See, damage spells need to be heightened to be effective. That means a 7th level sorcerer that's trying to be optimal will have at most 4 damage spells;
They have 6 level 4 spells to choose from not 4.
But anyway, AV is not the best adventure to showcase casters as it's a low level adventure. Martials are the king at very low level, casters start competing around level 5-7, so a bit late for AV.On the other hand, I've never seen a sorcerer (or, frankly, any other caster) take Gentle Landing because there's always more, better spells to have and they just never have the space.
It's a staple. My Witch prepares it (my other casters don't have access to it but otherwise they would).
And if you picked a wizard as a blaster despite that because you don't understand that 50% of blasting is your focus spells, well, then your reading comprehension is the issue.
So agressive and wrong. Slotted spells are much better than Focus Spells for blasting. None of my blasters care for Focus Spells, these ones are too weak to me. That's also the reason why I've stopped playing my Psychic: The damage was just average but the limitations were real.
Wizards make for crazy blasters, maybe the best in the game thanks to their crazy number of high level spell slot. A Druid hardly competes.I mean, people still think non-animal barbarians can tank with -1 AC for some reason, so you're hardly the first, but if you're wrong about what a class telegraphs that's not really an us problem.
Barbarians are excellent tanks. -1 to AC doesn't compensate the crazy amount of hit points and excellent saves the Barbarian has. I actually play a tank oriented Barbarian and it's really hard to put him down (unless I face a level + 4 enemy, true story).
It looks like you should review your vision on many things.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, sure, you can specialise in one of the eight schools of magic. Go ahead, do that! Well, as of remaster, it's now 6 schools, but whatever. But look at those schools, they're broad! The blasting school has multiple elements, plus defensive spells. The polymorph school mixes beneficial and harmful ones, plus poison as a side. The necromancy one also does telekinesis and teleportation. If anyone builds their wizards to these specialisations they'll be 100% fine. What is being discussed here are specialisations narrower than the wizard schools, like "literally one element" or "take only offensive spells", none of which the PF2e wizard schools are. If you want to be a pure fire caster and took Battle Magic Wizard instead of Fire Druid or Fire Sorcerer you have read the class wrong. For all the issues the new schools have they are very clear every wizard needs to pack an array of...Academia and specialization just go hand in hand; academia pushes you to specialize in your interests and field. It's also even a part of the class description: "You either specialize in one of the eight schools of magic, gaining deeper...
My question is, why is the academic a specialist? I don't think any of the wizards in fiction or games, the ones that focus on academical spellcasting, have been tightly themed. Warcraft's iconic Mage knows ice, slow and polymorph spells, hardly a theme! The specialised caster has always been the 'from birth' kind which, well, sorcerer. Or else kineticist, frankly.Like, specifically, you can't play an ice mage because your best choice, Snow Witch, has an irritating gap of on theme spells or a lightning mage because Tempest Oracle lies in its resume but in general if you want to be throwing out spells from a single aesthetic category Wizard wasn't even pretending to be the right choice. OK, abjurer, summoner, illusionist. But those actually do fine. Except Summoner but goodness there's a class named that I wonder what it does.
I feel like we're talking assuming different priorities.
I am assuming a player has a concept and wants to find as close a fit as they can to express it mechanically. This idea may not be, and likely will not be, an exact fit for any class in the game—even one that may have sparked the concept. Players will typically just take the class that most closely matches their concept and expect it to function at least somewhat well. There's usually some compromise here; the game can't perfectly capture everyone's ideas, and that's okay. The goal is just to get """reasonably""" close for the kinds of stories you intend your system to support. (I put reasonably in triple quotes because I will willingly admit it is a load-bearing, imprecise wording choice.)
It sounds to me like you're saying it doesn't make sense to bring concepts into a game if they can't fit cleanly into the mechanics and the written flavor of a class—that class choices and abilities should have priority in character creation and should be what informs character concepts. I can understand why you might think that. It can indeed cause less trouble down the line. But I disagree with the assertion, and find that it's usually stifling in practice. Most of my players don't want to work from game to concept until they're very familiar with a system, which means a chunk of them will never get there. Further, much of the game-specific stuff may not be apparent or known to someone when they're first learning the system. It is much better in practice if the game can meet the player where they're at, rather than need the player to meet the game where it's at.
Let's again just imagine a player who wants to make John Burning Fireball Ray, PhD. I'm unsure why a player (especially a new player) would think Dr.JBFR won't fit into Wizard. They can load JBFR (PhD) up with spell slots filled with fire spells, have him learn almost entirely fire spells, and so on. They may even take spell substitution, thinking it'll let JBFR grudgingly reprepare their fire spells into something useful when forced to. This probably looks quite like it's fulfilling the Doc JBFR fantasy to a player. But when they go to use JBFR in real combat, they will probably find trouble quite fast. The issue isn't really that there's trouble, though. The issue is there's trouble and no other class chassis looks like it fits our fire-loving guy with a Doctorate in Phire studies any better. Sure, we could explain to our player that spell blending might be a better fit depending on what they intended, etc., but that's not really going to improve the functioning of the character concept that much. They should probably play kineticist, but kineticist is pretty far divorced from how they imagine JBFR. This is the issue.
Perhaps this isn't the perfect example, since the alum of the Ignition Institution might fare a bit better as an Elementalist Archetyped Wizard. But I hope it's illustrative enough as an example of how people can run into issues.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anyway, the problem with casters ultimately comes down to one mechanical element: spell slots. They feel weak because, despite having much higher peaks in power than martials, they can't hit those peaks very often, and if they shoot for the peak and miss... well, tough luck, I guess. Slot's lost either way. This feelsbad hurdle's just too tall for lots of players, even though plenty of others can hop right over it, no problem.
So how do we get over the hurdle? There are probably multiple ways--SuperBidi's scroll meta being one of them--but they all have their strengths and weaknesses. Some players just hate consumables, for example, and I don't think forcing someone to adapt a playstyle they dislike is the ideal path forward. But I think Bidi's on the right track: additional slots translate to less cautious casting, meaning casters get to hit their peak more often. They aren't...
I agree that the problems comes from spell slot system but I disagree that simply add more slots is a good way to solve the problem. Like SuperBidi said this will remove part of the pressure that caster players have to excessively save spells but for other side it will risk to surpasses focus spells and impulses that due its high frequency are less versatile (you have way less options of focus spells and impulses and are limited to the number of class feats available) making casters a bit overpowerful.
Imagine a Spell Bending Wizard that's able to use 6 top rank and and 5 top-1 rank spell slots knowing that the GM will refresh its resources when needed. Why to worry to play with focus spells, impulses or strike with weapons if you can use your spells that are more stronger and versatile without worry because they will be refreshed when needed?
I'm one that don't like vancian casting, that think that prepared casting is subpar and the think that spell slot casting is a deprecated legacy from older editions that needs to go in a next PF edition in place of a more modern casting resource system when everything would be remade and rebalanced around new systems. But for now it's too dangerous to change this things due risk to break balance or to make some of currently systems looses their value.
Lol that refresh idea's not so bad and the GM is deciding when it is appropriate.
If you want to put it in the hands of players maybe let 1 hero point be used to refresh 1 spell slot. Could have some conditions to it if the straight out trade is too good. This might make up for spells going against saves not getting the same benefit out of hero points as strikes.
One thing I feel about PF2 is that hero points are sort of underutilized as a game mechanic. I would consider letting players spend a hero point to buy back a spell slot as a reasonable extension for them, if we're talking about house rules.
I agree hero points are way more useful for martials than for casters due the fact that many casters effects uses save spells.
In order to balance this I currently allows my players to use their hero points to force one single target that successfully saved vs this PC's effect to reroll its save (adding misfortune trait to the roll). This help a lot the casters to feel less badly when they use a slot but target succeed its save check.
But I liked this idea to allow players to use hero points to recover an exhausted resource to use it again like it was a power of protagonism whats make sense for a thing like a hero point. This won't recover too many resources and will compete with other hero points usages. Maybe I could allow this in my games.
Barbarians are excellent tanks. -1 to AC doesn't compensate the crazy amount of hit points and excellent saves the Barbarian has. I actually play a tank oriented Barbarian and it's really hard to put him down (unless I face a level + 4 enemy, true story).
Barbarians can make a pretty good tanks due its high HP + temp HP and you can compensate the -1 AC with a heavy armor (via sentinel archetype) and using a shield (getting shield block via general feat) this improves the barbarian defensive power a lot at cost of small damage reduction of usage of a one hand d8 weapon once that rage bonus doesn't depend from weapons dice.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
As an academic, the idea that academics specialize in one area of knowledge to the point that they are incapable of using useful ideas from other disciplines is a comically bad representation of academia.
I really like the new remastered schools specifically because they get away from this trope (which was never true for wizards, even specialists cast spells from 5 or 6 other schools regularly), and focus instead on giving you a narrative starting point for your research into magic that can develop along side the needs of the campaign instead of a 1st level choice.
Speaking of first level, another reason pf2 has the best wizard is because you are a wizard from level 1. Cantrips are great at low levels, and are a great way to learn the saving throw and weakness targeting game that you will eventually demolish with spell slot spells. Wizard focus spells are only terrible if you expect to use them like spell slot spells. That is how many are designed for other classes, but mostly Wizard focus spells are 1 action and are things to do in addition to casting another spell. That is something I am grateful for about PF2 wizards. A spell blending battle wizard is easily the best blaster caster in the game by level 5 onwards.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
People who just want to play a blaster wizard that does nothing but damage really should be playing a Psychic instead of trying to crowbar the Everything Caster into something it's not.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As an academic, the idea that academics specialize in one area of knowledge to the point that they are incapable of using useful ideas from other disciplines is a comically bad representation of academia.
Agreed. If anything, the bad academics are like that, the kind of professor you hope to never get during your own academic career because they have no idea how to teach anything that’s not their narrow specialty and they’re so deep into their own specialty that they don’t know how to approach beginners with it anyways.
A good academic still knows a ton about many different tangentially related fields. A physics academic will have an extremely in-depth understanding of math and physics, and still have more understanding of computer science and chemistry than like 95% of the world, and there’ll probably be a ton of university-level biology and sociology stuff buried in the back of their head somewhere or the other.
The idea that Wizards must be able to narrowly reflect their school specialization feels almost like trying to force a fantasy that has… never existed? It’s fine if someone wants that fantasy to exist, of course, but I’m confused when it’s treated like the default when most popular media showcases wizards as having at least some tricks that aren’t their signature tricks. Gandalf clearly has a lean towards fire and light magic but they’re far from the only spells we see him use, and Gandalf is actually narrower than many other popular characters that are called “wizards” (the fact that his specific Feats fit better as a Cleric of Sarenrae in this system is a separate topic). If I had to pick a Pathfinder Wizard in fantasy media I’d probably pick Moiraine from Wheel of Time, and that very clearly showcases how having a preferred way of solving problems doesn’t mean being incapable of solving problems in other ways.
People who just want to play a blaster wizard that does nothing but damage really should be playing a Psychic instead of trying to crowbar the Everything Caster into something it's not.
Or they can just refer to the many guides on how to make a competent blaster as a Wizard!
In 2019 I’d have said it’s really hard to built a single target damage focused Wizard, but with the Remaster and Rage of Elements it’s gotten a lot easier. If you commit to narrowing your skill set to focus on damage (just like damage-optimized martials do), you will do very good and consistent damage (and you’ll have that consistency without support unlike the martials and you’d have the ability to front load damage into Severe/Extreme encounters and a lot of your damage will just have free riders).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really get this part of the complaint.
Like yeah the PF2 wizard is bland and boring with janky spell mechanics and no central theme, but so are the other wizards you mention. The biggest difference between them is that the latter are much stronger, but simply being overpowered isn't the same as being flavorful or interesting.
If anything, class feats, thesis, and school mechanics are a clear way to increase definition, even if I think some of them fall flat.
Obviously everyone has their own take, but it's hard for me to look at the 3.5 wizard, which doesn't even really have class features, and pretend it has a more fleshed out identity.
The 3.5 Wizard was the best meta magic user in the game if DMM was (correctly) banned or nerfed only to use base uses of turn undead. It also had schools with meaningful drawbacks, some of the best skills in the game due to maxing intelligence, and access to a spell list that hadn't been slashed to ribbons to make Occult and Primal spell traditions a thing. They were only really bland in the same way that every class in 3.5 was bland.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've played a Psychic, and it's not really such a damage dealer. Unleash Psyche bites you as much as it helps and the Occult Tradition is really bad for damage. Overall, you'll be able to deal as much damage with a Wizard but with more versatility.
If you want to see why the wizard or any prepared caster isn't as good as a spontaneous caster, you need to go over their options.
-A lot of your class feats are worse than archetyping. A lot of them. Even things that seem like they should be obviously strong, like quicken, can be weaker for your character, your party, and your table's typical adventuring day than stuff you get elsewhere. (I point at quicken as an example because it's incredible, but only a once per day ability; if your table plays longer days, its value tanks.) Shop around. Poaching strong focus spells can be especially valuable.
* - At low level? (say 1-3)
* - At moderate level? (4-7)I need to notice that wizards are in pretty bad situation in these levels due the lack of useful abilities for low levels.
Basically the 3 best Thesis are useless or almost useless in these lower levels.
Looking at these, it appears that the haters are actually Right.
Wizards are Broken.
Wizards are Broken.
Most casters are weak at low level. But they are far from being the only ones.
Also, at these levels, cantrips are doing fine. You can base yourself on them.
Nope, but then the big thing that is usually saved against and gets done a few times a day
Not as a Wizard. Wizards have far enough high level spell ranks to do it every significant round.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Most casters are weak at low level. But they are far from being the only ones.
And it's also worth noting that in PF2 casters are much stronger at low levels than the corresponding classes were in PF1. The PF1 wizard at level 1 could cast like 2 spells, which might be encounter enders, but after those two rounds they were doing like 1-2 points of damage a round.
I will happily take "spellcasting doesn't make you want to take a nap after the first combat at low levels" in exchange for "you're less godly at high levels."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What exactly can a Wizard who prepares only blasting spells do better than martials?They can still prepare every other type of spell.So instead of answering the question, you just change the premise.
They can use staves to round themselves out. They can absolutely demolish with area of effect spells. They can do damage and inflict a larger variety of status effects.Again, the context was about a blaster caster who is not interested in "inflicting a larger variety of status effects".
You know, martials can also inflict a large variety of status effects (e.g. wrestler), or can be awesome healers (e.g. medic, lay on hands), without ever touching a weapon. Yet many martial players prefer "bonking" instead. Should we thus similarly remove all advanced & martial weapons from the game, so that no martial can ever again inflict good damage on enemies, you know, in light of all the other things they potentially might do?
Your comments always seem to be build like this: You pick a single sentence out of context, pretend that this context doesn't exist, and then make some statement about this sentence. That's not how you build a conversation. That's how you build a straw-man.
Not coincidentally it's the same straw-man that Deriven Firelion built: This idea that people who want to play a great blaster caster, just want to turn casters into omnipotent gods.
However, this is about adding the option to specialize a caster into a non-generalist, in my case a blaster. I frequently made suggestions for a trade-off to this specialization as well (e.g. here and here), like giving up hit points or armor proficiencies, or restricting the spell-list (similar to how the Elementalist archetype does or the previous editions that had prohibited wizard schools)....
It is you who changed the premise as the premise you are pushing is caster's are weak and it has been thoroughly explained to you that casters can do a whole lot more than martials, so it makes sense to provide martials some clear area where martials are better at like single target damage.
No limitation on caster blasting exists. So all the time they can and prepare other spells to do other very powerful things.
Speaking for myself, my druid was able to keep up with martial single target damage by adding nothing more than a weapon attack.
Why is no one complaining that casters obtain excellent proficiency with weapons, one rank behind Master proficiency martials and two steps behind a fighter while also having legendary casting? This in essence allows casters to use a weapon like the second attack of a martial while using a spell.
Imagine that? The designers actually designed casters to use a weapon for a second attack equivalent while using a spell as a first attack. Is that purposeful or just what the designers happened to do for their own amusement?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wizards have always looked unimpressive at low levels.
Remember what a Level 1 wizard was like in advanced dungeons and dragons?
1d4 hp you actually had to roll.
1 level 1 spell and cantrips didnt exist
by level 3 you had a total of 3 spell slots
Yes this problem is basically an heritage from D&D when casters are super limited during lowest levels and strongly depends to be protected by martials until the game progress to a situation where this inverts.
PF2 and D&D 5e tried to solve this with cantrips (but in 5e cantrips are super strong because they uses a normal action and competes with normal martial strikes). My point in that post in the other topic was to show that wizards (like other casters like sorcerer too) have less useful abilities in such lower levels than other spell casters that can have other resources earlier like psychics or like warpriests and druids that got a stronger chassis to allow then to fight even in frontline and maybe not best caster option for low-level games only.
But these classes also have their own payback in form of lower number of spell slots.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People seem to be forgetting that low level cantrip damage was actually exceeding performance expectations enough that some of the cantrips got a minor nerf to their damage in the remaster, while others got dice adjustments where they broke about even.
By level 5, you need to be using spell slots to really keep up with martial damage, but at low levels a one action damage focus spell and cantrip or a cantrip and weapon attack are not weak at all. Against a very powerful solo monster it can be easy to have a weak round, especially if you target a bad save, but in most cases, a single 3 action force barrage will end up out damaging the martial in those situations, especially if the martial ends their turn adjacent to the monster and gets knocked out in one round, or even one attack.
There are real pain points to casters, but most of the ones I’ve seen are a result of table play (like a martial running too far ahead and expecting a caster to save them, or the party skipping opportunities to gather information about upcoming threats), or GMs not communicating effectively with the party about what the pace of play is going to be like, so the caster memorizes all these sustain damage spells but all the encounters are going to be discrete from each other, separated by 10 minute rests, and last 3 rounds or less, so there will never be an opportunity to roll into a second encounter if one martial is down 5 hp, and could just drink an explore if life and keep their runic weapon going, or summon going or flaming sphere out, or decent sized bless aura going.
If we accept now what the developers already know, that the right spell cast at the right time is already nearly encounter ending and at the ceiling of what any character should be able to accomplish even once a day, then any attempt to introduce ways for specialists to hit that ceiling even when they are trying to do so with the wrong spell for the situation is inevitably going to lead to power creep if other casters can poach some of that ability, or it is going to result in a PF1 spell focus effect where the whole ceiling of spell casting gets lowered so the specialist peaks can reach the old ceiling, but the trade off becomes casting those spells without that specialization becomes bad enough that no one does it and then no caster is really all that versatile because spells require specialization to be effective.
This is what PF2 got rid of and it makes casting much more enjoyable. Any spell you can cast, you can cast well and you don’t have to break your character with sandbags that strip all your options away in order to be good at what you want to do, as long as what you want to do is not just try to overcome the strengths of enemies stronger than you with the same thing over and over again.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again you list things that the guys wanting to play blasters do not want to be able to do, as reasons the only fun thing about combat in this game (doing damage) should be bared to wizards.I listed the advantages that they have while only blasting.
Unless you mean people that want to play a blaster wizard want to only cast Shocking Grasp? That would be an easy change for you to homebrew, just remove every other spell and I guess make it a cantrip that takes two hands.
This is pretty much the whole problem isn’t it? This is how a lot of the blaster conversations online seem to go.
“I want to blast good”.
“Here’s 17 different ways to blast good”.
“Nope, I want to blast good with exactly one single spell all day long”.
That’s just not gonna happen. A blaster Wizard or Sorcerer still has 4 spells of all ranks (and 3-4 of their max rank) and is balanced to function with that in mind. If you choose to function with less, you’ll perform worse.
A level 5 Elemental Sorcerer who wants to spend all their time blasting absolutely can… and should have a spell repertoire that contains a nice mix of spells like Thunderstrike (Signature), Interposing Earth, Horizon Thunder Sphere, Fireball, Lightning Bolt, etc (notice that I purposely stuck to only choosing blasts, I didn’t choose Fear, for instance). If you choose to use fewer of these options you’ll just be weaker, just like how a Barbarian who refuses to skirmish and has no intention of carrying a backup weapon will feel weaker than one who does those things.
PF2 and D&D 5e tried to solve this with cantrips (but in 5e cantrips are super strong because they uses a normal action and competes with normal martial strikes).
It doesn’t really change the rest of the point but I do really feel the need to add, cantrips actually do terrible damage in 5E. The only exception is Eldritch Blast, and even that only if you have 2 levels in Warlock. All the rest of the cantrips do less damage than a crossbow until level 11 and are not worth using unless they have a relevant rider (like Thorn Whip, Ray of Frost, Mind Sliver, etc).
But these classes also have their own payback in form of lower number of spell slots.
It should also be noted that non-Universalist Wizards have even more of a spell slot advantage at level 1-2, because being a 3-4 caster + Drain Bonded Item represents a 50% spell slot advantage over non-Sorcerer casters at level 1, and 40% at level 2. I’m pretty sure that’s why Wizards have their main subclass features delayed till level 3.
And as others have mentioned a few times, levels 1-2 are where cantrips are already an excellent source of damage, so this extra spell slot is a huge upgrade on a class that could technically function at these levels without any spell slots in the first place.
People seem to be forgetting that low level cantrip damage was actually exceeding performance expectations enough that some of the cantrips got a minor nerf to their damage in the remaster, while others got dice adjustments where they broke about even.
It’s also worth pointing out that the cantrip damage change wasn’t just an across the board nerf.
As best as I can tell, Electric Arc and Ignition are really the only two cantrips that were good to use previously and got meaningfully nerfed (and one of those was very transparently overtuned before and is still very good).
- Ray of Frost lost damage but began targeting a Save that Arcane/Primal didn’t have a nicely scaling option to target, so overall it was a buff.
- Gouging Claw just got a flat buff, and is more in line with the “melee should do more damage” policy of PF2E.
- Divine Lance technically lost damage but Spirit damage means it’s gonna be doing nonzero damage for the first time in a while.
- Chill Touch became Void Warp and had ranged damage now, which is awesome.
Looking at the buffs holistically, this also means that all non-Occult spell lists got an overall buff. Arcane/Primal can target Fortitude much better than before, and Divine actually has damaging cantrips now.
It’s why I’m always confused when people say the cantrips change was a flat nerf because after we converted to Remaster my Wizard started using cantrips more often, not less.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People seem to be forgetting that low level cantrip damage was actually exceeding performance expectations enough that some of the cantrips got a minor nerf to their damage in the remaster, while others got dice adjustments where they broke about even.
I don't think the change in Cantrips was intended to be a nerf so much as to make them work in parallel to other spells. Like a Wizard does not add their INT modifier to the damage of a lightning bolt or a fireball but did to an electric arc or a casting of produce flame. This lead to people either accidentally adding their casting mod to the damage of spells when that was the intention or forgetting to add their casting mod to cantrip damage.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the designers to smooth this out for the people who want the image of a caster is reskin weapons to do magical type damage. I think a lot of people would be happier using some wand or staff to do some minor weapon equivalent blast of lightning or fire for 1d6 damage with striking runes than just relying on cantrips. Little blasty magic weapons that only casters can buy and use with traits.
I myself don't mind picking up a bow, sword, or polearm as a caster. But some folks want that weapon that looks like casting.
The reason my druid and casters even at low level keep up with martials is they use a weapon along with their spells and cantrips. That extra weapon damage adds up over fights along with spells to a lot of damage, especially once you spec it out with striking and energy runes.
I constantly hear, "That's not the caster fantasy."
I figure if the designers threw these folks a bone with caster style weapons, they probably find out that weapon attack does decent damage and if they make it look like casting those players desiring that caster fantasy would be happier.
Just pew pew with their wand or rod or magic gauntlet of fatal lightning. Open up a whole new line of magic items for the designers as well and make casters using weapons more enjoyable for those wanting the image of a pure caster.
What if they made something like the following:
Wand of Fatal Lightning: Does 1d6 lightning damage with Fatal d10 trait.
Then you can lightning bolt 3rd level one time a day.
Something like that. Works off their weapon proficiency for general ranged weapon damage and their spell DC for the blast.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wizards are weak because there's very little incentive to invest in strength in a class that tops out at expert simple weapons and expert unarmored defense, particularly given that the only strength skill is athletics.
People seem to be forgetting that low level cantrip damage was actually exceeding performance expectations enough that some of the cantrips got a minor nerf to their damage in the remaster, while others got dice adjustments where they broke about even.I don't think the change in Cantrips was intended to be a nerf so much as to make them work in parallel to other spells. Like a Wizard does not add their INT modifier to the damage of a lightning bolt or a fireball but did to an electric arc or a casting of produce flame. This lead to people either accidentally adding their casting mod to the damage of spells when that was the intention or forgetting to add their casting mod to cantrip damage.
Man, I wish I could find a link but I can't. I literally saw a comment on Reddit not one week ago where someone sourced and quoted the designers saying that cantrips were exceeding performance expectations but I cannot find it now. Maybe Unicore has the link?
I myself don't mind picking up a bow, sword, or polearm as a caster. But some folks want that weapon that looks like casting.
This is one of the many cases of the designers balancing the game around expectations of what a savvy player can achieve, but that not lining up with what a good number of players want to achieve.
At low levels cantrips are a primary source of damage for casters (by level 5 they begin falling off and should be replaced with focus spells and lower rank spells in most circumstances). You'd expect that at levels 1-4 then they're roughly balanced to be as strong as about 2 Strikes from a bow, but they practically can't be. If they were balanced that way, a caster using 2-Action Save spell + 1 Action to actually fire a bow would then exceed the damage profiles of a lot of ranged martials.
So cantrips end up being a little weaker than two bow Strikes, and this means that a caster with no interest in using a bow for their occasional third Action will be slightly under the damage curve (not significantly mind you, but enough to feel annoyed every once in a while).
Wand of Fatal Lightning: Does 1d6 lightning damage with Fatal d10 trait.
But here we hit the second part of the problem.
Such a "weapon wand" would presumably scale off of your Spellcasting Attack modifier, not your Dex. At higher levels as your cantrips fall off, so do your weapon proficiencies (relative to martials). By level 5 you are likely going to be -3 or -4 relative to a Dex martial who wants to use a bow, and probably still -2 relative to a switch hitter. This is because as your spells get stronger, the value of having a 3rd Action that can deal good damage that MAPlessly combines with those spells gets higher too.
And if you scale the wand off of Dex there'll be complaints about "forcing" casters to be multiple attribute dependent, even if objectively they are balanced after MAD.
I think ultimately the best solution might be to give cantrips 3-Action versions that do significantly boosted damage, because that way people who want to do "bow + cantrip" can still do that, but those who just want their spells' damage for the sake of their fantasy can just focus on the cantrips at lower levels without any issue.
This is one of the many cases of the designers balancing the game around expectations of what a savvy player can achieve, but that not lining up with what a good number of players want to achieve.I'd argue it's balancing around what players what to achieve, with their playerbase having a reasonably high optimizer population. My limited experience with playing and less limited reading of PF1e has me not surprised in the slightest they seem to fully expect players to munchkin out every point of damage if given the opportunity.
Perhaps you’re right. I’ve truly never met a player who actually bothered using a weapon on a spellcaster in TTRPG, except for players whose explicit fantasy involved being at least a little bit gishy, but of course we’re all limited to our own perception of the community.
And we do have 5E as an example of what happens if you don’t balance around the people who will perform at least reasonable optimizations.
People seem to be forgetting that low level cantrip damage was actually exceeding performance expectations enough that some of the cantrips got a minor nerf to their damage in the remaster, while others got dice adjustments where they broke about even.I don't think the change in Cantrips was intended to be a nerf so much as to make them work in parallel to other spells. Like a Wizard does not add their INT modifier to the damage of a lightning bolt or a fireball but did to an electric arc or a casting of produce flame. This lead to people either accidentally adding their casting mod to the damage of spells when that was the intention or forgetting to add their casting mod to cantrip damage.Man, I wish I could find a link but I can't. I literally saw a comment on Reddit not one week ago where someone sourced and quoted the designers saying that cantrips were exceeding performance expectations but I cannot find it now. Maybe Unicore has the link?
I myself don't mind picking up a bow, sword, or polearm as a caster. But some folks want that weapon that looks like casting.
This is one of the many cases of the designers balancing the game around expectations of what a savvy player can achieve, but that not lining up with what a good number of players want to achieve.
At low levels cantrips are a primary source of damage for casters (by level 5 they begin falling off and should be replaced with focus spells and lower rank spells in most circumstances). You'd expect that at levels 1-4 then they're roughly balanced to be as strong as about 2 Strikes from a bow, but they practically can't be. If they were balanced that way, a caster using 2-Action Save spell + 1 Action to actually fire a bow would then exceed the damage profiles of a lot of ranged martials.
So cantrips end up being a little weaker than two bow Strikes, and this means that a caster with no interest in using a bow for...
I already stated it scales off your weapon proficiency.
This is one of the many cases of the designers balancing the game around expectations of what a savvy player can achieve, but that not lining up with what a good number of players want to achieve.I'd argue it's balancing around what players what to achieve, with their playerbase having a reasonably high optimizer population. My limited experience with playing and less limited reading of PF1e has me not surprised in the slightest they seem to fully expect players to munchkin out every point of damage if given the opportunity.Perhaps you’re right. I’ve truly never met a player who actually bothered using a weapon on a spellcaster in TTRPG, except for players whose explicit fantasy involved being at least a little bit gishy, but of course we’re all limited to our own perception of the community.
And we do have 5E as an example of what happens if you don’t balance around the people who will perform at least reasonable optimizations.
No. There is no problem but one you are fabricating. This is your personal desire and a handful of posters that keep showing up to rehash this again and again that we can't even be sure it is the same people wanting to rehash old arguments.
They keep using the term casters, when most are absolutely fine. The wizard is debatable at best which means fine for some, not fine for others.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is one of the many cases of the designers balancing the game around expectations of what a savvy player can achieve, but that not lining up with what a good number of players want to achieve.I'd argue it's balancing around what players what to achieve, with their playerbase having a reasonably high optimizer population. My limited experience with playing and less limited reading of PF1e has me not surprised in the slightest they seem to fully expect players to munchkin out every point of damage if given the opportunity.Perhaps you’re right. I’ve truly never met a player who actually bothered using a weapon on a spellcaster in TTRPG, except for players whose explicit fantasy involved being at least a little bit gishy, but of course we’re all limited to our own perception of the community.
And we do have 5E as an example of what happens if you don’t balance around the people who will perform at least reasonable optimizations.
No. There is no problem but one you are fabricating. This is your personal desire and a handful of posters that keep showing up to rehash this again and again that we can't even be sure it is the same people wanting to rehash old arguments.
They keep using the term casters, when most are absolutely fine. The wizard is debatable at best which means fine for some, not fine for others.
What are you even talking about? What does any of this have to do with what I said.
All I said is not everyone wants to carry a weapon. I have no idea what problem you think I’m fabricating lol.
RIP the sorcerer who <...> run out of revealing light/flight because they didn't heighten it.BTW now sorcerers (and other spontaneous casters) always can use higher rank slots for spells without heightening (so higher level slots, but no higher level effects and at will without any preparation). So a 'sorcerer <...> run out of revealing light/flight' means 'a sorcerer has run out of spell slots completely'.
What makes you think this wasn't always the case?
It's the way everyone I've ever known has ever run it.
Weapons are not bad for many casters to bring their damage up to martial levels.
A well built battle wizard doesn’t really need it though. They can out damage a weapon as a third action with 1 action focus spells and spell slot spells. It is the resource hoarding mindset that prevents many players from experiencing it, and they can do both to help offset it if that is an issue for you, but if you spend the same wealth on scrolls your damage output will be higher.
That's been what I've heard as well, at least whenever I see any dev or designer comments on the matter. Adding a casting stat mod to the damage was tripping some people up and also was slightly outside what was intended for cantrips to be doing damage-wise.People seem to be forgetting that low level cantrip damage was actually exceeding performance expectations enough that some of the cantrips got a minor nerf to their damage in the remaster, while others got dice adjustments where they broke about even.I don't think the change in Cantrips was intended to be a nerf so much as to make them work in parallel to other spells. Like a Wizard does not add their INT modifier to the damage of a lightning bolt or a fireball but did to an electric arc or a casting of produce flame. This lead to people either accidentally adding their casting mod to the damage of spells when that was the intention or forgetting to add their casting mod to cantrip damage.
Yeah, my understanding is that it was a both/and. Electric arc was over performing and thus got a slight nerf, most everything else got some kind of minor boost, except daze, which we don’t need to talk about.
It is still not the case that the developers would have said “oh no! We think there is a problem with low level casters not being effective blasters with cantrips, lets make this change anyway with no adjustments to boost overall cantrips.”
I personally feel the sorcerer should be the premier blaster caster if we are going to supply one for players and that a pf3 could use something like the mechanics for the kineticist, or a hybrid of it and casting as it is now, to replace spontaneous casting and create the power budget and thematics for people looking for this hyper specific, narrowly focused kind of caster. My only thing is that I don't think this should be the wizard, I think the wizard should just be an alright to decent blaster
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be clear, I support people having a vision then picking the class. My contention was that it's quite clear that if you want to build John Burning Fireball Ray, PhD, PF2e gives you two choices: Be an Int caster (Wizard or Witch) who upfront gets a lot of non-fire spell which is about as clear a signal as you can get that these classes don't want you preparing nothing but fire spells, or pick one of the classes that get fire focus spells and mechanics that say "use more fire spells". Which are sorcerer and oracle.
Paizo can't cover every combination of key ability score and casting style no matter how much we want it. I mean, they did both publish elementalist, then buff it in Rage of Elements, so clearly they do want wizards to be able to do elemental stuff well, so at least that part works now?
I feel like even this is looking at the system with a fairly mechanics-oriented eye: you're talking about what the system is "signaling" you to do, not what it's allowing you to do (even it what it might allow isn't actually great or smart). I understand your point, I really do. But I think these signals are clear as mud to people who haven't thought about game design. PF2E did help this sort of problem by raising the performance floor on "reasonably built" characters, at least. Wizard is just one of the classes left with the most room to screw up, honestly.
I am obviously glad Paizo has pushed more stuff out like elementalist archetype. They can't cover everything in reality, but part of getting """reasonably close""" is addressing more common fantasies like "man use lots of fire spells." I do look forward to PF2E getting an ever-increasing amount of options over its lifespan.
As a note, that is no longer the correct description for the wizard. That comes from the Premaster books, and for whatever reason AoN hasn't updated it. The current description goes...
Thanks for catching that; that's my bad. There's still a bit of implication of specialization with the new school system, but it's not nearly as obvious just reading the class description anymore.
As an academic, the idea that academics specialize in one area of knowledge to the point that they are incapable of using useful ideas from other disciplines is a comically bad representation of academia.
I really like the new remastered schools specifically because they get away from this trope (which was never true for wizards, even specialists cast spells from 5 or 6 other schools regularly), and focus instead on giving you a narrative starting point for your research into magic that can develop along side the needs of the campaign instead of a 1st level choice.
Agreed. If anything, the bad academics are like that, the kind of professor you hope to never get during your own academic career because they have no idea how to teach anything that’s not their narrow specialty and they’re so deep into their own specialty that they don’t know how to approach beginners with it anyways.
A good academic still knows a ton about many different tangentially related fields. A physics academic will have an extremely in-depth understanding of math and physics, and still have more understanding of computer science and chemistry than like 95% of the world, and there’ll probably be a ton of university-level biology and sociology stuff buried in the back of their head somewhere or the other.
The idea that Wizards must be able to narrowly reflect their school specialization feels almost like trying to force a fantasy that has… never existed? It’s fine if someone wants that fantasy to exist, of course, but I’m confused when it’s treated like the default when most popular media showcases wizards as having at least some tricks that aren’t their signature tricks. Gandalf clearly has a lean towards fire and light magic but they’re far from the only spells we see him use, and Gandalf is actually narrower than many other popular characters that are called “wizards” (the fact that his specific Feats fit better as a Cleric of Sarenrae in this system is a separate topic). If I had to pick a Pathfinder Wizard in fantasy media I’d probably pick Moiraine from Wheel of Time, and that very clearly showcases how having a preferred way of solving problems doesn’t mean being incapable of solving problems in other ways.
I can understand how I got misinterpreted a bit, but my intent was to say that people often like to play thematic specialists that mostly cast a certain kind of spell, not only cast a certain type of spell. There were nods to this (like mention of JBFR taking spell substitution, and a clarification that I meant to talk about characters who are best at a kind of spell, not characters that only cast that kind of spell). But if the point got lost, I understand. You can think of JBFR as a guy who ideally only preps fire blast spells, but grudgingly learns one or two utility spells a level (perhaps even along limited themes here, as well) because his party hates him otherwise and he will only prepare them if it's absolutely necessary. He is not only capable of fire boom boom; he just wishes he didn't have to do anything else and does the bare minimum.
WRT academia, my academic experience with a master's has just been that people don't actually know that much outside of their specialty areas. You may know broad strokes and a lot of high level concepts from several fields (i.e., what you learned in your gen eds), but when you start getting into any level of detail (300+ level courses) or even basics from the gen eds you didn't take (art history, in my case), you quickly realize there are swathes of specialized knowledge you were never aware of and many more swathes you will never get to be aware of. I know jack about continental philosophers despite being a philosophy major, but I'll talk your ear off about Wittgenstein or metaethics. I don't expect a compsci major to know about supervenience vis-a-vis metaethics, in the same way I don't expect myself to understand why balls-in-bins problems are important to memory allocation.
WRT to why people might want to play a specialist: there are plenty of reasons. For example, a very common trend in writing and writing advice for a time was creating characters that cleverly used narrower toolsets. Someone trying to emulate this within the wizard chassis would likely want to play a more specialized wizard, if they played one.
WRT to if wizard characters with "heavy specialization" in their concept even make sense: there's a flavor question here, at bottom, and the answer to it determines your outlook on this. And that question is, just how different are different types of magic from one another in your game? Mechanically, they cannot be that different, since you can grab whatever at any level up. But flavorwise? That's up for grabs.
For example, some of the old PF1E stuff keeps 3.5 wizard flavor, like how the Academae in Korvosa asks the students to focus in one old school and learn nothing at all from two old schools; if you were running a 2E conversion of Curse, it'd make sense to not use some spells at all if you were roleplaying someone tied to the Academae. But this makes no sense in newer 2E APs. Meanwhile, homebrew could point in any direction. Are different schools of spells more like different problems in compsci, or more like problems from entirely different disciplines? It's really a table-by-table and campaign-by-campaign judgment.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I personally feel the sorcerer should be the premier blaster caster if we are going to supply one for players and that a pf3 could use something like the mechanics for the kineticist, or a hybrid of it and casting as it is now, to replace spontaneous casting and create the power budget and thematics for people looking for this hyper specific, narrowly focused kind of caster. My only thing is that I don't think this should be the wizard, I think the wizard should just be an alright to decent blaster
Sorcerers are the supreme blaster caster. That's why you don't see many threads complaining about sorcerers. They're too busy being badass.
I've never played a disappointing sorcerer. Great at social skills like Intimidate or Diplomacy. Dangerous sorcery adds up as you level. Spontaneous blasting as needed, truly able to switch between types of blasts as needed for maximum efficiency. Decent focus spells to enhancing blasting. Blood magic.
Sorcerer blasters do tons of damage as they level.
Like I keep saying, mainly the wizard players are unhappy, maybe witches.
Most of the other classes feel super badass. You ever play a storm druid with an an animal companion and a weapon? You don't feel the slightest bit weak.
You ever played a cleric healing all day?
Or a sorc picking from 4 spells were level with sig spells and good feats and cool blasting focus spells?
It all feels great. Just that one class at low level that doesn't really standout for doing much of anything but casting spells is unhappy. Everyone else has stuff to do from level 1 on.
|
I personally feel the sorcerer should be the premier blaster caster if we are going to supply one for players and that a pf3 could use something like the mechanics for the kineticist, or a hybrid of it and casting as it is now, to replace spontaneous casting and create the power budget and thematics for people looking for this hyper specific, narrowly focused kind of caster. My only thing is that I don't think this should be the wizard, I think the wizard should just be an alright to decent blasterSorcerers are the supreme blaster caster. That's why you don't see many threads complaining about sorcerers. They're too busy being badass.
I've never played a disappointing sorcerer. Great at social skills like Intimidate or Diplomacy. Dangerous sorcery adds up as you level. Spontaneous blasting as needed, truly able to switch between types of blasts as needed for maximum efficiency. Decent focus spells to enhancing blasting. Blood magic.
Sorcerer blasters do tons of damage as they level.
Like I keep saying, mainly the wizard players are unhappy, maybe witches.
Most of the other classes feel super badass. You ever play a storm druid with an an animal companion and a weapon? You don't feel the slightest bit weak.
You ever played a cleric healing all day?
Or a sorc picking from 4 spells were level with sig spells and good feats and cool blasting focus spells?
It all feels great. Just that one class at low level that doesn't really standout for doing much of anything but casting spells is unhappy. Everyone else has stuff to do from level 1 on.
If everyone else is already doing their incredible thing, you might as well use RK actions.
Good for an INT class (especially if investing in judicious lores) and fits the Know-it-all theme.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still have the opinion that the crowd of people who complain about the Wizard are just playing it counter clockwise.
The Wizard is a pure specialist: It has the highest number of top level spell slots if you go for a Spell Blending Specialist. From what I've read, those who play the Wizard to its strength are having quite a good time with it.
But a lot of player desperately try to make a versatile caster out of it with Spell Substitution Generalist and it just doesn't work.
I really consider the Spell Blending Specialist to be one of the strongest caster in the game, largely on par with a Sorcerer. On the other hand, I disregard the Spell Substitution Generalist which is a weak Sorcerer with no class feature. Worst, the Spell Substitution Generalist hints at the Wizard being a versatile caster so on top of being a weak choice it pushes you towards a non-functional playstyle.
|
|
Spot the difference between these two characters Dr Finius Von Blastingham, has studied the application of fire magic since he was 10, dedicated hours to understanding the process, application and applicable concepts to the manipulation of mana to cause fire, as well as how normal fire acts, the various denizens of the plane of fire etc.Fergal O'kaboom. Some guy whose ancestor had some multiplayer activities with someone who was more out of this world than they thought.
And number 2 is the better fire caster.
Sports science student when they find out they lost to a guy who was born like that:
More seriously yes, Dr Finus Von Blastingham knows more about fire (Recall Knowledge) than Fergal O'kaboom and depending on his thesis might know more ways to spellshape fire spells, can reformat his fire spells in a short period of time, or will with enough practical experience have more fireballs than anyone else...
But he can't replicate the innate blood nature of Fergal O'kaboom which makes his fire just that much more damaging. Welcome to fantasy, where hidden power in the blood and a pretty face can carry you further than 20 years of study in magic.
Try being a pure fighter till you get to graduation age. And then you take the exact same studies as Dr Finius.
While one of Dr Finius' fellow students quits studying magic after graduation and joins the academy of fist and weapon and Reactive Strike.
20 years later, the former is still lagging light years behind the latter as far as magic is concerned.
And in fact, the more they study magic while the other studies fighting, the less powerful a magic-user they become in comparison.
Aka Fighter MC Wizard vs Wizard MC Fighter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Spot the difference between these two characters Dr Finius Von Blastingham, has studied the application of fire magic since he was 10, dedicated hours to understanding the process, application and applicable concepts to the manipulation of mana to cause fire, as well as how normal fire acts, the various denizens of the plane of fire etc.
Fergal O'kaboom. Some guy whose ancestor had some multiplayer activities with someone who was more out of this world than they thought.
And number 2 is the better fire caster.
Given Fergal is likely literally part elemental, yes this makes sense. Our hypothetical wizard has studied something entirely outside himself, our hypothetical sorcerer is literally partly that thing. A sorcerer should trade the versatility and flexibility of a wizard for intense powerful spells. A sorcerer should be the nuke, raw magic from their literal being. A wizard studies magic, a sorcerer is magic
Welcome to fantasy, where hidden power in the blood and a pretty face can carry you further than 20 years of study in magic.
This can often be true in real life as well. A scholar of sports is not an athlete, and being good looking makes people like you for better and worse
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still have the opinion that the crowd of people who complain about the Wizard are just playing it counter clockwise.
The Wizard is a pure specialist: It has the highest number of top level spell slots if you go for a Spell Blending Specialist. From what I've read, those who play the Wizard to its strength are having quite a good time with it.
But a lot of player desperately try to make a versatile caster out of it with Spell Substitution Generalist and it just doesn't work.
I really consider the Spell Blending Specialist to be one of the strongest caster in the game, largely on par with a Sorcerer. On the other hand, I disregard the Spell Substitution Generalist which is a weak Sorcerer with no class feature. Worst, the Spell Substitution Generalist hints at the Wizard being a versatile caster so on top of being a weak choice it pushes you towards a non-functional playstyle.
I guess if you stacked blasting spells as you, would probably be fine.
At the levels I play at, spell slots rarely become an issue. So Spell Blending means next to nothing.
The best blasting spells are 6 and 7 rank. With a spontaneous caster and items, you get a ton of those spells.
I can see Spell Blending being somewhat good in a mid range level.
Prepared casting always requires you to load up on that particular spell you want to cast and not Spell Substitution means you don't get to change it until the next day.
My sorcerers usually have something like a big blast spell and the other single target control or debuff spells as well. I usually both blast and debuff in a fight depending on what I'm fighting.
I may lead off with a slow on a boss, then start blasting the boss. Mooks you blast first, slow later depending on if they are tough enough to be a real threat.
The number of truly effective spells are so low, I have no need for a lot of versatility. I find the tight spell lists of sorcs covers most bases you will need including enough utility to help out of combat to supplement your social skills.
Spot the difference between these two characters Dr Finius Von Blastingham, has studied the application of fire magic since he was 10, dedicated hours to understanding the process, application and applicable concepts to the manipulation of mana to cause fire, as well as how normal fire acts, the various denizens of the plane of fire etc.
Fergal O'kaboom. Some guy whose ancestor had some multiplayer activities with someone who was more out of this world than they thought.
And number 2 is the better fire caster.
Given Fergal is likely literally part elemental, yes this makes sense. Our hypothetical wizard has studied something entirely outside himself, our hypothetical sorcerer is literally partly that thing. A sorcerer should trade the versatility and flexibility of a wizard for intense powerful spells. A sorcerer should be the nuke, raw magic from their literal being. A wizard studies magic, a sorcerer is magic
Welcome to fantasy, where hidden power in the blood and a pretty face can carry you further than 20 years of study in magic.This can often be true in real life as well. A scholar of sports is not an athlete, and being good looking makes people like you for better and worse
My vision about what wizards could be is experts of magic. Able to analise them, to study them, to modify them, to change its theory and try new application just like scientists does with natural things.
This vision meets the metamagic spellshape context of change how spells works but not exactly makes then stronger. I can imagine a wizard due its studies and experimentations changing a spell energy type or turning a cone spell into a burst spell getting access to other spell traditions through new theories to of how theses spell can or could work and so on.
Or change how the own essence of how magic could work. A thesis that defends that spells can be prepared in different ways making flexible spellcasting has part of its thesis or that proposes a new way to manage how the energy of spells could be used turing them into MP instead of spell slots and so on.
But PF2 fails or is shy to make these contexts. [s]Metamagic[/b]Spellshape is generally meh due lack of good metamagic feats, thesis are too limited, schools are just additional casts of some specific spells.
Why not a school instead of extra specific slots to be used in a small set of spell was not a specific set of spell that you can freely spellshape?
Why not a thesis completely changing Spell Blending not simply merging slots but turning them into an MP system, or instead os Spell Substitution turning the Wizard's casting into flexible spell casting.
IMO a wizard that dedicated a good part of its life into study of magic not need to be vertically stronger but have a greater understand of how the magic works and many experimental ways to deal with then requiring some extra actions like most spellshaping or arcana check to prevent the experimental modifications from failure.
IMO PF2e wizards meets this context they just lack of boldness. My impression is that wizard's desingners was to afraid or too lazy to make more greater things for the class due their all their past burden. PF2e is full of these things, details from older editions that was keep to keep some familiarity to those came from older editions.
For sorcerers I'm fine being those ones that are so natural with magic that they can use their magic power more frequently and stronger than wizards. My only complain is that I think that crossblooded makes more sense to wizards developing new way and theories to use spells from other tradition (like humans does) than sorcerers that take spells from a long and forgotten lineage that was mixes with their main lineage.