| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, if the wizard were a PC2 class and the sorcerer a PC1 class, I think the stakes of the whole conversation would be different. It is ok for wizards to be the strongest NPC class, and have a little less obvious “PC power” energy if they are not being featured as one of the core casters of the game.
| 3 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.
Perhaps I'm missing something, but with this whole "the point isn't being versatile" and "take flexible spellcasting (which reduces your slots) and spell blending (to make up for it) and poach sorcerer feats" angle, I feel like you're accidentally showing us why we should just play a sorcerer instead...?
| 2 people 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.
I think part of this comes down to how in the original design of PF2 the Arcane List needed to be "greedier" than the other lists, since it needed enough spells of each level to serve 8 different school specialists. Being that this was unique to the arcane list (none of the other traditions have casters that demand this much breadth) this probably makes "has access to the arcane list" part of the power budget of the Wizard.
Except that this doesn't really factor into the Arcane Witch or Sorcerer, but it probably was part of the foundational design of the Wizard.
Anyway, this means there's hope going forward into the next edition, where the Arcane list can be streamlined (just focus on mental and material essence) and the Wizard can get more stuff.
Perhaps I'm missing something, but with this whole "the point isn't being versatile" and "take flexible spellcasting (which reduces your slots) and spell blending (to make up for it) and poach sorcerer feats" angle, I feel like you're accidentally showing us why we should just play a sorcerer instead...?
Flexible Spellcasting gives you both Prepared and Spontaneous benefits. Similarly, this build really forgets about low level spells to focus on top level spells and ends up with more top spells than the Sorcerer. And the Wizard is an Intelligence based character while the Sorcerer isn't.
And finally, one of the best piece of advice I'd give if you want a maxed out Sorcerer... is to grab Wizard Dedication for Spell Penetration and Conceal Spell.
Now, the Sorcerer is overall easier to play than the Wizard. So I agree one of my most basic piece of advice to someone who struggles with a Wizard is to play a Sorcerer, the same way I'd tell beginners to play Fighter. It doesn't have to do with the strength of the class but with its simplicity.
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.
Agreed. There’s no reason to focus on super high levels.
In fact I think Wizards start off pretty good right at level 3 now, as of the Remaster. Thunderstrike, Dehydrate, Floating Flame, Acid Grip, and Entangling Flora did a lot to patch up their previously lacklustre performance at these levels, and remember level 3 is still a level where cantrips are going to be relevant sustained damage rather than poke damage filler.
It’s really just levels 1-2 that are a struggle and tbh I feel like a lot of characters struggle at those levels. I feel like if you’re not a melee Fighter, Barbarian, Cleric, or Magus, those levels can just suck.
Except that this doesn't really factor into the Aracane Witch or Sorcerer, but it probably was part of the foundational design of the Wizard.
I do think you're right in general; in this particular case I think arcane spontaneous casters tend to be okay because they can't change their spell loadout each day, whereas Witches lack that extra spell slot per rank and thus heavily rely on their hexes and unique familiar abilities to do well, which is why the Resentment is strong, Faith's Flamekeeper is good, and the rest still kind of flounder. The Wizard has the flexibility of being able to prepare the largest amount of spells from the biggest spell list in the game, which is why there are so many mechanics in their design aimed at reining that in somewhat, namely their spellbook and their curriculum.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps I'm missing something, but with this whole "the point isn't being versatile" and "take flexible spellcasting (which reduces your slots) and spell blending (to make up for it) and poach sorcerer feats" angle, I feel like you're accidentally showing us why we should just play a sorcerer instead...?Flexible Spellcasting gives you both Prepared and Spontaneous benefits. Similarly, this build really forgets about low level spells to focus on top level spells and ends up with more top spells than the Sorcerer. And the Wizard is an Intelligence based character while the Sorcerer isn't.
And finally, one of the best piece of advice I'd give if you want a maxed out Sorcerer... is to grab Wizard Dedication for Spell Penetration and Conceal Spell.
Now, the Sorcerer is overall easier to play than the Wizard. So I agree one of my most basic piece of advice to someone who struggles with a Wizard is to play a Sorcerer, the same way I'd tell beginners to play Fighter. It doesn't have to do with the strength of the class but with its simplicity.
Maybe I'm misreading, but Spell Blending seems to say you can only have one bonus spell slot of a given rank from spell blending. Since you give up a slot for flexible spellcaster, isn't the slot advantage the single use of drain bonded item, which is restricted to spells you've previously cast?
This also means that, since you took flexible caster, and are eating spell slots to spell blend, every other level of spells is significantly worse off than a Sorc.
This seems like an awful lot of build hoops to jump through (rearranging your stats in a disadvantageous way to qualify for sorcerer dedication, taking an archetype that eats your second level feat and delays your ability to take said dedication, taking a dedication in a spellcasting class you will have poor DCs in...) for a single spell slot that eats two slots a level or two below it.
You do have the benefit of the versatility of being a prepared caster, but you yourself have repeatedly said that's not the point. So all I see here is that you
-lose feats on flex caster and sorc dedication, as the sorc dedication is primarily for Dangerous Magic and nothing else, and won't even get you spell slots/cantrips with a good DC
-go into sorc dedication later than desirable because of flex caster
-take more hits and crits (-1 AC over having 16 DEX)
-fail more saves (-1 to Reflex and -1 to either Fort or Will)
-are worse at using a ranged weapon (-1 to DEX)
-are worse at skills you might take (-1 to DEX skills and possibly -1 to WIS skills)
-can take CHA skills instead I guess at your +2 CHA, which isn't /insignificant/ because those have good actions attached. I'm unsure it's worth the price, but it's something
Meanwhile, you could just... be a sorcerer, have a good stat allocation that won't cause these issues, be great at CHA skills instead of mediocre at them, and so on. Perhaps I am undervaluing this singular spell slot, but if you REALLY don't value the versatility of prepared casting, this all strikes me as a high price to pay.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Flamekeeper is good, and the rest still kind of flounder. The Wizard has the flexibility of being able to prepare the largest amount of spells from the biggest spell list in the game
I would argue that this is no longer actually true.
Presently have as much flexibility as any 3 slot prepared caster. The old school slot, while technically a limited slot, was generally expansive enough that you almost always had something you actually wanted.
Now days the Wizard has a bonus spell slot, but its only one of about 18 options at base. So the legacy assumption of them being the most versatile isn't really true like it used to be. It might still be true in a strict technical sense, but its value has dropped dramatically.
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...
How can they view it this way when they gave feats to the arcane sorcerer the ability to change a spell per day and 36 to 45 spells and signature spells and upcasting?
And the bard polymath feats allow them to treat the occult list like the wizard treats the arcane list.
How do you claim prepared is better when you're letting arcane sorcs change out spells with a spellbook and downtime training from across four list and the bard polymath feats basically turn the bard into a spontaneous occult wizard who can eventually access every spell list on top of powerful bard songs?
How does a designer who makes this game not see the problem with this?
Now days the Wizard has a bonus spell slot, but its only one of about 18 options at base. So the legacy assumption of them being the most versatile isn't really true like it used to be. It might still be true in a strict technical sense, but its value has dropped dramatically.
I mean, it is still true that they're the most versatile prepared caster around, I do agree with you though that this versatility has been reduced significantly by being limited to a much smaller selection of spells on the fourth slot, as opposed to an entire legacy school. You technically have the option to ask your GM to add more spells to your curriculum, but I don't think that can really be counted on as a way of adjusting the class's balance.
I wonder what could be done to make the Wizard feel a bit better for players who feel the class lacks something. Perhaps their advanced school spell could be unlocked automatically instead of needing a feat, or the class could add more spells to their spellbook at each level, but beyond that I'm struggling to think of mechanical adjustments that would improve the class while remaining simple to enact.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a shame they didn't key the bonus spells off of traits.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a shame they didn't key the bonus spells off of traits.
Honestly, they should have done something else entirely and given the wizard four slots they can use for whatever
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Im going to take a maybe unpopular stance here.
The wizard schools of the remaster are good and Wizards are actually a good class.
You get to pick a theme for your wizard not a spell category like it used to be. The spells in the theme give more breadth than just I cast illusions. The you have 3 slots to do whatever you want with and can drain bonded item for more uses of what you prepared.
Being a wizard rewards the player that knows what to expect and picks spells to counter it. It is also the class with good int so they can do well with a good number of skills to help know whats ahead. The limiting factor for preparing is knowing. And a player cant know anything more than what a GM has prepared in game or wings it on. So really in my view wizards are only as bad as a GM makes them. Since you cant separate being prepared and the value of skills and skills are always subject to how a GM runs the game Wizards are subject to how the GM runs the game.
Treating what skills do out of combat as separate from encounters weakens wizards.
Example
Upcoming encounter: the party identified the lair of a troll that has been terrorizing a nearby settlement.
Obvious stuff is going to be asking for a description of the creature from the town. Maybe the towns guards cut off a limb and have it still. Examining it would let the wizard RK and have an early chance to know what kind of troll it is.
Not only is foreshadowing just a good practice for story telling it also allows the wizard to actually use their abilities. If the game detail isnt there, theres nothing to know ahead of time then the wizard is going to be unprepared and weak.
They get benefit from the rest of the party too. The players scouting help them as most have pointed out, but so do the players gathering info, and other RKers in the group with wisdom skills. This is kind of like the party buffing the fighter, before combat the party can help the wizard be better for the fight to come by helping them know whats to come.
Also having varied challenges in your game makes wizards better to have around. The more the game expects players to do more than kill something the more benefit it will be to have a large list of spells that do more than kill things.
GMs also have a responsibility to determine when a spell can do something or interact in a way that is not RAW but makes sense to allow and doesn't cheese the game experience up. This applies to all spellcasting but more so to the caster with the largest list.
I could come up with more examples but im lazy.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Im going to take a maybe unpopular stance here.
The wizard schools of the remaster are good and Wizards are actually a good class.You get to pick a theme for your wizard not a spell category like it used to be. The spells in the theme give more breadth than just I cast illusions. The you have 3 slots to do whatever you want with and can drain bonded item for more uses of what you prepared.
So I *really* liked the old spell schools, so I think the new schools are a big downgrade. I especially liked the way forbidden schools work, because they encouraged tradeoffs, and I'm a "creativity is dictated by limitations" person.
That said, the new schools aren't bad in *concept*, just in execution. The main problem with the new schools is that there aren't enough spells in them -- Wizard was balanced around specialist schools with more breadth than the current ones, so the new ones just seem too constrained. Ideally they would have about double the current number of spells in them.
There also need to be a lot more of them to choose from so that you are more likely to choose a school that speaks to your concept. But that's a temporary problem. I have every confidence that they will continue to create more schools and that eventually there will be enough. We're just not there yet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I think I get that Bidi is going absolutely all-in on making spells do maximal damage, I do agree with you on this one.
As soon as you start talking Dedications and extra Feats, you have to think about what else one could be taking instead. Getting tiny scraps of more damage often pales in value compared against what you can get to round out your PC in other departments, like defense.
And Sorc being CHA really is a point in its favor over Wiz once you start looking at those options. Even choices like going Thaum to get Amulet's Reaction is an example of something very useful, but not blaster-focused.
Even Thaum's free daily talismans is a crazy underrated Feat.
Going all-in on spellslots and spell damage is IMO the definition of tunnel-vision.
=====
And after hearing all the build requirements for Bidi's recommended Wiz, as crazy as it sounds, I think I'd rather take/recommend a Witch Dedication. So long as one is not laser-focused on doing the biggest damage number, it has a whole lot of appeal.
Unlike most temp item per day Feats, Cauldron scales to meet the PC level, not Level/2. That makes it super appealing for a Dedication Feat, as by L8 you are at least getting a "unique spellslot" that is a 1 Action Haste in a bottle per day. Not sure what Spell R one would place a 1 A Haste at, but it certainly is a few Rs higher than the 2 A version.
Witch also has a good selection of Focus Spells, and I can imagine a Wiz would especially have their sights set on Cackle.
It would take thoughtful use, but I am having a very, very hard time imagining that a small passive dmg boost Feat like Dangerous Sorcery can get close to the damage provided from one Cackle Sustain per combat.
A free action Sustain is kinda the goat use of Focus Points to deal more spell damage. Cackle is just nuts as soon as you scale up a sustain damage spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You get to pick a theme for your wizard not a spell category like it used to be. The spells in the theme give more breadth than just I cast illusions.
4 out of the 6 new schools appeal to me. The new focus spells are better.That seems pretty good.
However I prefer the old schools as it is better based in the mechanics. It was never just about a tight school - illusionist always did a lot more thaan illusions. The new school themeing is OK I just prefer the original.
Maybe I'm misreading
I won't accuse you of bad faith because I don't think you realize it but your post is completely buyist.
You bring skills. Well, first, every character has the exact same number of attribute boost. So the Wizard is actually the winner as it is Trained in 2 more skills.
You also completely forget the +4 to Intelligence: That's a very good reason to play a Wizard over a Sorcerer, because you want to be the nerdy guy and not the chatty guy.
Perhaps I am undervaluing this singular spell slot
1-2. Nice thing to forget, this Wizard actually has nearly 50% more top spell slots compared to a Sorcerer. I do think you're undervaluing them.
if you REALLY don't value the versatility of prepared casting
That's not what I said. I don't value Prepared casting compared to Spontaneous casting. But if I can get both of them, I take them. It's definitely an asset.
lose feats on flex caster and sorc dedication, as the sorc dedication is primarily for Dangerous Magic and nothing else, and won't even get you spell slots/cantrips with a good DC
The Sorcerer will need Wizard Dedication at some point to get Spell Penetration as high level enemies have nearly all a bonus to saves against spells.
Nothing strange in there: the 2 spell slot based casters have the best feats for spell slot based casters.Meanwhile, you could just... be a sorcerer
No. It's the other way around: If you want to play a dedicated blaster, this is the build you want, not a Sorcerer. Now, I don't say the Sorcerer doesn't have some assets, but +1 to AC during 4 levels is hardly a selling one to me.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The reason you don't want to make "pure blaster" or "pure smasher" a good thing to have in the party is that those characters are inherently boring whenever the task at hand does not involve blasting or smashing.
... Isn't fun something that should be on the person playing the character to judge?
... also it feels weird to throw in "pure smasher" there because that's how a lot of barbarians and fighters end up, on purpose.
They can still prepare every other type of spell.
This argument never really made sense to me. IF you're casting blasts from all your good slots, then no you're not preparing other types of spells, by definition. You might at some time in the future, in a different scenario entirely, but then you aren't a blaster either.
"X spell has to be bad because you could have prepared Y spell which is good instead" just makes zero sense, but it comes up constantly. I've even seem developers echo it.
Like if preparing a certain type of spell is a bad idea and you should be preparing something else, that's not serving some high concept purpose that's just bad balance.
This is a direct result of PF2E's design principles.
I don't really agree. The PF1, 3.5, and even 5e Wizards are best played as obtuse and flavorless generalists too.
PF2's design principles at worst simply make it harder to bulldoze past the issue by stacking badly designed mechanics on top of each other.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Im going to take a maybe unpopular stance here.
The wizard schools of the remaster are good and Wizards are actually a good class.You get to pick a theme for your wizard not a spell category like it used to be. The spells in the theme give more breadth than just I cast illusions. The you have 3 slots to do whatever you want with and can drain bonded item for more uses of what you prepared.
Being a wizard rewards the player that knows what to expect and picks spells to counter it. It is also the class with good int so they can do well with a good number of skills to help know whats ahead. The limiting factor for preparing is knowing. And a player cant know anything more than what a GM has prepared in game or wings it on. So really in my view wizards are only as bad as a GM makes them. Since you cant separate being prepared and the value of skills and skills are always subject to how a GM runs the game Wizards are subject to how the GM runs the game.
Treating what skills do out of combat as separate from encounters weakens wizards.
Example
Upcoming encounter: the party identified the lair of a troll that has been terrorizing a nearby settlement.Obvious stuff is going to be asking for a description of the creature from the town. Maybe the towns guards cut off a limb and have it still. Examining it would let the wizard RK and have an early chance to know what kind of troll it is.
Not only is foreshadowing just a good practice for story telling it also allows the wizard to actually use their abilities. If the game detail isnt there, theres nothing to know ahead of time then the wizard is going to be unprepared and weak.
They get benefit from the rest of the party too. The players scouting help them as most have pointed out, but so do the players gathering info, and other RKers in the group with wisdom skills. This is kind of like the party buffing the fighter, before combat the party can help the wizard be better for the fight to come by helping them know whats to come.Also having...
All casters can cast spells. The wizard doesn't get special treatment by allowing the spells to just work to make the class seem more fun.
Every single class in PF2 should absolutely work regardless of the DM or how they adjudicate spells.
If the DM just let's stuff work, why not let the bard sing a song and charm the trolls because its should just work because the DM should let bards do what they do.
This attitude is incredibly unhelpful if this is what wizard players are relying on, basically DM fiat to make their characters work, boy that is going to vary immensely from table to table and there is zero reason this should not be applied to every class.
You don't get to just handwave the rules because you're playing a wizard and the DM being nice is what make them work.
That is not a well designed class if DM Fiat is what is necessary to make them on par with other classes.
Maybe I'm misreadingI won't accuse you of bad faith because I don't think you realize it but your post is completely buyist.
You bring skills. Well, first, every character has the exact same number of attribute boost. So the Wizard is actually the winner as it is Trained in 2 more skills.
You also completely forget the +4 to Intelligence: That's a very good reason to play a Wizard over a Sorcerer, because you want to be the nerdy guy and not the chatty guy.Perhaps I am undervaluing this singular spell slot1-2. Nice thing to forget, this Wizard actually has nearly 50% more top spell slots compared to a Sorcerer. I do think you're undervaluing them.
if you REALLY don't value the versatility of prepared castingThat's not what I said. I don't value Prepared casting compared to Spontaneous casting. But if I can get both of them, I take them. It's definitely an asset.
lose feats on flex caster and sorc dedication, as the sorc dedication is primarily for Dangerous Magic and nothing else, and won't even get you spell slots/cantrips with a good DCThe Sorcerer will need Wizard Dedication at some point to get Spell Penetration as high level enemies have nearly all a bonus to saves against spells.
Nothing strange in there: the 2 spell slot based casters have the best feats for spell slot based casters.Meanwhile, you could just... be a sorcererNo. It's the other way around: If you want to play a dedicated blaster, this is the build you want, not a Sorcerer. Now, I don't say the Sorcerer doesn't have some assets, but +1 to AC during 4 levels is hardly a selling one to me.
That's another thing a lot of folks don't realize. If you're playing Free Archetype or you just want to cast a lot, make a sorcerer for your battle spells and then take wizard Archetype for spells you want to change out. You get the best of both worlds while still having incredible spontaneous casting for battle.
I had one player who practically all he did with his feats was taking casting archetypes to stack up a huge number of slots. Battle casting with a spontaneous sorcerer and wizard and cleric for healing and utility spells.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
this Wizard actually has nearly 50% more top spell slots compared to a Sorcerer. I do think you're undervaluing them.
.
I would like to check your math on this.
If both are optimising for Max top-level spell slots, taking into account things like spell blending, evolution feats, Arcane bond, etc, a Wizard can have 1 more top level slot than a sorcerer.
To get that however, the Wizard has traded in more overall spells per day.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is not a well designed class if DM Fiat is what is necessary to make them on par with other classes.
Good design or bad design it's fundamental to how the Wizard is built. Its primary strength in spellcasting mechanics is being able to change out its options daily from a potentially broad lists, so a GM who makes that information hard to come by and/or limits the ability of the wizard to grab new spells is making them much worse in the process.
For better or worse, Paizo clearly doesn't mind designing classes that aren't going to be suitable for certain campaign types or are sensitive to GM considerations.
... So before you play a wizard it's important to check with your GM to see if it's going to be a wizard friendly campaign or not.
I would like to check your math on this.
If both are optimising for Max top-level spell slots, taking into account things like spell blending, evolution feats, Arcane bond, etc, a Wizard can have 1 more top level slot than a sorcerer.
To get that however, the Wizard has traded in more overall spells per day.
The example I was taking was a Spell Blending Flexible Battle Mage which has 5 top spell slots (2 + Spell Blending + Arcane Bond + Battle Magic).
An Arcane Sorcerer has 3-4 top spell slots and I don't see a way to get over that (or at least not at low level).| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So you're both right. 5 is 1 more than 4 and also "nearly 50% more" because 50% more would be 6.
So you're both right. 5 is 1 more than 4 and also "nearly 50% more" because 50% more would be 6.
1.5 is exactly 42.8% of 3.5. So it's not 1 and it's definitely nearly 50% more.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Traits would have been terribly limiting and just a transparent attempt to basically keep D&D schools of magic, but with the serial numbers filed off. Schools had to narratively walk away from being tied to some fundamental aspect of the magic itself and toward “this is a curated list chosen by wizards who make up this school.”
Past rank one spells, the difference between the new schools and the old ones (in terms of total number of possible spells) is actually not that big. I think the issue for many players is not as mechanical as folks tend to make it out to be, and usually more directly narratively focused. Either there isn’t yet schools that narratively do the player want, or the specific spell selection doesn’t quite fill every players vision for their character. I am pretty confident that more new schools that really narratively fit in the world of Golarion are going to alleviate a lot of the problems.
At the same time, and maybe as proof of this, there has been constant complaints since the start of PF2 that wizard schools didn’t go heavy enough into into school specialization and that this was the source of “wizards are bad.” But getting away from that was the decision made from that was clearly an attempt to move away from D&D from the start of the edition, not a remaster change. “School” as a relatively minor, and mostly narrative, choice a wizard makes, at most on par with thesis as far as defining the character, has been the intention since day 1. Getting a focus spell you will personally use is probably the most important contribution that school choice makes to a character, and the new remastered schools do a better job of this than the original ones. The schools determine 25% of your total spell slots” is really not as limiting in practice as it feels to a lot of players looking at their lists because if there is any school that doesn’t give you options that you feel good about heightening into your top 2 ranks, it really isn’t thematically the school that you think it is. Having one or first or second rank slot that is reduced to “this is a spell I will only ever situationally use at this point in my career” is not that big a deal (like under 10% of the spells you are likely to cast in a day) especially with how easy those spell slots are to replace with items.
I just don’t think folks narratively feel like “Mentalism” is as cool a theme as “illusion” or “battle magic” is as “evocation.” Getting new, uniquely Golarion themes opened up is going to get players much more excited. Like the Ars Grammatica theme is way better and more wizardly to me than either divination or abjuration was on its own, and it is a really easy school to feel satisfied with for me, because it delivers on its theme of being a researcher of the magic of language, which the old schools never had.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...Im going to take a maybe unpopular stance here.
The wizard schools of the remaster are good and Wizards are actually a good class.You get to pick a theme for your wizard not a spell category like it used to be. The spells in the theme give more breadth than just I cast illusions. The you have 3 slots to do whatever you want with and can drain bonded item for more uses of what you prepared.
Being a wizard rewards the player that knows what to expect and picks spells to counter it. It is also the class with good int so they can do well with a good number of skills to help know whats ahead. The limiting factor for preparing is knowing. And a player cant know anything more than what a GM has prepared in game or wings it on. So really in my view wizards are only as bad as a GM makes them. Since you cant separate being prepared and the value of skills and skills are always subject to how a GM runs the game Wizards are subject to how the GM runs the game.
Treating what skills do out of combat as separate from encounters weakens wizards.
Example
Upcoming encounter: the party identified the lair of a troll that has been terrorizing a nearby settlement.Obvious stuff is going to be asking for a description of the creature from the town. Maybe the towns guards cut off a limb and have it still. Examining it would let the wizard RK and have an early chance to know what kind of troll it is.
Not only is foreshadowing just a good practice for story telling it also allows the wizard to actually use their abilities. If the game detail isnt there, theres nothing to know ahead of time then the wizard is going to be unprepared and weak.
They get benefit from the rest of the party too. The players scouting help them as most have pointed out, but so do the players gathering info, and other RKers in the group with wisdom skills. This is kind of like the party buffing the fighter, before combat the party can help the wizard be better for the fight to come by helping them know
Yes, it is a situation that many here ignore or despise. But the wizard ended up becoming a class that depends a lot on the adventure and the GM to work a little better.
People argue that the wizard can become much more versatile by learning new spells, and using Spell Substitution as a band-aid, but they forget that this actually creates pressure on the GM and the adventure that cannot always be met.
You are not always close to a settlement of your level to have new spells available, and even if you are, a settlement is not necessarily a Final Fantasy city, and it is very likely that it does not have a Magic Shop selling "Fire 1, Ice 1 and Thunder 1". Instead, you'll have to look for the region's caster and convince it to teach you new spells that it spent its life studying, or hope that the city's shops sell the scrolls you want so you can buy them and copy them to your spellbook and then find a use for them or sell them for half the price, after all you don't necessarily want that spell as a scroll.
This often means extra stops for the party, for the GM to do side quests to do tasks so that the wizard who has a tower in that city agrees to teach you some of its spells, or for the GM to trivialize the availability of spells, or for it to have to do all the type of adjustments to the adventure to suit the fact that a player wanted to play wizard and that it wants to learn new spells frequently.
Or the most common, telling the player to chip away! It chose the wizard because it wanted to, there are many other options in the game for it to choose from and the GM has more to do.
Another common option that some slightly more benevolent GMs give is to allow the PC to invest in feats to learn the spell themselves, but they will also need Crafting, the Inventor skill feat and Magical Crafting feat to be able to learn the spell as if it were an alchemist's formula. But this is practically homebrew and I'm not accounting the extra money expense learning spells for a money that you already have to save to buy perma items and scrolls to use along the days.
And after all that, you will still be the person who will insist on the party to frequently stop, send some scout or magic with a similar effect ahead, to see if they will use your band-aid Spell Substitution to spend 10 minutes or more changing your magic to ensure its versatility.
This is why I agree with SuperBidi when he says that Spell Substitution and learning spells is a meme, and that it's probably much better to play the wizard with Spell Blending by preparing just a few all-rounder spells that you learned during the progression to take advantage of your higher spell ranks to blast your opponents with them or accept that in the end it's better to get a bard or a sorcerer and take advantage of the fact that you can make your spells more all-rounder as a signature and use the rest of the repertoire space to place spells circumstances and thus be able to choose which spell is best at the time.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This argument never really made sense to me. IF you're casting blasts from all your good slots, then no you're not preparing other types of spells, by definition. You might at some time in the future, in a different scenario entirely, but then you aren't a blaster either.
"X spell has to be bad because you could have prepared Y spell which is good instead" just makes zero sense, but it comes up constantly. I've even seem developers echo it.
Like if preparing a certain type of spell is a bad idea and you should be preparing something else, that's not serving some high concept purpose that's just bad balance.
I don't think the argument is "blasts are bad but you can prepare debuffs instead (which are good), so that makes this all OK". The argument is "we shouldn't use someone who is intentionally neglecting class features and allocated power budget as the baseline for a class comparison". Blasting spells are often good spells, but you'll definitely get more out of your spells in a generic encounter if you have something that can target all 4 defences (which is possible by some definitions of blasting, I guess) and a few buffs/debuffs. That's not because blasts are bad; if someone only prepared Fear in all their slots, I'd advise them to diversify their spell selection too. Arguing that you're only a blaster if you literally exclusively prepare only blasting spells is just unreasonable to me - if someone casts blasts 80% of the time, I think it's still reasonable to call them a blaster.
You don't need to balance a class against the most optimal play, but you do need to balance it against reasonably taking advantage of all of its features. Casters have paid a cost to get the versatility they have, and if all your spells are Ref-targeting damaging spells, you've paid that cost for no benefit. The work required to take advantage of that versatility definitely makes it more complex to reach that floor of "taking advantage of enough of your class budget that we're balancing around you" than martials, but it's possible for martials to not reach that standard too. If a barbarian wants to exclusively use daggers for their class concept, or a player really loves the idea of a fighter who is a guerrilla fighter from a swamp who uses a blowgun exclusively, they simply won't be performing at the level expected because they're not taking advantage of the power budget of their class. That's not to say these ideas, or a caster who only ever casts damaging Fire spells, is an invalid concept. A guerrilla with a blowgun is really interesting concept to me! But it would require a more specialised class to represent it in a way that's not wasting power budget. A support martial that debuffs through a wide variety of negative effects applied through the blowgun with a high class DC (I think that's similar to the biohacker in Starfinder now I think of it?) would be a cool class! But it's not reasonable to argue that the Fighter needs a buff because the blowgun-only build doesn't work for it. A caster needs to be judged against a standard that involves taking advantage of the very high degree of versatility that the class design affords them, else people who do take advantage of that would be far too powerful.
I do want to reiterate that I'm not saying that these character concepts are bad, and shouldn't be supported by the system - just that these classes can't do it. A class archetype of a wizard that significant reduced their versatility would be able to substantially increase the effectiveness of the role it is focused on. Fire kineticists are a nice example of an effective way to play a pure-fire offensive caster, but obviously are narratively different from a wizard. It's frustrating when your idea for a class has a narrative clash with the mechanics the class is built around, but the solution can't be to argue that this alone proves the class needs to be buffed if you're not taking advantage of the mechanics the class offers; it might just be the case that more specific options are required to make this work. From my perspective, this is a point of frustration with the PF2 casters - still the vast majority of them have the versatility built in as a significant factor of the class budget (mostly due to how the spell system works). I'd enjoy casters more if there was a greater degree of variety in the fundamental design of the mechanics, but I guess that's hard to do now without doing what Kineticist did and re-inventing the entire magic wheel.
A character choosing a school with uncommon spells is a conversation starter with a GM at session 0. No one should be surprised by level 9 what the GM is or isn’t going to allow. It is far better to have schools of magic that enable certain class fantasies relying on uncommon spells, and for GMs to say “that is a bad choice for this campaign,” than for a player to hit level X hoping to choose some uncommon spell and then be told no.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Wizard is designed to be the "Best Casting Class", since they are Prepared Casters (considered mechanically better) and have many ways of gaining spellslots (pretty strong)
In the end, Wizards share some large design directions with Rogue and Fighter, but they don't have something straightforward that puts them above.
What I mean is that the Fighter's "niche" is being "Best at combat", that's very generic (and outright problematic in my opinion), while Rogues are designed to be "Best at Skills". The reason why these two are not criticized like the Wizard is because they have have stacked chassis with stuff other classes simply don't get at all, like the Fighter's +2 accuracy, many strong feats and lots of class features that grant even more class feats while the Rogue's double skill feat, skill increases and high amount of basic skills make them the best skill monkey (even if not in all skills at once, the class can be the best in any direction they choose) without really sacrificing much combat prowess.
Wizards don't really have that. Their chassis are roughly similar to other casters (which means very barebones) and their feat selection isn't larger either (while Rogues and Fighters have a lot to choose from, and good stuff), all of that and they don't have a straight up upgrade to their class DC/Spell Attack like the Fighter.
All of the above is just to say that if Wizards had increased proficiency scaling on Class DC and Spell Attacks (similar to Fighters), nobody would complain. The discourse might be the other way around, even, calling out them for being "too strong".
So you're both right. 5 is 1 more than 4 and also "nearly 50% more" because 50% more would be 6.1.5 is exactly 42.8% of 3.5. So it's not 1 and it's definitely nearly 50% more.
This is only because SuperBidi want to make a real flexible wizard. But to build a blaster only wizard there's no need to take the archetype, allowing to have 6 top rank casts (3 + Spell Blending + Arcane Bond + Battle Magic) and 5 top-1 (3 + Spell Blending + Battle Magic) rank casts.
The Flexible Spellcasting archetype is there to allow more flexibility only at cost of some casts per day and when the wizard runs out of these slots it can use some scrolls to keep going up to find a safe haven to rest.
A character choosing a school with uncommon spells is a conversation starter with a GM at session 0. No one should be surprised by level 9 what the GM is or isn’t going to allow. It is far better to have schools of magic that enable certain class fantasies relying on uncommon spells, and for GMs to say “that is a bad choice for this campaign,” than for a player to hit level X hoping to choose some uncommon spell and then be told no.
I agree yet this just add another layer against the wizards what only helps the people coming here and say "wizards are weak" or "wizards are bad" or simply "wizards doesn't worth".
This is only because SuperBidi want to make a real flexible wizard. But to build a blaster only wizard there's no need to take the archetype, allowing to have 6 top rank casts (3 + Spell Blending + Arcane Bond + Battle Magic) and 5 top-1 (3 + Spell Blending + Battle Magic) rank casts.
The Flexible Spellcasting archetype is there to allow more flexibility only at cost of some casts per day and when the wizard runs out of these slots it can use some scrolls to keep going up to find a safe haven to rest.
Exactly. The Spell Blending Battle Mage has 10-11 spells of its 2 top ranks, which is enormous and supports the blaster fantasy completely.
The thing is that the Flexible Spellcaster Archetype is absolutely excellent with just one drawback: It significantly reduces your number of spell slot. But on a build that has so many spell slots and focuses mostly on top rank spells, the reduction is negligible (1 seventh of your 2 top ranks slots). The gain of versatility on the other hand is awesome.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
That would be fine if one or two schools had a plurality of uncommon spells and were marked uncommon themselves. Unfortunately, what we have is that 4 out of 6 of the schools (universalist doesn't count) have uncommon options, and none of those schools are marked uncommon themselves. Like I said, they've violated their own rules on how uncommon is to be used.
...
For the record, this happens with the extra spells that clerics get of some deities too.
But I agree with your complain.
The main felling I have with wizard's schools is that they was hastily and poorly written in order to make fast and easier solution due the old schools removal.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The main felling I have with wizard's schools is that they was hastily and poorly written in order to make fast and easier solution due the old schools removal.
Prior to the release of the remaster, there was a thread - either here or reddit, I forget which - where people were joking about the worst remaster takes.
The "joke", "terrible", answer that people had a good laugh at ended up being what we got.
The vast majority of focus spells are tagged uncommon as well. Sometimes the tag just means “requires a path to access.” Sometimes it means “this is a regional ability.” In all cases, “talk to your GM about uncommon options” is a very good piece of advice that doesn’t invalidate character options that include uncommon options. AGM that wants to limit specific uncommon options should know that they should work with the player to offer an alternative, not just say “you can’t choose that and get nothing instead.” And if they don’t, and they just say “you can pick that school but you can’t learn any of the uncommon spells,” then at least you as a player know the GM is incredibly restrictive from session 0 and you probably don’t want to play a wizard in their campaign anyway, as well as probably not any caster that is going to do anything more creative with their spells choices than cookie cutter, simple combat casting, healing, and basic buffing/debuffing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The whole idea of the wizard class in this style of RPG is that they manipulate reality altering magics that get more and more powerful as they level up. It is and always has been a class dependent on GM cooperation. It would massively fail to deliver if it was not a “be sure to talk to your GM about what you want to use magic to do” class, and that is not a weakness of the class.
...Im going to take a maybe unpopular stance here.
The wizard schools of the remaster are good and Wizards are actually a good class.You get to pick a theme for your wizard not a spell category like it used to be. The spells in the theme give more breadth than just I cast illusions. The you have 3 slots to do whatever you want with and can drain bonded item for more uses of what you prepared.
Being a wizard rewards the player that knows what to expect and picks spells to counter it. It is also the class with good int so they can do well with a good number of skills to help know whats ahead. The limiting factor for preparing is knowing. And a player cant know anything more than what a GM has prepared in game or wings it on. So really in my view wizards are only as bad as a GM makes them. Since you cant separate being prepared and the value of skills and skills are always subject to how a GM runs the game Wizards are subject to how the GM runs the game.
Treating what skills do out of combat as separate from encounters weakens wizards.
Example
Upcoming encounter: the party identified the lair of a troll that has been terrorizing a nearby settlement.Obvious stuff is going to be asking for a description of the creature from the town. Maybe the towns guards cut off a limb and have it still. Examining it would let the wizard RK and have an early chance to know what kind of troll it is.
Not only is foreshadowing just a good practice for story telling it also allows the wizard to actually use their abilities. If the game detail isnt there, theres nothing to know ahead of time then the wizard is going to be unprepared and weak.
They get benefit from the rest of the party too. The players scouting help them as most have pointed out, but so do the players gathering info, and other RKers in the group with wisdom skills. This is kind of like the party buffing the fighter, before combat the party can help the wizard be better for the fight to come by helping them know
I disagree here and put the rogue up as an example of the opposite in design.
A rogue is the best skill character in the game but even without using them to their fullest in a game designed for it they are also designed as one of the best damage dealers in the game.So a GM that makes a campaign with no traps, no locked chests or doors, all enemies with darkvision and extra senses, time limits prohibiting scouting, nothing to gain by gathering info because the game detail is not fleshed out, and downtime robot shopkeepers that just sell or buy at exactly this price then the rogue will still be fine because every encounter they still get to do their thing pretty well as long as the team helps them with flanks, grabs, and trips.
Wizards on the other hand rely on RK to play their find the best save game in combat so a game that is not fleshed out with detail, foreshadowing, and opportunities to know what to prepare even half the time is going to be a game where wizards will be weak. Without knowing what challenges the party must overcome they cant prepare niche spells to make them easier. So a wizard is stronger in a game where the GM has provided opportunities for all party members to contribute to what the party can know about everything to come.
I think you took more issue with the GM knowing when a spell has application outside RAW. I did specify that was something that helps all casters. It just helps wizards more because they can have more spells than anyone else. A GM doesnt have to do this. but a GM also doesnt have to allow a fighter to strike at most objects RAW. Allowing spell usage that is appropriate is kind of like allowing a fighters to do appropriate things with their weapons that are not spelled out RAW. That is what i mean.
An important thing to keep in mind is that spells often work in combination or have optimal scenarios.
Grease has to be considered for use in combination with Hydraulic Push, and Fireball has to be considered for use in a room full of leshies.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I won't accuse you of bad faith because I don't think you realize it but your post is completely buyist.
You bring skills. Well, first, every character has the exact same number of attribute boost. So the Wizard is actually the winner as it is Trained in 2 more skills.
Being trained in skills is fairly meaningless as the game goes on. Your success rate plummets relative to skills with investment, but you can only really have 2 or 3 skills with investment, depending on your level. It is nice early, though, sure.
In general, I would prefer to use CHA over INT. The skills associated with it are just better, and being trained in more skills doesn't matter that much if I don't have skill increases to spend on them and gold to spend on items to pump them as the game goes on. CHA is also a prereq for one of the actually useful general feats later on (the one that increases your attunement limit), is better for multiclass archetypes, and so on.
...Also, now that I think on it, you can just build your Sorc questionably and put some of your starting boosts into INT if you really want 2 more skills. There's nothing stopping you from sacrificing DEX and WIS here, too.
You also completely forget the +4 to Intelligence: That's a very good reason to play a Wizard over a Sorcerer, because you want to be the nerdy guy and not the chatty guy.
That's an RP reason, not a mechanical reason. I appreciate that reason, but I'm unsure it's relevant to this discussion.
1-2. Nice thing to forget, this Wizard actually has nearly 50% more top spell slots compared to a Sorcerer. I do think you're undervaluing them.
It is 2 on odd levels, yes; I tunnelvisioned past that, which was genuinely poor of me. Worth noting that by level 6 draconic arcane sorcs can pick up a blasting focus spell that's 1d6 off top slot equivalent damage, though.
Also worth noting that spell blending eats a significant portion of your lower slots as a flexible caster and reduces your third action/reaction economy when it begins to come online, an issue Sorc won't have.
That's not what I said. I don't value Prepared casting compared to Spontaneous casting. But if I can get both of them, I take them. It's definitely an asset.
Accepted.
The Sorcerer will need Wizard Dedication at some point to get Spell Penetration as high level enemies have nearly all a bonus to saves against spells.
Nothing strange in there: the 2 spell slot based casters have the best feats for spell slot based casters.
It's less than 25% (113/482) of enemies 15-25. It's 192/1058 for enemies 10 and above, and 275/2716 among all enemies. I have to admit that its raw occurrence rate on bestiary enemies isn't indicative of its presence in real games, because it's on some very common enemies like dragons and demons. But saying it's on nearly all enemies is a gross misrepresentation.
It's not a bad feat among what's available, and -1 is very strong when it comes up. But its value is somewhat campaign-dependent, and I'm unsure it's worth two feats. It -might- be worth using the level 9 human ancestry multiclass to go into Wizard, especially if you're aiuvarin and don't need to invest into INT.
No. It's the other way around: If you want to play a dedicated blaster, this is the build you want, not a Sorcerer. Now, I don't say the Sorcerer doesn't have some assets, but +1 to AC during 4 levels is hardly a selling one to me.
If frightened is so good that fear is one of the best spells available at early levels, I am not about to willingly take a -1 to AC and some saves when building a character that already gets the short end of the stick on defenses.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Playing a mentalist wizard in a campaign where mind reading was going to be denied flat out by the GM is not going to be fun. The same with teleporting and the Boundry school. These are exciting elements to the schools that either fit and will be fun, and be a special area of focus for the player to feel justified in accessing them, or they will not be fun characters to play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Wizard is designed to be the "Best Casting Class", since they are Prepared Casters (considered mechanically better) and have many ways of gaining spellslots (pretty strong)
In the end, Wizards share some large design directions with Rogue and Fighter, but they don't have something straightforward that puts them above.
What I mean is that the Fighter's "niche" is being "Best at combat", that's very generic (and outright problematic in my opinion), while Rogues are designed to be "Best at Skills". ...
I disagree. A major goal of Pathfinder 2nd Edition design is that the power of a character is predictable by level alone. A party with a 5th-level ranger is supposed to be as powerful if the ranger was swapped out for a fighter. A party with a 5th-level sorcerer is supposed to be as powerful if the sorcerer was swapped out for a wizard. Etc.
The "Best of" feature of each class is style. The wizard is best at preparing arcane spells. A magus or arcane witch also prepares arcane spells, but they have fewer spells and need other abilities to be equally powerful as a same-level wizard. On the other hand, an arcane sorcerer has roughly the same number of arcane spell slots, but those are spontaneously cast rather than prepared, so the style is different.
All of the above is just to say that if Wizards had increased proficiency scaling on Class DC and Spell Attacks (similar to Fighters), nobody would complain. The discourse might be the other way around, even, calling out them for being "too strong".
I would be one of the people complaining about too strong, because as a GM I appreciate the balance of PF2.
However, power predictiblity is not perfect because the players can increase the party's effectiveness through teamwork and tactics. The style of a class matters significantly for teamwork. A rogue as "Best at Skills" reserves some skills to enable their combat, such as Deception for Feint or Intimidation for Demoralize, but other skills, such as Stealth for scouting, aid the entire party. The Fighter is not simply "Best in Combat" (or "Most proficient in weapons" to be more accurate), but also trains in Athletics or Acrobatics. The Athletics enable combat maneuvers such as Tripping the enemy so that the rogue can attack an off-guard opponents and also enable exploration activities such as helping the non-swimming wizard cross a river without consuming spells.
If a wizard has to consume spell slots to accomplish anything, then the wizard would pay a high cost for teamwork. In my PF2-converted Ironfang Invasion campaign, the seven-member party sometimes needed to travel quickly. The primal sorcerer would conjure up Phantom Steeds/Marvelous Mounts for almost everyone, but that cost her four spell slots. Technically that weakened her for combat, though losing her 3rd-rank spell slots was not serious at 9th level and above. And it was only four spell slots because the champion could ride her velociraptor Divine Ally, the druid could ride her roc animal companion, and the monk could run fast without a mount. Those three classes had an ability that reduced the spell consumption of the sorcerer. And the druid's player outfoxed me in adopting the Fledgling Roc animal companion of an enemy ranger, but I went along with it and tweaked her Stormwind Flight focus spell so that she could use it to ride her roc for traveling distances. I wanted to reduce the party's reliance on Phantom Steeds.
What the wizard needs is a way to contribute to the team without spending slotted spells. In Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition and Pathfinder 1st Edition, the wizard was a master of Knowledge skills. The wizard had more skill points due to high Intelligence and that Intelligence also gave a bonus to Knowledge skills. Therefore, the wizard would make the Knowledge checks and call out the special attacks and defenses of unfamiliar creatures to warn the party. This fit the well-studied theme of the wizard, too.
PF2 changed that, because higher Intelligence gives more trained skills but not more expert or master skills, and the Recall Knowledge checks on Nature and Religion use Wisdom rather than Intelligence. One teamwork feature of the wizard was inadvertently nerfed.
That could be partially corrected by a feat.
Wise Knowledge Feat 1
Wizard
You becomes trained in Nature and Religion. For each of those in which you are already trained, you become trained in a skill of your choice instead. If you make a Recall Knowledge check in Hature or Religion, you can use your Intelligence modifier instead of your Wisdom modifier. You also add guidance to your spellbook as an arcane cantrip.
I'll just reiterate something:
I think the wizard is a good class and fine as is, but that doesn't mean I don't want to see a few improvements here or there.
I actually think Boundary has a good selection of spells for its lower ranks. My issue is with the focus spell that buffs summons. You're going to summon maybe... Once a day at low level? The point of a focus spell is to be an encounter power, you get to use it once ever combat right away, but this focus spell *requires* you expend a resource that is not tied to encounters to even use. Be it a daily resource in a spell slot, or a one time use item like a scroll. Summon spells being particularly bad choices for scrolls because they take 3 actions. It's not the buffing a summon is even necessarily bad, it's just an awful design for a focus spell. I don't have this issue with other wizard focus spells, frankly. Boundary is the coolest school and I think Spiral of Horrors is one of the best focus spells in the game anyways
My other thing is, I think the wizard needs two things, bonus feats maybe 2 or 3, and a lot more spellshape feats. Everyone should get some degree of spellshaping, but wizards should get the most and best ones with ways to use them more easily. The Psychic Amp "Warp Space" is a design I think could be a wizard spellshape, as an example.
Wizards get two subclasses, but I almost rather the schools get cut and the theses get boosted. I find those far more interesting and impactful, but idk how you incorporate focus spells into that. It's arguable that the theses should be put into the class itself as feats and the schools get juiced up. I don't see why a wizard can't spellblend, and pick up feats to do the staff nexus thing, or even pick up a feat at levels 1 or 2 for spell substition. I could easily see spell blending being some feat at levels 6-10, staff nexus at like 4, substition and metamagic at around 1-2. I also think a wizard school or thesis that trades the extra school slot for a divine font style feature that just has dispel magic in it and focuses on counter spelling being a thing
The wizard is fine, I do want it to have a bit more "tech" in the kit that makes it feel like a battlefield tactician. I think the wizard is kin with the thaumaturge and the up coming commander class. I think the wizard is the spellcasting answer to classes like those and I just wanna see some of this more present at lower levels
I would also say there is a world where instead of any of that they just give the wizard 4+1 instead 3+1 spell slots and call it a day. It's niche is now "I have five spell slots." Idk if that is far too much, but y'know
The Wizard is designed to be the "Best Casting Class", since they are Prepared Casters (considered mechanically better) and have many ways of gaining spellslots (pretty strong)
In the end, Wizards share some large design directions with Rogue and Fighter, but they don't have something straightforward that puts them above.
What I mean is that the Fighter's "niche" is being "Best at combat", that's very generic (and outright problematic in my opinion), while Rogues are designed to be "Best at Skills". ...
I disagree. A major goal of Pathfinder 2nd Edition design is that the power of a character is predictable by level alone. A party with a 5th-level ranger is supposed to be as powerful if the ranger was swapped out for a fighter. A party with a 5th-level sorcerer is supposed to be as powerful if the sorcerer was swapped out for a wizard. Etc.
The "Best of" feature of each class is style. The wizard is best at preparing arcane spells. A magus or arcane witch also prepares arcane spells, but they have fewer spells and need other abilities to be equally powerful as a same-level wizard. On the other hand, an arcane sorcerer has roughly the same number of arcane spell slots, but those are spontaneously cast rather than prepared, so the style is different.
All of the above is just to say that if Wizards had increased proficiency scaling on Class DC and Spell Attacks (similar to Fighters), nobody would complain. The discourse might be the other way around, even, calling out them for being "too strong".I would be one of the people complaining about too strong, because as a GM I appreciate the balance of PF2.
However, power predictiblity is not perfect because the players can increase the party's effectiveness through teamwork and tactics. The style of a class matters significantly for teamwork. A rogue as "Best at Skills" reserves some skills to enable their combat, such as Deception for Feint or Intimidation for Demoralize, but...
I don't like these core principles behind these classes either, since they engage with mechanical aspects of the game directly rather than than having strong themes and flavor that engage with mechanics indirectly. Granted, the Wizard received a significant improvement on the flavor aspect with their new Schools, but this doesn't permeate the class as a whole.
I don't like the idea that the Fighters are the "Best at combat", Rogues are "Best at skills" and Wizards are "Best at spells" either, but that's pretty much the core idea behind these classes. I was just pointing out that a lot of people ignore this inherent lack of flavor and problematic "niche" in Fighters and Rogues precisely because they get special treatment that makes them a cut above other classes, while the Wizard doesn't.
If Wizards had faster Spell proficiency progression or started out at Expert like Fighters, then people wouldn't complain half as much about the class. Maybe even just a blanket "+1 to Spell DCs and Spell Attacks" would silence a whole bunch of people.
My comment was more pointing out something I observed, rather than advocating for Wizards to gain better proficiency.
If anything, I think the class should gain buffs in the form of more flavorful feats that enhance the academic and studied angle to their spellcasting. Even bringing back the good old day of empty spell slots to be prepared during the day would open the class up quite a lot, which is a perfect Thesis design space, when you think about it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Being trained in skills is fairly meaningless as the game goes on. Your success rate plummets relative to skills with investment, but you can only really have 2 or 3 skills with investment, depending on your level. It is nice early, though, sure.
That simply isn't true. Success rates sky rocket as the game goes on.
It's just not often perceived that way since you're often confronted with greater challenges.
Scaling a DC 20 cliff at 1st-level can be quite difficult. Someone trained in Athletics and using the proper gear will likely make it to the top, whereas everyone else won't.
Ten levels later though? Everyone with any training in Athletics at all makes it to the top of that cliff, with or without gear. Only those without training still struggle (and even they can make it with Follow the Expert). And that's not even accounting for a host of additional options--like extreme jumping, flight, or teleportation--that can circumnavigate the obstacle altogether. The party's success rate is probably 100% or close to it, whereas it was maybe 50% for the party athlete.
There's no denying that things have become substantially easier for everyone involved.
By the time you get to 17th-level, you're probably not just scaling a traditional cliff though. You now find yourself scaling a mountain of tormented souls in the Outer Rifts. Souls that grab and bite at you as you climb, that try to throw you off, all while fiendish imps harry you from the toxic air, a demon lord tries to distract your by lashing his whip menacingly from high above, and acid rain pours down on your head making everything slippery and caustic. In this case, the DC is probably closer to 40, or even higher.
That still doesn't change the fact that you've long become a worlds-class climber that has a far higher chance of succeeding than you did at low levels. Success rates go up, never down. Challenges just get harder.
And that DOES matter, because you are likely going to be encountering many more mundane mountains than you are demon soul mounds in the Outer Rifts. There just aren't as many high level obstacles/tasks in this game as there are low level ones. If your GM is throwing the umpteenth soul mound at you, that's a GM staging problem, not a problem with the game itself.