| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
By the time you need to use Wooden Double, or Time Jump, or Acid Grip in a high level fight, it may already be too late to worry about drawing a scroll or having a familiar give it to you.
You're creating a problem that doesn't exist. If you need to use Wooden Double, or Time Jump, or Acid Grip, you just cast them. Your Scrolls are only there for the extreme case where you managed to use all of the Wooden Doubles, Time Jumps, or Acid Grips you prepared and then you have a Scroll at hand (or at your Familiar's hand) for the extremely rare case you'll need to cast it again.
So you know which spell it is: It's the one you have depleted.
And you can just have the Scroll at hand. The Familiar was just one possibility to expand that in case you have all your hands full.
I've never ran out of level 1, 2, 3 and 4 spells at level 18, these spells are not important enough to use your level 18 feat on them. Reprepare Spells doesn't solve a situation you'll ever meet.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even though I have only played up to L 11, I am afraid I do agree w/ Super Bidi here.
The manner in which Scrolls never expire, create identical spells when spent, and how the gp cost is left in the dust all add together to make lower level spell slots essentially infinite.
I'm not trying to be dramatic or dogmatic, but the design issue of scrolls is super blatant / exploitable.
As soon as my Alchemists worked out item relay familiars, and saw how it would often be far more expensive to craft/buy hard alch items compared to spell scrolls, every PC after that discovery has a bandolier of scrolls on their person. No exceptions.
Don't forget the Retrieval Belt and even Retrieval Prisms from this discussion.
The issue of scrolls is also that much more of an obvious "this (design) was a mistake" for spellcasting dedications that WILL run out of slots.
I recently expanded my 3x Sure Strike belt scrolls to 5x, as SoT is just a horribly balanced AP with some single fight days, and some 6+ fight days.
I think you can cast Reaction spells if you have the scroll in-hand? That's how we have played it, and that ability to hold a reaction is being undersold in potency (for classes that do not get good ones by default, at least).
Even the humble R1 Interposing Earth is easy to predict it's future use, and provides an evergreen +2 to the defense / save via granting cover.
Once 30gp becomes chump change, R3 options like Cloud Dragon's Cloak granting you or allies hidden to ranged attacks is just dumb.
The game balance is clearly not designed to withstand players actually spending their gp on low R spell scrolls, the effects are honestly too good.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh I didn't notice up to now that they improved the Gloves of Storing in remaster when they turn into Retrieval Belt. These upgrades that allows to draw up to 10 items as free-action and is no more gloves only (can have many of them invested now).
I have some players that will simply love this and in fact this improves a lot the scrolls action economy.
Nice noted Perpdepog!
Retrieval belt? That sounds pretty nice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would have to say the accusation of the wizard being bland is one that is a point in the favor of people who like wizards. I'm a guy who finds museums fun, and in Elden Ring I prefer sorceries over incantations because they're much more utilitarian. Wizards getting feats that say "cast more spells, break the rules of spellcasting, modify spells to suit your needs" are exactly what I want from a wizard. Is it boring for most people? Yes. Is it boring for me, a certified "wizard guy"? Absolutely not
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would have to say the accusation of the wizard being bland is one that is a point in the favor of people who like wizards. I'm a guy who finds museums fun, and in Elden Ring I prefer sorceries over incantations because they're much more utilitarian. Wizards getting feats that say "cast more spells, break the rules of spellcasting, modify spells to suit your needs" are exactly what I want from a wizard. Is it boring for most people? Yes. Is it boring for me, a certified "wizard guy"? Absolutely not
I am a "wizard guy" as you call it. You don't break anything. You cast the same spells as every other class with little to no modification. The large number of slots becomes less and less relevant as you rise in level.
Now in PF1, the wizard modified spells. They had plenty of feats for very powerful spell modification. That doesn't exist in PF2. It is a completely different game.
The most powerful Spellshape feat is now Reach. Quicken is one time per day. Spell Perfection doesn't even exist. The Arcane list is vastly weakened from what it was.
In PF1 the wizard was the king of spells without equal. Too powerful? Sure. They were too powerful. But now the opposite is true and they are on the low end of caster power.
I still challenge anyone to do the math on what true versatility when you have 4 slots like a sorcerer for 9 levels and 45 different spells to choose from for those slots with signature spells and toss in scrolls, staves, and wands which sorcerers can use equally well.
You can even go up to 46 as an Arcane sorcerer or pick a particular signature spell for a day.
The answer to this always seems to the same: I have Spell Blending. I can have a few more highest level spell slots.
But experienced players like myself shrug, "So you can cast a chain lightning at level 8 one more time per day for an extra 2d12? Good for you. I made chain lightning my level 6 sig spell and slow my level 3 sig spell and eclipse burst my level 7 sig spell. I can cast Chain Lightning 4 times at level 9, 4 times at level 8, 4 times at level 7, 4 times at level 6, while still having access to 4 other spells of each level I can mix and match without any preparation. Whereas you with your vaunted versatility must have downtime and give up a slot to a spell for a particular niche which might stop you from accessing to a different spell."
I can see the math of versatility and it is far in favor of spontaneous casters in PF2 along with everything else they get from being able to poach a heal or synesthesia while still having a spellbook and blasting away with the arcane list.
So if you are satisfied with a few more of your high level spell slots at the cost of your low spell slots you have to lock in at the start of your day if you play a Spell Blending wizard as no Spell Substitution for you, then good for you.
I do not see the wizard as better with spells than any other class drawing from the same list. Spellshape feats are very limited and not particularly powerful with the best ones being on almost every caster feat list.
All wizards got is a few more slot per day easily made up for with items. Even their level 10 or 12 scroll feat is just free items. Spell Blending cost lower level feats which contrary to popular wizard belief are useful. Level 4 slots are invisibility that doesn't break. Level 2 slots are see invis. Level 1 slots are sure strike. Level 3 slots are slow or haste. Rank 4 slots are vision of death. Plenty of uses for lower level slots which sorcerers find useful because they can use them flexibly at need over and over again.
I only put a wizard as a better than a sorc in very few situations where downetime and utility meet. But in battle casting or on demand versatility, the sorcerer eats the wizard's lunch.
But the wizard does have better level 20 feats than most of the other casters. I will give you that. But a sorcerer with spell combination would be too overpowered, so I understand why they did not give that to sorcs. Be about no reason to play a wizard if sorcs got anything like Spell Combination even at level 20.
Wizard players in PF2 play the wizard because they like it, not because it is as good as any other class. They like the concept and what it does. There is no use trying to prove it is as good as the sorcerer or bard or druid because it isn't. Those classes all have far more impactful feats and innate class abilities to go along with their generic Legendary casting.
I do think wizards should have carried over the fact they got bonus feats into PF2E like the fighter did. Wizards got 15 instead of 10 feats in PF1E, and sorcerers got I think 14. Classes like the cleric did not get bonus feats, but wizards also need more feats, frankly
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wizards need something to make them more interesting.
I like museums too. History, investing, mathematics, philosophy, and the like. Intelligence based classes are a fun class fantasy in my opinion.
I'm finding in PF2 that the bonuses from being an intelligence based class are not there to fulfill that class fantasy.
I've listed all the reasons like intelligence no longer affecting skill increases as it did skill points in PF1. Intelligence based feats lacking impact though Crafting is better than many give it credit for as a skill. It isn't PF1 good, but it's still good and worth doing if in a campaign with sufficient downtime to benefit from it. Recall knowledge is very situational. Unified Theory good, but that's a long wait for good skill feat. Magical Shorthand just makes spell accumulation for wizards and witches bearable, though slightly better now.
I think the wizard should receive more bonus skill ups for skills they are supposed to be good in for having a high intelligence. Though I could say the same of a few classes like ranger's with survival or clerics with religion. Wizards could definitely use it as that erudition is part of their class fantasy.
At this point I'm not even looking for more power at least not raw power, but just more interesting abilities as spell slots have a fairly high failure rate and even with extra slots are still a limited resource. The school abilities and theses just need something more like the impact a bard muse or a druid circle. Something very unique like they used to give wizard curriculum that are cool.
At the end of the day, Arcane Bond is just a poor man's spontaneous casting. It's not unique or unusual enough to warrant not doing more work on Curriculums and class feats.
I really hope Paizo punches the wizard up some just to make them stand out in some unique area other than "I have the most spell slots" by a small margin without the ability to really use them all flexibly.
Back when the sorcerer had like a very small number of spells in PF1, the wizard really stood out for a lot of slots. But they gave the sorcerer 36 spells known and up to 45 with feats for flexible spells known with signature spells.
Then for some reason stil went, "Hey Mr. Wizard, we're going to only give you 3 slots and 1 school with this arcane bond thing."
It's like the wizard got the lower sorcerer spells known from PF1 with prepared casting and I don't know why that was considered a good design choice. It's pretty hard to fathom.
Then they don't get any feats like the sorcerer at level 16 where an arcane sorcerer can expand the spells known by one per level each. I'm still not even sure if this allows them to get an extra 10th level spell known as the rules state clearly not extra spell slots, but don't seem to have the same limitation for spells known though level 10 spells are not that great anyway. The visuals are good, but the practical use of level 10 spells is pretty weak for most.
I have real problems understanding the PF2 wizard design choices in any other context than the team made a very concerted effort to make sure the wizard was powered way, way, way down from PF1 and seem to have over-corrected.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The versatility of prepared casting is just massively devalued in PF2E.
-A lot of critical spell utility comes online a tier or two later, is directly nerfed, and/or can be bought for cheap in a form the whole party can use. Any spell that could solve a narrative problem by itself is uncommon rarity. (See Teleport, Zone of Truth, Speak with Dead, Tongues, and so on.) These spells were what made wizard such a strong pick before. The "solve your mundane problems in magical ways" meta is gutted in 2E.
-Silver Bullet combat spells had their ceiling drastically lowered. (I don't necessarily think this is bad in and of itself, to be clear.) The difference between a silver bullet and targeting the right save isn't very high, and spontaneous casters have an easier time setting themselves up to always target the correct save. A party that wants a perfect solution instead of a good-enough one can also still retreat and go buy silver bullet solutions, in the much same way the wizard's party can retreat and go buy or prepare better spells. The main difference is longterm cost (though a Sorc with Arcane Evolution doesn't even have to worry about that).
-The most staple utilities you need a caster for (like fly) are often available as class/ancestry features a few levels later than a caster gets them. The caster does give you a temporary advantage in access without gold, but for much of that time the caster is spending their most valuable spell slots (and some of their combat efficacy) on it when they would really prefer not to.
-Consumables and items are as busted as they've ever been, and they've always been good. They're less abusable, in the sense they don't print you money: you won't be able to buy 50 charge wands of greater magic weapon or barkskin and use them in place of key upgrades. But they can cover for missing caster roles very effectively in a pinch, and will sometimes even provide no-save effects equivalent to save spells. (E.G., Revealing Mist.) It often makes it feel like having spell access spares you from buying consumables more than it brings something you can't get another way. Swords need martials to swing them effectively, but anyone can drink a darkvision elixir or spray a revealing mist. Anyone can archetype into some casting if the party needs it, and buy scrolls of no-save utility spells. I am left wondering if a ranged Magus that gave up some item progression to divert that gold into stocking utility scrolls and items wouldn't be a more effective wizard than an actual wizard in most campaigns.
We've discussed how non-arcane casters get stronger class features as compensation for their spell list. Often, those features end up being a form of niche protection for that caster, something that gives them unique traits they can offer beyond just their spells. (Divine Font is the clearest example of this.) Given the proliferation of class and ancestry features, archetypes, and consumables that reduce the need for a dedicated caster, things like Druid Order abilities, Psi Cantrips and amps, Bard Cantrips, and so on become the most important thing a casting class offers when comparing options. These, not their spell slots, become their unique contribution to the party. Wizard's features don't offer much except the ability to cast more spells, cast different spells, or cast spells differently—augmenting an almost completely unprotected niche—so wizard ends up feeling worse than every other caster in the game.
Given the proliferation of class and ancestry features, archetypes, and consumables that reduce the need for a dedicated caster, things like Druid Order abilities, Psi Cantrips and amps, Bard Cantrips, and so on become the most important thing a casting class offers when comparing options. These, not their spell slots, become their unique contribution to the party. Wizard's features don't offer much except the ability to cast more spells, cast different spells, or cast spells differently—augmenting an almost completely unprotected niche—so wizard ends up feeling worse than every other caster in the game.
Sorry to be so blunt but... Are you out of your mind?
Spell slots are the main contribution of casters. For most casters you can nearly ignore the side abilities (besides Bard Compositions, I don't see a caster who's bringing anything strong next to its spell slot).So the first thing you have to check on a caster is its tradition and its ability to poach spells from other traditions. Then if it's Prepared or Spontaneous and its number of spell slots. And then you can look at their secondary class features. And finally their feats. Overall, your main contribution and your main differentiating feature is your tradition and way to prepare spells (even if I agree that 2 casters using the same tradition and both being Prepared or Spontaneous will play nearly the same, but it should be rather rare that such thing happens).
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Threads about weak Wizards never reach any consensus. It's highly campaign and player dependent.
I think the one thing this thread has proven is that even among the people who think wizards are weak, there's no consensus on what a strong but not OP wizard would look like.
People mostly don't like wizards being given limits on what they should be allowed to do, and what they are or are not good at, except everyone agrees "no healing". I have a thread where I asked people what they felt a wizard actually is, and I even explicitly asked what wizards should not be allowed to do, and many many many people ignored that aspect of the prompt and when I tried to get it out of people, not only was it like pulling teeth, but I had some people outright say wizards should get to do everything. A lot of this, as has been labored before, is because wizards used to be the only proper full spellcaster and picking a school of magic completely cut off access to two other schools making you specialize a bit more, but a given school of magic had more it could do to fill some gaps. Kind of a mess how the class was designed. There is a degree to which you can argue we should retire the term "wizard" so people stop projecting decades out of date ideas about game design onto the class... People want the wizard to be the best class in the game like it used to be, and if it isn't then it's weak, or feels weak to people
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Given the proliferation of class and ancestry features, archetypes, and consumables that reduce the need for a dedicated caster, things like Druid Order abilities, Psi Cantrips and amps, Bard Cantrips, and so on become the most important thing a casting class offers when comparing options. These, not their spell slots, become their unique contribution to the party. Wizard's features don't offer much except the ability to cast more spells, cast different spells, or cast spells differently—augmenting an almost completely unprotected niche—so wizard ends up feeling worse than every other caster in the game.Sorry to be so blunt but... Are you out of your mind?
Spell slots are the main contribution of casters. For most casters you can nearly ignore the side abilities (besides Bard Compositions, I don't see a caster who's bringing anything strong next to its spell slot).So the first thing you have to check on a caster is its tradition and its ability to poach spells from other traditions. Then if it's Prepared or Spontaneous and its number of spell slots. And then you can look at their secondary class features. And finally their feats. Overall, your main contribution and your main differentiating feature is your tradition and way to prepare spells (even if I agree that 2 casters using the same tradition and both being Prepared or Spontaneous will play nearly the same, but it should be rather rare that such thing happens).
It's not that spells aren't the primary contribution of a caster. It's that spells and spellcasters are more easily replaced than they've ever been, so they're proportionally less valuable. (Surely you're familiar with the amount of tables playing with no casters that're doing absolutely fine.) As a result, the things a caster brings besides their normal spell slots—especially repeatable actions that would be extremely costly or impossible to imitate by spending gold—matter a lot. Wizard falls flat in this department.
Think about Divine Font. Divine Font is strong because Heal is among the strongest and most consistently useful spells in the game for most of its run and it'd be incredibly expensive to imitate the feature for even a single day. The cost of scrolls of max level heal would rack up fast.
Think about Dirge of Doom. It's a like a one action, heightened fear spell that enemies always get a success on. It's absurdly strong, and it's even stronger with lingering composition. There's almost no way to replicate it, either.
The first listed Druid Order gives you an animal companion and an easy way to heal it. Many of the others have significantly stronger focus spells than anything wizard gets instead (like Untamed Form or Tempest Surge).
Psi Cantrips and amps are very strong, especially early.
None of these are "ignorable side abilities."
All these classes also can key off better stats than INT, which opens up more compelling stat allocations and gives you access to better skill actions.
Wizard gets... none of this. And it's in exchange for the largely unnecessary versatility of the arcane list (which somehow isn't versatile enough to have healing). Many of its better class feats and features seem to give it longevity by giving it extra spell slots in roundabout ways. This is supposed to be analogous to how other classes get strong focus spells, I think; both ensure you can function for the duration of the adventuring day without running dry. But they're often less effective in practice than just having a good focus spell, as they balanced the wizard's abilities against their silver bullet ceiling. The equivalent features from other classes don't have to be balanced that way. Even the best theses just give more spells, in effect, and they're likewise balanced against the ceilings of the abilities (which is absolutely wrecking encounters, in spell blending's case; or having enough uses of sure strike to use it every turn forever on significantly more useful staves than you would otherwise, for staff nexus wizard)—not the average outcome. And pretty much all the school powers are likewise weak because of the arcane power budget.
The burden of knowledge; the burden of the gp cost of learning a whole lot of spells; and the burden of the exceptionally cautious playstyle required to be an effective, versatile, and adaptable arcane caster able to reach this theoretical ceiling are too much in real play. When compared to a martial that smacks things, a cleric that is always useful in virtue of casting healbombs, a bard that can be useful just smashing courageous anthem, an occult witch mindlessly slamming evil eye or nudge fate every turn, and so on... a wizard's floor is abysmal, and their ceiling doesn't really feel like it justifies the floor.
The kicker to me? The arcane list only has 17 unique spells to it, and only 30 spells not on either the primal or occult list. Only a handful of those (particularly befuddle and contingency) are both common and notable. The occult list actually has both more unique spells and more notable unique spells. The variety of the arcane list doesn't buy you all that much in practice, because the ceiling is still so carefully managed, and you already can cast many of the strongest spells in the game on other lists. In my opinion, the arcane list may have better quantity, but it does not have sufficiently better quality than other lists to justify the power budget premium.
I think the one thing this thread has proven is that even among the people who think wizards are weak, there's no consensus on what a strong but not OP wizard would look like.
If I'm being honest with you, I don't know if there is one. The more I talk about it, the more I feel like I just want a class that doesn't allocate its power anything like the current wizard. I'd rather it be great at some things and weak at some things than this weird generalist that has a high theoretical ceiling that locks it into feeling bad to play in practice.
I don't really think wizard needs to be the most busted class to feel good. It should just do something unique and interesting, which... it doesn't, really, right now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not that spells aren't the primary contribution of a caster. It's that spells and spellcasters are more easily replaced than they've ever been, so they're proportionally less valuable.
Hard disagree. I nearly never cast a Focus Spell with my Sorcerer and I always forget about my Bloodmagic. I nearly never cast a Hex during combat with my Witch (but quite a lot outside combat as I play a Wild Witch). I sometimes use my Focus spells with my Oracles but I've played entire PFS adventures without casting a single one. And I've stopped playing my Psychic because its side abilities were not compensating the lack of spell slots.
Think about Divine Font. Divine Font is strong
All my casters have access to Heal (but the Psychic I've stopped playing) and I rarely cast it even twice in an adventuring day. So it's just 2 Heals, nothing impressive (and part of the reason why I consider the Cleric one of the worst caster in the game).
Think about Dirge of Doom.
6 levels. Outside these 6 levels, either the Bard doesn't have Dirge of Doom or anyone with a bit of Charisma can grab it. Hardly a defining feature for me.
Same for Psychic Amps that everyone poach here and there.
When I say that these side abilities are just side abilities, I mean it. Slotted spells are the actual strength of casters. And the Wizard having the highest number of them is also the epitome of specialized spellcaster. You want to blast the hell out of the enemies, a Wizard with Sorcerer Dedication for Dangerous Sorcery is one of the top damage dealers in the game once level 5, maybe even the highest. Sure, everyone can be a damage dealer, but I still think it's much more of a thing than Dirge of Doom and Divine Font combined.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to do one last post just to fully illustrate all the problems wt the wizard from PF1 to PF2 for why it feels so bad comparatively.
1. Skills: In PF1 the wizard was the undisputed best at intelligence based skills. Intelligence gave a huge number of skill points which allow the wizard to skill up lots of intelligence based skills like Spellcraft, various lores, while still tossing some into stealth or something else. The wizard was a big time skill class on par with the rogue.
Pf2 wizard has 2 plus intelligence starting skills, so ends up with about the same number of skills as everyone else.
On top of that skills are very easy to acquire at the trained level with feats, backgrounds, and ancestry feats.
In PF2 skill increases are king for skills. The wizard receives nothing for being the big brain. A rogue, investigator, or thaumaturge could have way more skills of use than the wizard could ever dream of, even more lore skills due to the number of skill feats the rogue and investigator get.
The investigator is the king of intel skills and very little stops the rogue from also being very good.
2. Arcane spell list reduced: Arcane spell list used to be the most varied list in terms of real power. Buffs, debuffs, it had nearly everything but healing. Now it is a non-combat utility and blasting list with very little unique on it.
3. Lower number of spell slots and less flexible with only a single thesis allow versatility when this used to be an innate class feature of the wizard.
4. Metamagic feats reduced in power: Metamagic was the bread and butter of the PF1 wizard. No one was better at using metamagic than the wizard when metamagic feats were powerful.
Now metamagic feats are fairly weak and not worth the action cost. The most powerful one is reach so you can use to not actually move, while Quicken Spell is 1 time per day ever.
5. Spell Proficiency completely uniform across all caster classes. There was a clear demarcation between 6 level casters and 9 level casters in PF1. That is gone and it clearly shows what happens when you make something like a bard a 10 rank spell class while giving them all their other stuff.
6. Creatures built with much stronger saves and a higher failure rate on spell slots. No way to build to really hit hard with spells. You just have to wait for high level. All classes are exactly the same.
7. Feats are not that great. Very few high impact feats that don't involve the expansion of other slots. No dipping in other lists.
8. Curriculum powers greatly reduced from PF1 school powers. Weak focus spells and no real innate advantage than an additional spell slot that has to be filled with a very limited selection of spells.
9. Item charges gone reduce the utility of wands and staves forcing every caster into scrolls for cheap, situational casting.
10. Short duration buffs and spells likely to last for one or maybe two battles.
11. Summoning reduced in power so that it slowly grows less and less effective the higher level you obtain.
12. Spell Substitution is now a thesis when this used to be a feature of all prepared casters by virtue of being able to leave spell slots open to fill them with spells once you figured out what was best. Now you take Spell Substitution or hope what you have locked in for the day will be enough.
The wizard was so thoroughly stripped on multiple levels from what it was in PF1 that power alone is not what it lost. It lost the ability to create interesting builds and be the scholarly caster that knew a great deal about many things without sacrificing about everything else useful to do so.
Every other caster was reduced in power as well, but at least they received interesting options for the loss of the power. The wizard kind of had everything taken from it but I guess the most spell slots. Then even as someone came up with a way to get the most level 10 slots to at least be powerful at level 20, Paizo designers stripped that away as well.
I'll stop there for this iteration of the "wizards are weak" discussion. But if it were only a few things, the wizard would be fine. But the hammer hit the wizard on so many levels that it's hard to believe people can't see how much it lost even when it comes to skills, versatile builds, and uniqueness. Power lost is not even the primary concern. Tt's not a very interesting or unique class to build any more.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
OK, you could replace a cleric with three other divine casters, probably.
Just one. There's no class that is so good that it needs multiple characters to replace it. PF2 is rather forgiving to weird party compositions.
It's not that spells aren't the primary contribution of a caster. It's that spells and spellcasters are more easily replaced than they've ever been, so they're proportionally less valuable.Hard disagree. I nearly never cast a Focus Spell with my Sorcerer and I always forget about my Bloodmagic. I nearly never cast a Hex during combat with my Witch (but quite a lot outside combat as I play a Wild Witch). I sometimes use my Focus spells with my Oracles but I've played entire PFS adventures without casting a single one. And I've stopped playing my Psychic because its side abilities were not compensating the lack of spell slots.
Think about Divine Font. Divine Font is strongAll my casters have access to Heal (but the Psychic I've stopped playing) and I rarely cast it even twice in an adventuring day. So it's just 2 Heals, nothing impressive (and part of the reason why I consider the Cleric one of the worst caster in the game).
Think about Dirge of Doom.6 levels. Outside these 6 levels, either the Bard doesn't have Dirge of Doom or anyone with a bit of Charisma can grab it. Hardly a defining feature for me.
Same for Psychic Amps that everyone poach here and there.
When I say that these side abilities are just side abilities, I mean it. Slotted spells are the actual strength of casters. And the Wizard having the highest number of them is also the epitome of specialized spellcaster. You want to blast the hell out of the enemies, a Wizard with Sorcerer Dedication for Dangerous Sorcery is one of the top damage dealers in the game once level 5, maybe even the highest. Sure, everyone can be a damage dealer, but I still think it's much more of a thing than Dirge of Doom and Divine Font combined.
Strong agree on the part of spellcasters relying primarily on slotted spells.
IMO the list goes (in order of most reliant on slotted spells to least): Wizard > Arcane/Primal Sorcerer > Druid > Arcane/Primal Witch > Occult/Divine Sorcerer > Cleric > Oracle > Occult/Divine Witch > Bard > Psychic > Summoner > Magus.
And just to be clear, every single class on the left of the Psychic on the list is still very budgeted around their slotted spells, like even a Bard derives 70-80% of their power from using slotted spells at the right time, all the way up to a Wizard is closer to 95-100%.
IMO the list goes (in order of most reliant on slotted spells to least): Wizard >...
I overall agree with you but I'm curious why you separate Witches and Sorcerers into 2 groups.
The reliance on spell slots is a reason why I don't put the Bard as high as everyone in the caster tier list. Their Compositions clash with their spellcasting ability every time you need to use one action to do something else as they are in general lasting one round and taking one action. The result being that you can't really maintain your Compositions active every round unless you give up on using a 2-action spell (which is worse than not having your Composition up).
I wonder if the reason the Bard is rated so high is that it's easy to get close to its top contribution when other casters (like the Wizard) ask for more skill to be mastered.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IMO the list goes (in order of most reliant on slotted spells to least): Wizard >...I overall agree with you but I'm curious why you separate Witches and Sorcerers into 2 groups.
Generally Occult/Divine casters have a greater reliance on class features, Feats, focus cantrips, and focus spells to generate their full value, slightly de-emphasizing their reliance on slotted spells. Compare the sheer potency of Resentment's familiar ability and Hex to something like Inscribed One's familiar ability and Hex. Compare Faith's Flamekeeer to Silence in Snow or Wilding Steward.
This isn't always true, to be clear: Mosquito and Ripple in the Deep have stronger than average Hex/familiar combinations, while Baba Yaga has a pretty bad combination, and Starless Shadow / Spinner of Threads are decent at best.
You can draw a similar set of comparisons for Sorcerers, with one small caveat that I forgot: they don't just get power from Blood Magic + focus spells, they also get a nice chunk of their power from Bloodline spells, which are slotted. So I think my rating of "Arcane/Primal Witch > Occult/Divine Sorcerer" should be reversed.
So yeah, I split them because I feel that generally an Arcane/Primal caster is assumed to derive more of their power from their spell lists than Occult/Divine casters do. Note that this has been somewhat confirmed by Sayre before here.
I wonder if the reason the Bard is rated so high is that it's easy to get close to its top contribution when other casters (like the Wizard) ask for more skill to be mastered.
Almost definitely. Both intuition and explicit statements from the designers tell us that players tend to consistently rate options with a forgiving skill floor as being some of the strongest options in the game. This tends to be doubly true in a well-balanced game because options with a forgiving floor tend to be given a lot of explicitly powerful options to offset the fact that the class's ceiling is lower than the other less forgiving class's. When two classes perform roughly equally at their peak (like say the Wizard and the Bard) but one performs higher at its floor (like Bard > Wizard) it creates the perception the high-floor one is a stronger class.
Generally Occult/Divine casters have a greater reliance on class features, Feats, focus cantrips, and focus spells to generate their full value, slightly de-emphasizing their reliance on slotted spells. Compare the sheer potency of Resentment's familiar ability and Hex to something like Inscribed One's familiar ability and Hex. Compare Faith's Flamekeeer to Silence in Snow or Wilding Steward.
I don't really agree but I don't think we could have a definite certainty on this question considering how the difference is small and variable from option to option.
Both intuition and explicit statements from the designers tell us that players tend to consistently rate options with a forgiving skill floor as being some of the strongest options in the game.
Yeah, I also agree. Hence the Fighter, Cleric and Bard being rated so high when I personally don't find them specifically impressive (especially the Cleric, the Bard's ok and the Fighter's strong).
Both intuition and explicit statements from the designers tell us that players tend to consistently rate options with a forgiving skill floor as being some of the strongest options in the game.Yeah, I also agree. Hence the Fighter, Cleric and Bard being rated so high when I personally don't find them specifically impressive (especially the Cleric, the Bard's ok and the Fighter's strong).
The Cleric is a particularly convincing example because Healing Font specifically has a party-wide impact on lowering the performance floor.
In PF2E, mitigating or avoiding damage generally tends to be more Action-efficient than healing it up, and then healing spells are usually massively numerically boosted to make sure that tempo loss is actually worth it in the first place. So to any party with a Cleric, every single slot in that Font corresponds to an extra crutch for another player playing closer to their respective class's floor.
If the Cleric's role as a Divine caster were replaced by, for example, a Battle Oracle who makes judicious use of Call to Arms and other more proactive mitigation options, and the party coordinates to ensure that the these options blank as much damage as possible, the party might actually end combats faster, just because it is more efficient to eat that damage with a Reaction as it happens than with 2-Actions on a future turn. It's just that there'd be less room for error in such a party, so the community at large views the Cleric as a significantly stronger option (I still think Clerics are stronger than Oracles for what it's worth, just the gap isn't as high as people imply it is. They're still both Divine casters with all the fundamental strengths and weaknesses of a Divine caster).
I still think Clerics are stronger than Oracles for what it's worth
I consider the Life Oracle as a better choice than a Cleric for a healer, but I agree it's significantly harder to play.
I put the Cleric at the top of casters before level 5 but then at the bottom of it. 3-slot prepared Divine caster with limited ability to get spells from other spell lists is at the bottom of what casters can do.
Think about Dirge of Doom. It's a like a one action, heightened fear spell that enemies always get a success on. It's absurdly strong, and it's even stronger with lingering composition. There's almost no way to replicate it, either.
-snip-
Wizard gets... none of this.
Well this one wizard quite literally gets with Spiral of Horrors, which is nearly identical and combined with the later feat that allows you to sustain as a free action it's inarguably better
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Before today's Strength of Thousands game session I asked the player of the wizard Idris why she chose to play a wizard this campaign. She said that her primary reason was that in our last full campaign, she had played a sorcerer. The only time she would look over new spells for her sorcerer was upon leveling up. Then she was limited to her character's spell repertoire and the other spells did not exist for her. She chose a wizard this time to be able to play with many different spells.
For example, last week in comment #78 I mentioned that Idris had cast Breadcrumbs and Thermal Remedy before the party entered a maze of tunnels. Breadcrumbs seems like a silly, niche spell, because it merely leaves a glittering trail behind the subject. But twice so far they have sent other people out of the maze with instructions to follow the glittering trail. Any optimized spontaneous spellcaster would have left Breadcrumbs out of their repertoire, but being useful twice is pretty good for a 1st-level spell.
Therefore, one strength of the wizard is that it lets the wizard experiment with many spells. Note that Idris is a student of the Magaambya Academy and does not have to pay to learn new common spells, so he gets to experiment more than most wizards.
I remember when I played a Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition cleric. That version of cleric had Spontaneous Casting, the ability to consume any prepared spell to cast Cure Wounds of the same level as the consumed spell. I never prepared Cure Wounds. Instead, I prepared a specialized spell that I probably would not need but would be very convenient if I did need it. Typically, I would convert it into Cure Wounds instead, but on a few occasions I used the prepared spell itself.
That gives me an idea for a spellshape feat for wizards that fits their class well and would let them experiment more with different spells.
Fundamental Spells Feat 2
Wizard, Spellshape
Requirements Spellbook
You know your fundamental spells so well that you can cast them without preparation. For every rank of spells you know, select a spell of that rank from your spellbook that takes 1 or 2 actions to cast to be your fundamental spell of that rank. During your daily preparations, you can change your choice of fundamental spells. You can use the Override Prepared Spell action.
Override Prepared Spell [One Action]
You replace a prepared spell with your fundamental spell of the same or lower rank. If you do not cast the fundamental spell this turn, then the spell slot reverts back to the prepared spell.
If that seems too flexible, we could instead make this a feature of their arcane school and use the curriculum spells instead of fundamental spells.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Note that Idris is a student of the Magaambya Academy and does not have to pay to learn new common spells, so he gets to experiment more than most wizards.Is this written down somewhere, or a rule you employed for your own game? I have a wizard in my own Strength of Thousands game and don't recall hearing about this rule. If it's true then I'll definitely be informing them this next session so they can retroactively fill their spellbook with some more goodies.
I made it up myself. But it feels natural.
Kindled Magic presents the Magaambya's customs, such as the service projects called the Perquisite, and introduces interesting friendly people, such as the other students in the dormitory, but it says very little about studying and classwork. The Life in the Academy system has downtime activities called Study, Cram, and Practical Research, but they merely earn points for advancement on the Branch Benefits by Level track. This system is good for players who want to focus on adventure, but my players want to roleplay being students who happen to be good at adventuring, too.
For example, they don't loot. That would be stealing.
But they did not take the +1 handwraps of mighty blows. Instead, they talked to their dorm mates and figured out which student had lost the handwraps. Then they approached her--she still visited Spire Dormitory to play board games with Okoro Obiyo--and offered them back. That student explained that she had made them in a Magical Crafting class out of materials provided by the Academy. She did not have a use for them, so the PCs could keep them. Thus, I talked the PCs into accepting the handwraps they had found.
Page 16 under "Student Supply Store" describes how each student receives a stipend of 4 gp at the start of every month and have 40 gp starting money. My players decided that they wanted to roleplay gaining student jobs to explain the 4 gp per month rather than it being an allowance from the village, family, teacher, or stranger who pays their tuition. But 4 gp per month is pretty small, and they passed up the 40 gp starting money.
Thus, I needed to cut back on the PCs' expenses. Their rooms and meals are already paid for, right? And the Archhorn Library has spellbooks for the students to study spells, and a campus library would not charge the student for access, right? Maybe some of that expense for learning new spells is the cost of the special ink required to scribe the spell in the spellbook, but I would rather skip the entire cost. And I am amused to see Idris played as a student enthusiastic about learning new spells. He spent hours most days in the library.
I also gave the Magaambya Academy a health clinic in Indigo Hall to patch up sick and injured students for free. The party can heal their hit points themselves, but Cara once caught the purple pox and Idris once caught malaria.
Getting back to the wizards-are-weak theme, some prepared casters--magus, witch, and wizard--have to learn and pay for adding non-level-up common spells to their spellbooks or familiar's memory and other prepared casters--cleric and druid--have access to all common spells of their tradition for free. Thus, the magus, witch, and wizard are barred from some of their spell list by a paywall.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with the Wizard hasn't changed since day 1.
Their USP, their cool factor, their "What I bring to the table over another caster" is that they can potentially have a marginally higher number of top level spell slots compared to some other casters, in some cases.
But that's not a class identity, it's not even a strong concept, especially when that identity can be either negligible or entirely non-existent when in the same party as a Sorcerer (Primal Evolution can negate the advantage of Arcane Bond for instance).
The only other USP the Wizard has is spell slot manipulation via either Spell Blending or Staff Nexus. Now I love excel as much as the anyone, I have a PhD and work with large data constantly these days. I wouldn't call moving cell values around a high fantasy concept. Spell slot manipulation could have been implemented in a really dynamic way, but its rigid structure and lack of ability to adjust outside of daily prep means that its ceiling value is limited by your encounters in any given day. Its floor value is also eroded by general access for everyone to suppliment spell slots via staves, scrolls, wands, spellhearts, etc.
The Wizard sits in a werid position where its only unique features can be negated, made irrelevant or trivialised by other players choices and the flow of an adventuring day.
The Wizard has other, related, problems in regards to their theme and their execution on that theme, but these are all generally connected.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
One last thing, I promise.
My feeling is the PF2 designers should construct the wizard like the PF1 wizard never existed or the power it had never exist wholly focused on creating a wizard that is fun to play without all the systemic advantages they had in PF1.
They should also give Spell Substitution to every prepared class so they can at least somewhat compete with spontaneous casters by being able to adjust spell slots as needed to make them more effective.
Get rid of Curriculum Spells. That is just an unnecessary limitation in a game where Sorcs have signature spells and 36 plus spells know. Sorcs no longer need a balance point against wizard spell versatility. Paizo was more than generous to the sorcerer with number of spells known and feat support to expand their repertoire. They need to be this generous to the wizard for straight number of slots given the wizard lacks signature spells, focus spells, and feat to expand the repertoire or use a higher slot for a lower level slot like level 3 slow as often as they have higher level slots even if not heightening it.
Give the curriculums some cool unique innate abilities like Bloodlines or Muses. Unique feats or just a straight up unique ability like Intense Spells. Bring some of that back.
Ok, ok, I'm done.
They should also give Spell Substitution to every prepared class so they can at least somewhat compete with spontaneous casters by being able to adjust spell slots as needed to make them more effective.
I think the big problem here is that the designers don’t actually view being a Prepared casters as failing to “at least somewhat compete with Spontaneous casters”. In fact I feel like they may even view it as being slightly stronger than Spontaneous because they restrict the Wizard’s fourth slot much more heavily than a Sorcerer’s (and Arcane Sorcerers exist so it’s not a case of Arcane vs less flexible lists either).
And the thing is, my experience does line up with that virw, and I know a lot of other players’ does (for example SwingRipper pretty explicitly stated that he considered Prepared as more useful than Spontaneous when building his 4-character optimized party example). What I’m guessing this means is that somewhere, somehow your table (and the section of the community you have most exposure to) plays in a way that causes the power to misalign with whatever the designers set as their point of choice for balance. Could be any number of things: playing high level more frequently than low level, GM generosity with gold, a bias towards a specific narrower subset of combat encounters, etc.
So if the Prepared/Spontaneous distinction continues to exist in future editions, I doubt Paizo is actually planning to buff the former. It feels like they are balancing Prepared casters at a point closer to their ceiling (and the ceiling is really high) while they balance Spontaneous casters closer to their “average” usage. If they make more drastic changes to spellcasting as a whole, then all these evaluations are off the table obviously, and that point they’ll balance it in context of whatever spellcasters actually look like in that world.
I will agree that the current implementation of schools/curriculums leaves a lot to be desired. I don’t even think it’s a power level thing (I think all schools except Boundary range between passably good to pretty strong), I just think it’s weird to give such small bespoke spell lists for what’s supposed to be the most flexible caster.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think spontaneous is just stronger than prepared by default in this edition; the primary advantage of prepared casters was out-of-combat encounters in older editions, and that's mostly been taken away or mitigated. Spontaneous has an infinitely higher performance floor if you just enter combats without preparing ahead of time and press buttons, and prepared's ceiling is not that much higher and requires much more work to achieve.
This would be okay if preparing weren't so table-dependent (both in terms of what other players are willing to tolerate and what the GM will allow). So maybe the real goal should be to bake in allowances that make preparing easier to raise the floor, while chopping off some of the ceiling.
For example, maybe the wizard's spellbook actually should have a limit on spells known that increases with level—higher than the sorcerer's, but not unreasonably high and extremely table dependent like it is now. Maybe in the long run, we should just remove the ability to buy and transcribe spells entirely and give wizard more spells learned per level, so we have a constant floor and ceiling on spells known to balance around. It's slaughtering sacred cows, but this edition has already slaughtered enough of them in the name of capping power ceilings that it may as well finish the job. It'd give room to increase wizard's power budget and make balancing wizard much easier.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the big problem here is that the designers don’t actually view being a Prepared casters as failing to “at least somewhat compete with Spontaneous casters”.
I'm not sure it's that true. The Cleric gets a significant boost of power with their Font when the Oracle... gets a mixed one. The Wizard gets both a Thesis and a School when the Sorcerer gets a Bloodline which is once again more mixed (as it sets a quarter of your Repertoire, which is definitely a drawback).
I think the developers consider Prepared casters need more love than Spontaneous ones, but I can't be sure.
Also, Prepared casters tend to fare better than Spontaneous ones if you focus on out of combat situations and Spontaneous fare much better during combat. Similarly, Prepared casters work fine during combat for extremely short adventuring days, roughly on par with Spontaneous casters in this case, but lose a lot when the adventuring days last longer. So the amount of campaign dependency certainly raises these different points of view.
I'd argue a Wizard's best trait is (shocking) versatility
Hard disagree. The Wizard is the epitome of the specialized caster. I can build you a Wizard blaster that will outdamage any competition as early as level 7, something much harder to achieve with other classes (even if the Sorcerer definitely competes).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Who is more spell generalized than the Wizard? Wizards have the freedom to do almost anything aside from healing. That seems pretty generalist to me, but this is an opinion battle I don't/won't get into. I would genuinely like to see how a Wizard blaster can beat ALL competition by level 7 though, please educate me, I would love to pass it on. I honestly am not trying to stir the pot, but I don't see anything to support that claim. Are Detonating Spell and Explosive Arrival, with Blending, enough to take the edge?
Just grab Fireball and Lightning Bolt, and Dangerous Sorcery from Sorcerer Dedication. I'd personally go for Flexible Spellcaster, too, as it's just so strong but if you absolutely want to keep the Prepared feeling you can just take Spell Penetration. And obviously Spell Blending and Battle Magic.
The secret is to cast a Fireball/Lightning Bolt every single round. Once you understand that slotted spells are cantrips when you have so many of them you get how it feels to just obliterate everything.
The issue most players have with casters is that they don't use their slotted spells. I easily cast 3 times more slotted spells than most players, hence why my casters are always the party main damage dealers.
As the Wizard has more top slotted spells than anyone else and as Prepared casting bars you from a versatile spell list if you want to be effective in combat, you end up with a massive specialist.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure it's that true. The Cleric gets a significant boost of power with their Font when the Oracle... gets a mixed one. The Wizard gets both a Thesis and a School when the Sorcerer gets a Bloodline which is once again more mixed (as it sets a quarter of your Repertoire, which is definitely a drawback).
While this is certainly a drawback, I think the flip side is that you need never cast a bloodline spell if you so chose, and you can select class options which add and augment Repertoire at least in someway across the board.
Contrast this with the Curriculum change, where a qaurter of your total spell slots are restricted to just whatever is in that Curriculum selection. To date, we haven't got a mechanical way to add or augment this outside of GM discretion - but GM discretion applies to literally everything anyway.
While this is certainly a drawback, I think the flip side is that you need never cast a bloodline spell if you so chose, and you can select class options which add and augment Repertoire at least in someway across the board.
Contrast this with the Curriculum change, where a qaurter of your total spell slots are restricted to just whatever is in that Curriculum selection. To date, we haven't got a mechanical way to add or augment this outside of GM discretion - but GM discretion applies to literally everything anyway.
As I said I can't say that it's true. But I still have the feeling the Wizard and Cleric have better class features than the Sorcerer and Oracle. But that's really just a comparison between the classes I choose to compare. Other classes, like the Bard, tend to disprove my point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say part of why the Wizard feels so bleh to many players is because their core identity is basically just "the arcane caster", much like how the Druid's identity can be summarized as "the primal caster". Conversely, the arcane list was expressly designed to be the Wizard's spell list, eight legacy schools and all, just like how the primal list was designed around the Druid. However, whereas at least the Druid has some solid stats and some meaty focus spells, the Wizard is all about casting spells, so you really have to love the arcane list to get into the class. In a different world where the Wizard didn't have that kind of baggage, and were balanced around a much slimmer spell list, the class would have a much bigger budget for standout class features, and there'd be room for more arcane classes to boot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say part of why the Wizard feels so bleh to many players is because their core identity is basically just "the arcane caster", much like how the Druid's identity can be summarized as "the primal caster". Conversely, the arcane list was expressly designed to be the Wizard's spell list, eight legacy schools and all, just like how the primal list was designed around the Druid. However, whereas at least the Druid has some solid stats and some meaty focus spells, the Wizard is all about casting spells, so you really have to love the arcane list to get into the class. In a different world where the Wizard didn't have that kind of baggage, and were balanced around a much slimmer spell list, the class would have a much bigger budget for standout class features, and there'd be room for more arcane classes to boot.
Yeah. I mean, at least druid gets to cover "guy with an animal companion who casts nature spells" and "guy who turns into an animal and casts nature spells." Those are pretty obvious fantasies to pick the class for.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Who is more spell generalized than the Wizard? Wizards have the freedom to do almost anything aside from healing. That seems pretty generalist to me, but this is an opinion battle I don't/won't get into. I would genuinely like to see how a Wizard blaster can beat ALL competition by level 7 though, please educate me, I would love to pass it on. I honestly am not trying to stir the pot, but I don't see anything to support that claim. Are Detonating Spell and Explosive Arrival, with Blending, enough to take the edge?Just grab Fireball and Lightning Bolt, and Dangerous Sorcery from Sorcerer Dedication. I'd personally go for Flexible Spellcaster, too, as it's just so strong but if you absolutely want to keep the Prepared feeling you can just take Spell Penetration. And obviously Spell Blending and Battle Magic.
The secret is to cast a Fireball/Lightning Bolt every single round. Once you understand that slotted spells are cantrips when you have so many of them you get how it feels to just obliterate everything.
The issue most players have with casters is that they don't use their slotted spells. I easily cast 3 times more slotted spells than most players, hence why my casters are always the party main damage dealers.
As the Wizard has more top slotted spells than anyone else and as Prepared casting bars you from a versatile spell list if you want to be effective in combat, you end up with a massive specialist.
Maybe this is the part of the felling about the Wizard feels weaker.
This is a build developed with focus to make the wizard an efficient blaster. As a level 7+ caster you sacrifices the 2 top-2 and 2 top -3 to get one extra top and top-1 slot, then you take flexible spellcasting archetype sacrificing one extra slot per rank (technically becoming with 2 ranks with the school slot only or nothing you are universalist due the spell blending) to goes away from prepared caster limitations + 2 more feats to take a lvl 1 feats from sorcerer (and get some extra cantrips as bonuses) in order to make your Wizard finally works good as blaster only.
Most casters are already good in normal conditions and I know that's nothing wrong in use archetypes to complete or improve a character capabilities but when you need to do all this build adjustments to make a class to work good maybe this is a tip that the things is not working so well with that class.
I think a ton of the hate does boil down to the fact that the PF2 wizard is the Queen of downtime and out of combat narrative power, just like they’ve always been, just at a slightly lower level than in PF1 ( and many effects coming on line later). But they are still good in combat, especially at higher level, and probably better at combat than in PF1 at low to middle levels. I wonder how many players who think wizards are weak in combat ever got to the point they were casting power word spells with their third actions?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think a ton of the hate does boil down to the fact that the PF2 wizard is the Queen of downtime and out of combat narrative power
It will exactly the same any other prepared caster. When you're in pure narrative mode, things like spells per day or resource use don't really have a meaningful cash out.
I wonder how many players who think wizards are weak in combat ever got to the point they were casting power word spells with their third actions?
Both Power Word spells and 3rd actions being unique to Wizards are they?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most casters are already good in normal conditions and I know that's nothing wrong in use archetypes to complete or improve a character capabilities but when you need to do all this build adjustments to make a class to work good maybe this is a tip that the things is not working so well with that class.
The Wizard is harder to play well, I agree. Bard and Cleric are notorious high floor casters. The Wizard is a low floor high ceiling caster: It can make nearly anyone cry but you need to know how to do it, and that's not trivial.
I wonder how many players who think wizards are weak in combat ever got to the point they were casting power word spells with their third actions?
I think it's the worst message to give. The Wizard is fine right from level 5. Before, like all casters (especially those with no access to Heal) it's a bit harder. But from level 5 on you should have fun with your Wizard, even if you don't care about downtime and out of combat narrative power.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, Prepared casters tend to fare better than Spontaneous ones if you focus on out of combat situations and Spontaneous fare much better during combat. Similarly, Prepared casters work fine during combat for extremely short adventuring days, roughly on par with Spontaneous casters in this case, but lose a lot when the adventuring days last longer. So the amount of campaign dependency certainly raises these different points of view.
Most definitely.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My point about the power word spells is that they are really good 1 action spells that are unique to the arcane list and play well with “have the most top level slots.” Getting more spells like that into the game (and have some start at lower levels) could also help alleviate that “oh no! 3rd action?” Pain. They probably can just be flatly incapacitation effects instead of tiered by level effects to get away from the D&D vibe of them. Incap and 1 action alone would make them very differentiated mechanically from anything D&D.