard has knowledge of warfare. Or protean wizard having at least their own physiology lore which might in a game be as general as having human or elf or gnome lore.
Not to say its a must have but it would to me feel a little better for the class to have that additional lore.And I know what you mean. ive seen very learned people fall into the trap of trying to talk with authority outside the fields they have authority in. Most people though who have gained a strong understanding in a field understand their limitations outside of it.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Given how the Wizard currently has few standout thematic hooks aside from "prepared arcane caster", I'll take whatever I can get. Wizards are known to be studious, so let's lean into that and make them studious with bonus Lore (Bards are also apparently studious, which is why they get Lore feats). Wizards experiment with magic and push the boundaries of what can be achieved, so let's give Wizards more stuff that lets them do that. In general, "ambitious magical scientist" to me sounds like a character fantasy that would be both appropriate for the Wizard and much richer than just "prepared arcane caster", and that in itself need not prevent others from proposing other thematic hooks of their own.
So i had a thought about spells given by wizard schools vs spells given by sorcerer bloodlines.
My thought is if were comparing the power of 1 spell known vs 1 spell in repertoire how much more powerful or useful for the character is one vs the other.
I am wondering if the designers put a value to this and if they valued them the same?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
designers wanted it underpowered......
Why is the alchemist ahead of the wizard in initial trained skills? Surely the alchemist spends as much time studying formulas as the wizard spends studying arcane spells. Why are the bard, oracle, and swashbuckler so far ahead of the wizard? Their lifestyle does not give them time for extra study, unlike the investigator and ranger. We will ignore the rogue and thaumaturge who are allowed to break the curve because they need many trained skills for their class features to function.I would be happier if all three classes that had only 3+INT initial trained skills received another trained skill, so the 4+INT would be the default.
I do not believe that the Paizo designers wanted the wizard to be underpowered, weaker than most other classes. They strive too hard for balance to undermine it in one class. I do believe that they are overcautious about making the wizard too strong.
The other problem is how much impact do skills have in overcoming the average challenge? So you could be improving a minor part of the design rather than addressing a core issue. It is simply part of the problem.
The problem with a thread of over 1,200 posts is that details I explained previously are lost among older posts. In comment #255 I explained that I would one day construct the stats for NPC Esi Djana in my Strengths of Thousands campaign (that day will be Tuesday, August 27) and as a wizard she would be too short on skills to fit her description as an ace student. In comment #469 I did construct her as an example. I managed to give her enough trained skills through the human Skilled heritage and the human Natural Skill ancestry feat. I presented the 10th-level version of Esi Djana in comment #569.
The goal of giving the wizard Arcana and 3+INT skills rather than a mere 2+INT skills is to make a wizard a better character for roleplaying not better for combat. I remember the D&D and PF1 days in which a fighter would stand around useless during all scenarios that required social or knowledge skills. In PF2 the wizard and magus are stuck in that purgatory. The sorcerer escapes only due to good Charisma.
Rebuild the class under Homebrew to create a Home Game fix.
As for improving the wizard, I have made two suggestions already. But I have been thinking about ideas from Bluemagetim, AestheticDialectic, and Ryangwy about how nicely spellshape relates to wizardry. For example, in comment #701, AestheticDialectic said,
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
I thought about how wizards could prepare a spell with a spellshape already attached. Then I realized that to use that ability at 1st level the wizard would have to start with knowing a spellshape. The best way to give a wizard a spellshape would be to add a spellshape class feat to the features granted by the wizard's Arcane School. That matches how a lot of other classes work, such as bards getting a feat from their Muse and druids getting a feat from their Druidic Order.
That seemed like a good idea. The Arcane Schools need more flavor and a spellshape feat would add to flavor.
However, I have a different goal than power. I had explained it to Bluemagetim in comment #1118.
My goal is that wizards should have more fun on a long adventuring day.You know maybe thinking of what the goals of such a focus spell would be first can help identify what it actually should do to achieve that goal?
Is the goal to give the wizard more ranked spells per day? if not the focus spell should also use up the same rank spell slot.
Back in Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition wizards were blamed for the 15-minute workday. The spellcasters, especially the wizards, would burn through their strongest spells in the first few encounters and then ask to quit for the day. At low levels, the wizard would burn through all their spells in the first few encounters period. Pathfinder's solution was cantrips, especially the auto-heightening cantrips of Pathfinder 2nd Edition. A wizard could keep on throwing cantrips and contributiong to combat after all their slotted spells were expended.
But cantrips are weaker than the highest two ranks of spells. Though a wizard can adventure longer in PF2 than in earlier versions, they are significantly weaker when they use up their top ranks of spells. In other classes, the focus spells help make up for this deficiency. But they have stronger focus spells than the wizard. Domain focus spells fit the divine theme of clerics. Bloodline focus spells fit the inherited abilities there of sorcerers. Etc. But arcane-school focus spells violate the wizard's theme of learning to prepare spells in Arcane School, because focus spells are not prepared. Therefore, the designers marginalized the wizard's focus spells.
Thus, I decided that the custom spellshapes of the Arcane Schools should work great with the cantrips granted by the schools. I tried writing them in general terms at first, but I found that it was easier and more amusing to name one of the cantrips granted by the school and supercharge it. Thus, the supercharged cantrip could serve the inadequately-served role of the wizard's focus spells.
This looks so effective that I don't need a way to prepare spells with spellshapes already attached.
Here are my examples.
Affix Spell [One Action] Feat 1 (for School of Civic Wizardry)
Spellshape, Wizard
Coordination of timing can be more valuable than speed. If the next action you use is to Cast a Spell that targets one object or weapon, then you may delay the start of the spell for up to ten minutes. You may use a single Activate action within 60 feet of the object to let the spell proceed. If ten minutes pass without an activation, the spell is cancelled. If you affix Read Aura to a wand, then you can cast the spell in the wand a second time in a day without overcharging the wand. You can overcharge it for a third use under the usual second-use rules.
Illuminating Probe [One Action] Feat 1 (for School of Mentalism)
Spellshape, Wizard
Affecting the mind often opens a window to look into that mind. If the next action you use is to Cast a Spell with the mental trait that targets one or more creatures, then you may make a Recall Knowledge check with a +2 circumstance bonus to identify one targetted creature as a free action this turn. If the spell is Daze, then the target creature becomes dazzled until your next turn.
Metallic Force [Free Action] Feat 1 (for School of Battle Magic)
Spellshape, Wizard
You have captured the essence of precious materials in patterns of force energy. If the next action you use is to Cast a Spell with the force trait, the resulting force object, weapon, or damage is treated as adamantine, cold iron, and silver for a target's weaknesses but not for their resistances or immunities. If the spell is Shield you can Shield Bash with it using your spell attack bonus. Using Shield Block no longer prevents casting shield again immediately.
Mobile Transformation [One Action] Feat 1 (for School of Protean Form)
Spellshape, Wizard
Transformation gives you a brief surge of speed. You may Step. If the next action you use is to Cast a Spell that has the morph or polymorph trait, then you may Step, including onto difficult terrain, as a free action this turn after casting the spell. If the spell is Gouging Claw, the target is off-guard to the claw's spell attack.
Verbal Spell [One Action] Feat 1 (for School of Ars Grammatica)
Spellshape, Wizard
Eloquent speech serves to cast spells with more sophistication than gestures. If the next action you use is to Cast a Spell, then that spell loses the Manipulate trait and gains the Auditory trait.
If the spell is Sigil to place a visible sigil on a target creature, then you can attempt an Arcana check against the target's Will DC. On a success that creature becomes fascinated with the sigil until the beginning of your next turn.
Void Passage [One Action] Feat 1 (for School of the Boundary)
Spellshape, Wizard
You traverse the Void for a short distance, protecting yourself from its energies by directing them at an enemy. If the next action you use is to Cast a Spell that has the void trait, then you transport yourself to a an unoccupied space within 15 feet that you can see. If the spell is Void Warp, then you may swap places with the target creature instead. The spell gains the Teleportation trait.
The School of Unified Magic would gain a free 1st-level class feat instead. All the spellshape feats of the other schools would be available as 1st-level wizard class feats.
Adding supercharged spellshapes to the wizard's Arcane Schools has the advantage that Paizo can do it in the upcoming book Lost Omens: Rival Academies. The book could also contain errata to add a free spellshape feat to the schools in Pathfinder 2nd Edition Player Core.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Somehow I appear to be the only one who thinks it's thematically inappropriate for wizards to be super knowledgeable about things that don't apply to their field to study, which is arcane magic. I do not think wizards are "knowledge man", at all, and I certainly do not think it even makes sense for them to be. You ever see a physicist try to talk about biology, philosophy, economics or politics? Lmfao. Being learned doesn't mean knowing everythingSure but it wouldn't be hard to believe a battle wizard has knowledge of warfare. Or protean wizard having at least their own physiology lore which might in a game be as general as having human or elf or gnome lore.
Not to say its a must have but it would to me feel a little better for the class to have that additional lore.And I know what you mean. ive seen very learned people fall into the trap of trying to talk with authority outside the fields they have authority in. Most people though who have gained a strong understanding in a field understand their limitations outside of it.
I don't disagree that them having additional lore which covers the insection between things like this would be appropriate. I just think it's a bit much to ask for better focus, to be good at all the knowledge, but also let us get more skills and so on and so forth. I think being okay at picking up lores to cover knowledge checks with feats is the exact kind of sacrifice the chassis should make. The wizards should be kind of bad at skills because they got spells. If we need a way to better use spells instead of skills then we should tackle that, not just ask for mediocre and not even necessarily very thematic nonsense like "oh they need 3+int skills". They don't need that, at all
I don't disagree that them having additional lore which covers the insection between things like this would be appropriate. I just think it's a bit much to ask for better focus, to be good at all the knowledge, but also let us get more skills and so on and so forth. I think being okay at picking up lores to cover knowledge checks with feats is the exact kind of sacrifice the chassis should make. The wizards should be kind of bad at skills because they got spells. If we need a way to better use spells instead of skills then we should tackle that, not just ask for mediocre and not even necessarily very thematic nonsense like "oh they need 3+int skills". They don't need that, at allSomehow I appear to be the only one who thinks it's thematically inappropriate for wizards to be super knowledgeable about things that don't apply to their field to study, which is arcane magic. I do not think wizards are "knowledge man", at all, and I certainly do not think it even makes sense for them to be. You ever see a physicist try to talk about biology, philosophy, economics or politics? Lmfao. Being learned doesn't mean knowing everythingSure but it wouldn't be hard to believe a battle wizard has knowledge of warfare. Or protean wizard having at least their own physiology lore which might in a game be as general as having human or elf or gnome lore.
Not to say its a must have but it would to me feel a little better for the class to have that additional lore.And I know what you mean. ive seen very learned people fall into the trap of trying to talk with authority outside the fields they have authority in. Most people though who have gained a strong understanding in a field understand their limitations outside of it.
Ok yeah, I agree.
Why learn a skill when your magic can do it for you.
Being an intelligence caster doesn't make the theme though, the bard get's their magic because of artistry, the cleric gets their magic because of devotion, the witch get their magic because they make a communion with a supernatural patron... the wizard get their magic because they are a book nerd, that's their theme.
Bards definitely study their magic and even are within the lore learned. They perform and do art as part of the casting of spells, but they learn these spells and they study the occult among other things. Clerics do this for divine magic, and they are granted the ability cast spells through their god, but that God doesn't cast them for them. They have to learn and practice this still. Druids also learn their magic. Witches are granted the ability to perform magic with a patron, but they still have to learn the magic and study it. Wizards also have a power source like the patron, god, nature, or what have you. It's the bonded item. Wizards and Bards are actually so thematically similar that without looking at character sheets and stats, you'd assume they were two different approaches to the academic pursuit of magic. I would fully support an int bard it's perfectly thematically appropriate
There is a reason to some degree the designers feel the d20 wizard is a defunct and archaic concept
Being an intelligence caster doesn't make the theme though, the bard get's their magic because of artistry, the cleric gets their magic because of devotion, the witch get their magic because they make a communion with a supernatural patron... the wizard get their magic because they are a book nerd, that's their theme.Bards definitely study their magic and even are within the lore learned. They perform and do art as part of the casting of spells, but they learn these spells and they study the occult among other things. Clerics do this for divine magic, and they are granted the ability cast spells through their god, but that God doesn't cast them for them. They have to learn and practice this still. Druids also learn their magic. Witches are granted the ability to perform magic with a patron, but they still have to learn the magic and study it. Wizards also have a power source like the patron, god, nature, or what have you. It's the bonded item. Wizards and Bards are actually so thematically similar that without looking at character sheets and stats, you'd assume they were two different approaches to the academic pursuit of magic. I would fully support an int bard it's perfectly thematically appropriate
There is a reason to some degree the designers feel the d20 wizard is a defunct and archaic concept
Yes, they all study practically, but tell me who among the classes you mentioned who do you picture with their nose buried in their book as other people are praying, tuning their instruments and making rituals to their patron?
Also, the bonded object is an object is which the wizard put their magic, they can switch it as easy as the undies. It has nothing to do with the source of their power. They source of their power is knowledge.
The thing is, you don't do anything with lore skills except recall knowledge, earn income, and contribute to some specific kinds of skill challenges and other aspects of the game that got siloed into lore, like piloting a vehicle/sailing a ship.
I remember folks wanting more out of specialization in school magic in the PF2 playtest and even I thought getting lore in your school of magic would have been a good idea at the time, but I didn't realize that the plan, even back then, was to essentially minimize schools of magic, and that had you gotten lore in your school of magic, it would have been useless without additional rules to let you do something interesting with that lore.
Identifying magic, disabling arcane wards, almost any cool magical thing you can do in PF2 runs through your tradition skill, not a lore. Even something like "trap lore" wouldn't let someone disable traps without the thievery skill, nor give any kind of bonus for doing so, beyond a very generous GM.
PF2 is just not a game where a skill can make you better at polymorphing, or summoning, or any other magical application of a spell better than just casting more, and higher level spells. The one exception we got to that has been deception for illusion, which is really cool, and makes a lot of sense...but it is pretty much a one off add on, and not a system built into the game.
I feel like it would be a massive overhaul to make a subset of lore skills that could improve the way you cast in a way similar to convincing illusion. The least obtrusive way to handle it would be to give lore skills with schools, and then have class feats with skill requirements that maybe utilize that skill, but even then, additional lore would just let anyone pick up any of those feats, and then why not just have them be regular class feats for the wizard in the first place?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
... The wizards should be kind of bad at skills because they got spells. If we need a way to better use spells instead of skills then we should tackle that, not just ask for mediocre and not even necessarily very thematic nonsense like "oh they need 3+int skills". They don't need that, at allOk yeah, I agree.
Why learn a skill when your magic can do it for you.
I disagree because a design paradigm in PF2 is to make spells aid skills rather than spells replacing skills.
The Knock spell is an example. PF1 Knock says, "Knock opens stuck, barred, or locked doors, as well as those subject to hold portal or arcane lock. When you complete the casting of this spell, make a caster level check against the DC of the lock with a +10 bonus. If successful, knock opens up to two means of closure." PF2 Knock says, "You make the target easier to open. Knock grants a +4 status bonus to any creature that tries to open the target door, lock, or container with an Athletics or a Thievery check. You can attempt a Thievery check to open the target as part of casting knock, and you add your level even if you're untrained." Thus, in PF1 the spell opens the lock if the caster rolls high enough, even if the caster is totally untrained in lockpicking. In contrast, in PF2 the spell gives a bonus to a character using Thievery to open the lock. Some locks can be opened only by characters trained in Thievery, so the wizard had best team up with such a person.
Some PF2 spells do replace skills; for example, both PF1 Spider Climb and PF2 Geck Grip/Spider Climb grant a climb speed so they both replace the Climb/Athletics skill. But I think the PF2 designers were trying to avoid the frustration of having a nonmagical character's skills completely overshadowed by magic.
Furthermore, a magic spell solving a problem costs a spell. This shortens the workday.
The thing is, you don't do anything with lore skills except recall knowledge, earn income, and contribute to some specific kinds of skill challenges and other aspects of the game that got siloed into lore, like piloting a vehicle/sailing a ship.
I let my players make a Survival check for sailing a ship. Sailing fits the practical tool use common to the Survival skill, and I don't like forcing characters to learn a lore to make up for a gap in the skills.
I feel like it would be a massive overhaul to make a subset of lore skills that could improve the way you cast in a way similar to convincing illusion. The least obtrusive way to handle it would be to give lore skills with schools, and then have class feats with skill requirements that maybe utilize that skill, but even then, additional lore would just let anyone pick up any of those feats, and then why not just have them be regular class feats for the wizard in the first place?
Ah, but remember the tight math of PF2. The designers want the numbers in primary combat skills, such as weapon proficiency and spellcasting proficiency, to depend solely on class, level, and key ability score. Any skill or lore that improves those proficiencies would become mandatory and therefore boring.
The Knock spell is an example. PF1 Knock says, "Knock opens stuck, barred, or locked doors, as well as those subject to hold portal or arcane lock. When you complete the casting of this spell, make a caster level check against the DC of the lock with a +10 bonus. If successful, knock opens up to two means of closure." PF2 Knock says, "You make the target easier to open. Knock grants a +4 status bonus to any creature that tries to open the target door, lock, or container with an Athletics or a Thievery check. You can attempt a Thievery check to open the target as part of casting knock, and you add your level even if you're untrained." Thus, in PF1 the spell opens the lock if the caster rolls high enough, even if the caster is totally untrained in lockpicking. In contrast, in PF2 the spell gives a bonus to a character using Thievery to open the lock. Some locks can be opened only by characters trained in Thievery, so the wizard had best team up with such a person.
Yeah but that can be changed. I personally think the role of spellcasters, all of them, outside of combat is picking spells which cover the gaps in skills and abilities the rest of the party has. No one took thievery? Learn, or prepare, knock. I think knock should be a spell that just lets you roll arcana to unlock a door or give someone else the +4(or whatever) status bonus. Potentially as a focus spell. I see no issue with this but I understand why it was changed. They didn't want spellcasters doing everything and stepping on the toes of the rogue, but sometimes you don't have a rogue. Sometimes the wizard needs to be a rogue out of combat by casting invisibility or knock to do rogue things like scouting and opening locked doors. Regardless, I think skills shouldn't be where we spend wizard power budget
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do think there is value in giving Wizards a free Additional Lore, not so much for power as for flavor -- a Wizard being really good at a niche subcategory of Lore isn't going to be casting their spells any better or disarming traps or the like, but they will have a handful more moments in a campaign where the plot may feature something that relates to the subject of their Lore, they'll get to go: "hang on, I studied this in Wizard school!", and make a RK check that they'll do really well on. That I think is the kind of addition that really doesn't cost much on the power budget but can really make a player's day, and cement a class's fantasy just by having someone think of the situations that can arise.
Now, I do think Wizards should be able to go even further beyond, if that's what they want to specialize in: for instance, being proficient in Lore, the skill, would allow you to RK against any creature at a lower DC than with Arcana, so that's quite a meaningful benefit. The main obstacle you'd hit there is generally the same obstacle preventing the Wizard from currently having any truly standout features: so long as the Wizard has a 4th spell slot per rank, they're unlikely to be allowed to have that kind of strong class feature. As a 3-slot caster, by contrast, they'd get to have so much more: if the Bard, a 3-slot caster with 8 HP/level, light armor proficiency, legendary Will saves, master Perception, and even martial weapon proficiency for some reason can also get the strongest cantrips in the game, plus strong focus spells through subclasses and 2 Focus Points right off the bat, imagine what a 3-slot caster could do with absolutely none of those better base stats.
Yes, they all study practically, but tell me who among the classes you mentioned who do you picture with their nose buried in their book as other people are praying, tuning their instruments and making rituals to their patron?
Also, the bonded object is an object is which the wizard put their magic, they can switch it as easy as the undies. It has nothing to do with the source of their power. They source of their power is knowledge.
All of them. Some of what inspired the wizard was like certain Eastern Orthodox priests and Kabbalah stuff. A lot of religious writing is in books, and a lot of academic institutions in the west were originally set up by the religious. Much fo the clergy in the real world were learned and spending time studying. I also need to stress in 1e if you lose your bonded item you lost the ability to cast spells. Wizards learn about magic, they don't have magic as part of their being in anyways, but the ability to actually use magic must comes from somewhere and while it is poorly explained for the wizard, the arcane bond in 1e gave us some insight
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Somehow I appear to be the only one who thinks it's thematically inappropriate for wizards to be super knowledgeable about things that don't apply to their field to study, which is arcane magic. I do not think wizards are "knowledge man", at all, and I certainly do not think it even makes sense for them to be. You ever see a physicist try to talk about biology, philosophy, economics or politics? Lmfao. Being learned doesn't mean knowing everything
I have to respond to this one. I have a fairly high IQ. Do you know what having a high IQ does for you? It doesn't make you rich. Doesn't make you charismatic. You don't pick up mates being very smart. Doesn't make you good looking. Doesn't make you strong. It doesn't do a ton for you outside of making learning easier. It doesn't matter what the topic is, you learn and process information faster and more efficiently with a high intelligence level. It gives you an ability to recall on a lot of subjects and converse fluently on them.
Intelligence should have more impact on skills, at least knowledge skills, than it does.
Number of skills has been cheapened. So skill ups is the way to show competence in skills and the wizard doesn't even receive extra skill ups for a curriculum skill or even Arcane which should be their specialty field.
... The wizards should be kind of bad at skills because they got spells. If we need a way to better use spells instead of skills then we should tackle that, not just ask for mediocre and not even necessarily very thematic nonsense like "oh they need 3+int skills". They don't need that, at allOk yeah, I agree.
Why learn a skill when your magic can do it for you.I disagree because a design paradigm in PF2 is to make spells aid skills rather than spells replacing skills.
The Knock spell is an example. PF1 Knock says, "Knock opens stuck, barred, or locked doors, as well as those subject to hold portal or arcane lock. When you complete the casting of this spell, make a caster level check against the DC of the lock with a +10 bonus. If successful, knock opens up to two means of closure." PF2 Knock says, "You make the target easier to open. Knock grants a +4 status bonus to any creature that tries to open the target door, lock, or container with an Athletics or a Thievery check. You can attempt a Thievery check to open the target as part of casting knock, and you add your level even if you're untrained." Thus, in PF1 the spell opens the lock if the caster rolls high enough, even if the caster is totally untrained in lockpicking. In contrast, in PF2 the spell gives a bonus to a character using Thievery to open the lock. Some locks can be opened only by characters trained in Thievery, so the wizard had best team up with such a person.
Some PF2 spells do replace skills; for example, both PF1 Spider Climb and PF2 Geck Grip/Spider Climb grant a climb speed so they both replace the Climb/Athletics skill. But I think the PF2 designers were trying to avoid the...
I am not sure we disagree yet.
what you shared is doing it with magic to me. That doesn't need to be magic and its solved. Magic and now im as good as an expert in thievery is effectively doing thievery with magic.but yes there is a cost to being good at it with magic instead of a skill and there should be right?