| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a lifeboat thread from "4 years of PF 2: Wizards are weak."
I do understand the impression that PF2E wizards feel weak - when compared to the powerhouses they were in PF1E.
My question is, without changing the current rules, can the "wizard" be improved through better feat & spell selections?
If so, what should a prospective wizard do?
* - At character creation?
* - At low level? (say 1-3)
* - At moderate level? (4-7)
* - At middle level? (8-10)
and
* - At higher level? (11+)
I know that this will change depending on campaign, but I am hoping that some general guidance could help those players who are complaining of the Wizard's weakness.
Note: The Rules Lawyer's video is helpful, but I would like more discussion on this topic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have tried to optimize a wizard. So I'll tell you what I do with them.
They are an intelligence based class. So you want to focus on Crafting, Arcana, and Lore skills. Crafting so when you do get downtime, you can make magic items or scrolls for use. Arcana for feeling like you know Arcana and to set up for the level 15 feat Unified Theory, which is a good quality feat. I also pick up Magical Shorthand to make spell acquisition easier.
I prefer The School of Unified Magical Theory to gain more uses of Drain Bonded Item which you can build off for a sort of poor man's spontaneous casting.
My preferred Thesis is Spell Substitution as that provides the wizard the greatest flexibility.
I like Reach spell as a level 2 feat. Reach Spell is one of the best metamagic feats in the game.
Bond Conservation level 8 feat is a powerful feat with Unified Theory Curriculum, but takes more tedious tracking and planning for maximal use. It will grant you an extra use of Drain Bonded Item 2 levels lower, so when you do a Drain Bonded Item cascade, you have to plan it out well. So you will build blasting or buffing cascades to maximize use of this feat.
You want level 10 scroll adept for more free casting per day.
Level 14 Superior Bond to further leverage Drain Bonded item and Bond Conservation.
Level 16 effortless conservation.
Leve 18 Reprepare Spell. Blast off vision of death or level 4 fireball all day.
Level 20: Wizards have some of the best level 20 feats. So pick what you want.
Wizards hurt the most at low levels. If you can stand playing one to level 11 plus, you will mostly feel good playing one. They are fairly generic and boring with all power built off spell slots.
That's how I build wizards to operate well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know this is emant to be a wizard thing, but should archetypes be brought up? I know Alchemist is popular, and I was sorely tempted to try Cleric.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know this is emant to be a wizard thing, but should archetypes be brought up? I know Alchemist is popular, and I was sorely tempted to try Cleric.
Yes this was about the wizard class. If a class needs a Multiclass archetype to be strong, then the people saying that the wizard is too weak have proven their point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do wands staves and scrolls do more in general for wizards than spontaneous caster?
If they have advantages based on their interaction with these items then I would say they are important to mastering playing a wizard well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do wands staves and scrolls do more in general for wizards than spontaneous caster?
If they have advantages based on their interaction with these items then I would say they are important to mastering playing a wizard well.
Not really, no. They just extend casting.
Wizards have an easier time using crafting to make what they want with sufficient downtime. It makes it easier to construct items. You can make scrolls of what you need to have extended casting power. Lower level blasting spells become fairly cheap and you can use earn income without having to actually earn income to create magic items.
The actual items themselves operate the same for any type of caster that can use them.
Do wands staves and scrolls do more in general for wizards than spontaneous caster?
If they have advantages based on their interaction with these items then I would say they are important to mastering playing a wizard well.
Not really, no. They just extend casting.
Wizards have an easier time using crafting to make what they want with sufficient downtime. It makes it easier to construct items. You can make scrolls of what you need to have extended casting power. Lower level blasting spells become fairly cheap and you can use earn income without having to actually earn income to create magic items.
The actual items themselves operate the same for any type of caster that can use them.
But arent spontaneous casters limited to spells known where wizards can expand what they know and use any staff or wand they find?
And if they cover the bases of a reflex spell on a staff and a will spell on a wand then you can put spell attack and fort in your slots.Doesnt have to be that set up but I just mean that all bases get covered.
While a spontaneous caster is slightly more limited. they have to get those bases covered up front with spells known. they can always get more uses of those spells with wands and staves but they cant have as many different options available at once.
not to mention more damage type coverage can be achieved with wands and staves.
Is there no use to have so many different spells ready to go above and beyond the number a spontaneous caster can know?
I guess the advantage im getting at is
A wizard when given one more staff or wand or scroll just increased their options and casts per day, where as a spontaneous caster only able to use what they know and not learn more only gains more casts of what they know.
Unless I got something wrong this sounds like an advantage.
I understand the point youve made before that with a spontaneous caster you can learn all the core spells you need so maybe this advantage is not incredible, but it is a feature of these items wizards get more mileage out of.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
My biggest piece of advice for wizard players is to talk to you table and your GM in session 0 about why you want to play a wizard and make sure it gives with everyone else’s expectations for the game, or else you might end up bumping heads with others about the pace of exploring, the use of consumable resources, making down time for the party, and how much the use of things like illusions and summons is going to be able to do in exploration mode.
Wizards can be great for outside the box thinking to create interesting (and favorable) constraints for encounters, but they can also create frustration if other players don’t want to draw 3 lower difficulty encounters out into the open, or send some guards off on a chase that they are certain to return from in a couple of minutes.
Next, and also needing buy in from the GM and other players, if you want your offensive damage and debuff spells to really shine, you need to reliably identifying weakest saves. Critical fail results on spells are amazing and with a little bit of set up, you can even get some higher level enemies crit failing saves 10 to 20% of the time…but not if you are firing off spells randomly against good saves against creatures with no debuffs on them. Then those creatures might have a 25 to even 50% chance of critically succeeding their saves and your spell does nothing. Recall knowledge is great for figuring out what save to target, but even specialized recall knowledge characters will encounter creatures they don’t have the best chance of identifying, so if the party can spread those responsibilities around a little, with some characters even taking additional lore for common types if they have decent or better INT, then it doesn’t all have to rest on you to recall knowledge. This can also help martials figure out whether to trip, demoralize or grab an enemy too, so the benefits are not exclusively for you.
Getting affirmative buy in from the party about this stuff can make you feel really excited about playing a wizard and meeting stiff resistance to these ideas might be an indicator that a wizard is going to be a rough fit for this party.
Which is ok because wizards fill an interesting role in a party, but not one every party needs. They don’t tend to be a tank, an exclusive striker or buffer and are never going to be a healer. They are a problem solver and if the party doesn’t want to solve problems with guile and spells, then you might be better off picking a different class if there is one that interests you.
Do wands staves and scrolls do more in general for wizards than spontaneous caster?
If they have advantages based on their interaction with these items then I would say they are important to mastering playing a wizard well.
Not really, no. They just extend casting.
Wizards have an easier time using crafting to make what they want with sufficient downtime. It makes it easier to construct items. You can make scrolls of what you need to have extended casting power. Lower level blasting spells become fairly cheap and you can use earn income without having to actually earn income to create magic items.
The actual items themselves operate the same for any type of caster that can use them.
But arent spontaneous casters limited to spells known where wizards can expand what they know and use any staff or wand they find?
And if they cover the bases of a reflex spell on a staff and a will spell on a wand then you can put spell attack and fort in your slots.
Doesnt have to be that set up but I just mean that all bases get covered.
While a spontaneous caster is slightly more limited. they have to get those bases covered up front with spells known. they can always get more uses of those spells with wands and staves but they cant have as many different options available at once.
not to mention more damage type coverage can be achieved with wands and staves.Is there no use to have so many different spells ready to go above and beyond the number a spontaneous caster can know?
Not that I know. Any spell on their list unless you know a rule otherwise.
Items allow access to spells they would not normally have just like for wizards.
So no, spontaneous casters do not have that limitation.
Have you never played a spontaneous caster? Are you that guy that never plays this game and comments on it all the time but changed your alias? This comment indicates you have never played a caster because the rule it just has to be on your list has been there from day 1 of PF2 for scrolls, staves, and wands. How could you not know this?
If you want to see why the wizard or any prepared caster isn't as good as a spontaneous caster, you need to go over their options.
A sorcerer as an example can choose a single list, then up to 3 spells from any list. Add in feats and you further example options whether the Arcane sorcerer who has a spellbook to change out a single arcane spell at a time or add an extra signature spell. Occult Evolution which allows them to pick any spell with the mental trait as needed of any level to use for the day. Primal gets some max level summon. Divine gets a max level heal.
Then they have a feat at 16th level to expand their repertoire of spells known.
So at level 20, a sorcerer can end up with 47 spells know they can mix and match with their slots with signature spells of one per level. This creates an incredible matrix of possible spell combinations that are not preset.
Then they can pick up items to expand spells they may use occasionally in staves, wands, or scrolls.
The bard at level 20 is pretty insane, but it's only for one level when they can take any spell on any list and they are all signature spells.
Whereas a prepared caster gives the illusion of versatility, when they are locked into whatever spells they have prepared however number of times. If that spell doesn't get used, it just sits there on their list waiting to get changed out. I've seen prepared casters blow off their high value spells, then sit there with slots filled with spells that never find use. That's why Spell Substitution as a thesis for a wizard is so important so that the wizard never sits there at the end of an adventuring day with prepared spells they never used because the circumstances for their use never came up. Spontaneous casters never have this issue.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think if I were looking for quick, easy things to point out to help with playing a Wizard:
-A lot of your class feats are worse than archetyping. A lot of them. Even things that seem like they should be obviously strong, like quicken, can be weaker for your character, your party, and your table's typical adventuring day than stuff you get elsewhere. (I point at quicken as an example because it's incredible, but only a once per day ability; if your table plays longer days, its value tanks.) Shop around. Poaching strong focus spells can be especially valuable.
-A staff is built into your power budget even though you aren't told this by anything unless you're a Staff Nexus wizard. Grab one. Treat that thing like a martial weapon and give it respect and priority when spending money. It is a pile of additional versatility.
-Try to prepare in a way that lets you target all saves, or at least 3/4 of saves and AC. Use your staff, drain bonded item, and a scroll or two to help cover your bases and ensure you aren't blindsided if you need to target a save twice today and only prepared one slot to target it.
-Avoid making spell attack rolls without True Strike.
-Talk to your GM about making Recall Knowledge a bit more friendly. Your life will be bad if you aren't playing to enemy saves, and RK is your only ticket to a definitive answer about what they are. Unfortunately, by RAW, you just will not be good at all the knowledge checks you will have to make, and you will also eat actions on them that you'd probably rather use to reposition or do almost any other third action. A few people I play with like RK just being a free action for everyone just because of this. This does devalue certain class abilities, but our experience is this is worth the tradeoff. If your GM thinks RK is fine as is, the value of a character in your party that's good at RK and can get it as a free rider on another action is very high.
-Top ~3 spell slots are the main combat slots. You should place a very high value on putting single-action and reaction spells in lower slots; this is the easiest way to actually get value out of them. (Pathbuilder is helpful here, imo, since you can see how many actions a spell takes directly on the list.) Highly situational utility spells (whatever comprehend languages is in this system now, for example) are best relegated to scrolls.
-Having a shield and shield block is still helpful for you, even as a caster. A real sturdy shield is still 1 more AC than the shield cantrip, even if it requires a hand. It can genuinely save your life.
-I've implied it many times, but just... don't be afraid of consumables. They're good.
And I'd also manage expectations:
-A lot of your utility can be gotten elsewhere. Consumables are incredible in this edition. You can just buy ways to fight invisible creatures for relatively cheap, for example; Revealing Mist is a situationally amazing item and is only 9 gp. You are not the only source of these kinds of utility, and sometimes, you're not even the most reliable source of it. (To point back at revealing mist... that item has no save attached.) The big difference is that your spell slots don't cost money.
-This system makes you spend limited resources to do good things, but spending resources is no guarantee of efficacy. Crit saves happen. Swingy outcomes happen. The odds are in your favor when you play right, but that doesn't mean you won't get burned multiple times. I had a Bard, for example, that had all of the three or so enemies he cast slow on in Malevolence crit succeed. Is that an outlier? Absolutely. Will you have rare streaks of luck that bad if you play a caster? Eventually, yeah. Power on.
-Casters will naturally have a hard time against single enemy high APL encounters, just by the numbers.
-Teach yourself the value of +1s and -1s so that it just feels better when you are applying buffs and debuffs with spells like Fear.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I had to build a Wizard, I'd go into 2 directions:
Either a Spell Blending Specialist Flexible Spellcaster Wizard. The combination of the Wizard number of top rank spell slots with Prepared Spontaneous casting is awesome. This is one of the most insane spellcaster in the game, maybe even the best.
Otherwise, I'd go for a Spell Blending Battle Mage fully focusing on blasting. Sorcerer Dedication for Dangerous Sorcery + Spell Penetration and you shouldn't meet any resistance. I'm not sure I'd do as good as the other build, but at least I don't sell my soul to Spontaneous casting so I have the actual Wizard experience.
I clearly dislike both Spell Substitution and Unified Magical Theory. If I want to play a versatile caster, I'd play a Sorcerer or I'd go for Flexible Spellcaster. If I play a Wizard, it's for the insane number of top rank slots I can get thanks to Drain Bonded Item and Spell Blending.
I'm pretty sure I'd blast the hell out of the enemies with a Wizard, but I can't test every caster in the game (I already have 5 of them).
* - At low level? (say 1-3)
* - At moderate level? (4-7)
I need to notice that wizards are in pretty bad situation in these levels due the lack of useful abilities for low levels.
Basically the 3 best Thesis are useless or almost useless in these lower levels.
You also don't get any good focus spells to help nor things like spell font that could help to compensate.
You basically needs to "survive" until you get a higher level to make the wizard abilities begins to work.
If for some reason you will play a low level only adventure (1-4) I strongly recommend to take class that get more stronger chassis and get abilities that are more useful earlier like psychics, oracles, druids, clerics and even witches.
If you will start in a mid or higher level adventure (starting from level 5) you can go if wizards more easily once that its thesis will work and you have more money and a larger number of spell options.
If you will play a long adventure that starts from low level as an AP (1-20) you can ask to your GM if can start with another character and when you have a level high enough if you can retire it and switch to a wizard. Many GMs accept such things because they know that is pretty common that many people get tired to play as same character for a long time for many reasons. But I don't know if they will accept well if you do this as a way to workaround a class weakness.
But arent spontaneous casters limited to spells known where wizards can expand what they know and use any staff or wand they find?
Staves/Wands/Scrolls require you to have the spell on your spell list. That is: it needs to be on the list of a tradition you have a spellcasting feature in. You do not have to have the spell itself in your repertoire/prepared/in your spellbook.
So what you can use them for is the same. Staves are a bit different in that prepared casters can add charges when preparing a staff by burning a spell slot, which if your staff has a lot of spells you might want can add versatility.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But arent spontaneous casters limited to spells known where wizards can expand what they know and use any staff or wand they find?Staves/Wands/Scrolls require you to have the spell on your spell list. That is: it needs to be on the list of a tradition you have a spellcasting feature in. You do not have to have the spell itself in your repertoire/prepared/in your spellbook.
So what you can use them for is the same. Staves are a bit different in that prepared casters can add charges when preparing a staff by burning a spell slot, which if your staff has a lot of spells you might want can add versatility.
Ah that was my misunderstanding.
I thought it had to be on your spells known list.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do wands staves and scrolls do more in general for wizards than spontaneous caster?
If they have advantages based on their interaction with these items then I would say they are important to mastering playing a wizard well.
Not really, no. They just extend casting.
Wizards have an easier time using crafting to make what they want with sufficient downtime. It makes it easier to construct items. You can make scrolls of what you need to have extended casting power. Lower level blasting spells become fairly cheap and you can use earn income without having to actually earn income to create magic items.
The actual items themselves operate the same for any type of caster that can use them.
But arent spontaneous casters limited to spells known where wizards can expand what they know and use any staff or wand they find?
And if they cover the bases of a reflex spell on a staff and a will spell on a wand then you can put spell attack and fort in your slots.
Doesnt have to be that set up but I just mean that all bases get covered.
While a spontaneous caster is slightly more limited. they have to get those bases covered up front with spells known. they can always get more uses of those spells with wands and staves but they cant have as many different options available at once.
not to mention more damage type coverage can be achieved with wands and staves.Is there no use to have so many different spells ready to go above and beyond the number a spontaneous caster can know?
Not that I know. Any spell on their list unless you know a rule otherwise.
Items allow access to spells they would not normally have just like for wizards.
So no, spontaneous casters do not have that limitation.
Have you never played a spontaneous caster? Are you that guy that never plays this game and comments on it all the time but changed your alias? This comment indicates you have never played a caster because the rule...
I was under the misunderstanding that to cast a spell from a wand scroll or staff the spell had to be one on your list of spells known.
I didnt realize when the entry said your spell list it meant the traditions full spell list.I read all of these more restrictively than I should have. I really thought this meant the pc's list of known spells, their list. not the traditions list.
To cast a spell from a wand, it must be on your spell
list.
You can Cast a Spell from a staff only if
you have that spell on your spell list
The spell must appear on your
spell list.(Scrolls)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do wands staves and scrolls do more in general for wizards than spontaneous caster?
If they have advantages based on their interaction with these items then I would say they are important to mastering playing a wizard well.
Not really, no. They just extend casting.
Wizards have an easier time using crafting to make what they want with sufficient downtime. It makes it easier to construct items. You can make scrolls of what you need to have extended casting power. Lower level blasting spells become fairly cheap and you can use earn income without having to actually earn income to create magic items.
The actual items themselves operate the same for any type of caster that can use them.
But arent spontaneous casters limited to spells known where wizards can expand what they know and use any staff or wand they find?
And if they cover the bases of a reflex spell on a staff and a will spell on a wand then you can put spell attack and fort in your slots.
Doesnt have to be that set up but I just mean that all bases get covered.
While a spontaneous caster is slightly more limited. they have to get those bases covered up front with spells known. they can always get more uses of those spells with wands and staves but they cant have as many different options available at once.
not to mention more damage type coverage can be achieved with wands and staves.Is there no use to have so many different spells ready to go above and beyond the number a spontaneous caster can know?
Not that I know. Any spell on their list unless you know a rule otherwise.
Items allow access to spells they would not normally have just like for wizards.
So no, spontaneous casters do not have that limitation.
Have you never played a spontaneous caster? Are you that guy that never plays this game and comments on it all the time but changed your alias? This comment indicates you have never played a caster because the rule...
Ive never posted under any other name.
I GM for my group but i havnt had the chance to be a player for pf2.
But arent spontaneous casters limited to spells known where wizards can expand what they know and use any staff or wand they find?Staves/Wands/Scrolls require you to have the spell on your spell list. That is: it needs to be on the list of a tradition you have a spellcasting feature in. You do not have to have the spell itself in your repertoire/prepared/in your spellbook.
So what you can use them for is the same. Staves are a bit different in that prepared casters can add charges when preparing a staff by burning a spell slot, which if your staff has a lot of spells you might want can add versatility.
Also thank you for clearing up my misunderstanding.
I read the "your" spell list and assumed it was more personal than the whole tradition.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you want to see why the wizard or any prepared caster isn't as good as a spontaneous caster, you need to go over their options.
-A lot of your class feats are worse than archetyping. A lot of them. Even things that seem like they should be obviously strong, like quicken, can be weaker for your character, your party, and your table's typical adventuring day than stuff you get elsewhere. (I point at quicken as an example because it's incredible, but only a once per day ability; if your table plays longer days, its value tanks.) Shop around. Poaching strong focus spells can be especially valuable.
* - At low level? (say 1-3)
* - At moderate level? (4-7)I need to notice that wizards are in pretty bad situation in these levels due the lack of useful abilities for low levels.
Basically the 3 best Thesis are useless or almost useless in these lower levels.
Looking at these, it appears that the haters are actually Right.
Wizards are Weak.
Looking at these, it appears that the haters are actually Right.
Wizards are Weak.
Because they are weak during 4 levels? Half of the classes are weak, then.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...Do wands staves and scrolls do more in general for wizards than spontaneous caster?
If they have advantages based on their interaction with these items then I would say they are important to mastering playing a wizard well.
Not really, no. They just extend casting.
Wizards have an easier time using crafting to make what they want with sufficient downtime. It makes it easier to construct items. You can make scrolls of what you need to have extended casting power. Lower level blasting spells become fairly cheap and you can use earn income without having to actually earn income to create magic items.
The actual items themselves operate the same for any type of caster that can use them.
But arent spontaneous casters limited to spells known where wizards can expand what they know and use any staff or wand they find?
And if they cover the bases of a reflex spell on a staff and a will spell on a wand then you can put spell attack and fort in your slots.
Doesnt have to be that set up but I just mean that all bases get covered.
While a spontaneous caster is slightly more limited. they have to get those bases covered up front with spells known. they can always get more uses of those spells with wands and staves but they cant have as many different options available at once.
not to mention more damage type coverage can be achieved with wands and staves.Is there no use to have so many different spells ready to go above and beyond the number a spontaneous caster can know?
Not that I know. Any spell on their list unless you know a rule otherwise.
Items allow access to spells they would not normally have just like for wizards.
So no, spontaneous casters do not have that limitation.
Have you never played a spontaneous caster? Are you that guy that never plays this game and comments on it all the time but changed your alias? This comment indicates you have
I see. Yes, list is the entire tradition list. Repertoire is what you know as a spontaneous caster and prepared is what you have prepared as a prepared caster. Both can use items with any spell on their list whether or not they have it known or prepared.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because they are weak during 4 levels? Half of the classes are weak, then.Looking at these, it appears that the haters are actually Right.
Wizards are Weak.
Which creates a "barrier to entry" for new players, and a source of frustration for higher level players.
Also given that the Wizard and not the Sorcerer was chosen for both Player Core 1 and the ORC Beginner's Box, that will not be encouraging for new players. It can - as evidenced by this very thread - be frustrating for existing players.
I figured that driving players to other game systems was not part of Paizo's business plan.
...Do wands staves and scrolls do more in general for wizards than spontaneous caster?
If they have advantages based on their interaction with these items then I would say they are important to mastering playing a wizard well.
Not really, no. They just extend casting.
Wizards have an easier time using crafting to make what they want with sufficient downtime. It makes it easier to construct items. You can make scrolls of what you need to have extended casting power. Lower level blasting spells become fairly cheap and you can use earn income without having to actually earn income to create magic items.
The actual items themselves operate the same for any type of caster that can use them.
But arent spontaneous casters limited to spells known where wizards can expand what they know and use any staff or wand they find?
And if they cover the bases of a reflex spell on a staff and a will spell on a wand then you can put spell attack and fort in your slots.
Doesnt have to be that set up but I just mean that all bases get covered.
While a spontaneous caster is slightly more limited. they have to get those bases covered up front with spells known. they can always get more uses of those spells with wands and staves but they cant have as many different options available at once.
not to mention more damage type coverage can be achieved with wands and staves.Is there no use to have so many different spells ready to go above and beyond the number a spontaneous caster can know?
Not that I know. Any spell on their list unless you know a rule otherwise.
Items allow access to spells they would not normally have just like for wizards.
So no, spontaneous casters do not have that limitation.
Have you never played a spontaneous caster? Are you that guy that never plays this game and comments on it all the time but changed your alias? This
My misunderstanding there was giving wizards a small benefit over spontaneous casters and clerics and druids a much bigger advantage with scrolls wands and staves. So I thought wizards at least had something over a sorcerer.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you want to see why the wizard or any prepared caster isn't as good as a spontaneous caster, you need to go over their options.-A lot of your class feats are worse than archetyping. A lot of them. Even things that seem like they should be obviously strong, like quicken, can be weaker for your character, your party, and your table's typical adventuring day than stuff you get elsewhere. (I point at quicken as an example because it's incredible, but only a once per day ability; if your table plays longer days, its value tanks.) Shop around. Poaching strong focus spells can be especially valuable.* - At low level? (say 1-3)
* - At moderate level? (4-7)I need to notice that wizards are in pretty bad situation in these levels due the lack of useful abilities for low levels.
Basically the 3 best Thesis are useless or almost useless in these lower levels.
Looking at these, it appears that the haters are actually Right.
Wizards are Weak.
I've come to the conclusion weak is an overstatement for no other reason than wizards are Legendary proficiency casters with access to higher level, powerful spells.
I would say they are more boring than weak. Less flexible in real play than spontaneous casters, especially so in combat. Out of combat when you have lots of downtime or time to change spells, it can be fun to figure out how to best use your spells to solve a problem.
Their thesis choice is very limited if you want to maximize the wizard ability to change spells, which is why I house ruled the Spell Substitution thesis as part of the class chassis.
The Schools and Curriculums aren't very fun either. Kind of surprised by this too given 5E designers when eliminating the number of slots made more meaningful abilities attached to spell schools. The 5E designers seemed to understand that eliminating much of what made the wizard in 3E/PF1 powerful was removed from the new game, so they replaced it with fairly interesting and powerful school abilities. In PF2, they seemed to remove all that made the wizard good and then replace it with weak focus spells and theses that don't do a whole lot and aren't particularly thematic to a school or curriculum.
Given how good the PF designers usually are compared to D&D, I was surprised it turned out the way it did. Usually the PF designers do a great job with most class design. The wizard was I think better done by the 5E designers given the serious nerf stick. You don't even notice the wizard nerfs in 5E because the class is still fun to play and has some pretty interesting school abilities. The PF2 wizard is like the flavorless porridge of wizard class design, in my opinion of coursel as I guess there are enough people happy with it to leave it as is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which creates a "barrier to entry" for new players, and a source of frustration for higher level players.
Also given that the Wizard and not the Sorcerer was chosen for both Player Core 1 and the ORC Beginner's Box, that will not be encouraging for new players. It can - as evidenced by this very thread - be frustrating for existing players.
I figured that driving players to other game systems was not part of Paizo's business plan.
But it's exactly the same for the Sorcerer. If you plan on playing only at low level then go for Strength-based martials. Every other character will feel weak in comparison.
Also, casters are really not the best character for a beginner. They are much more complex than martials.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know this is emant to be a wizard thing, but should archetypes be brought up? I know Alchemist is popular, and I was sorely tempted to try Cleric.Yes this was about the wizard class. If a class needs a Multiclass archetype to be strong, then the people saying that the wizard is too weak have proven their point.
Not necessarily, one could easily argue that since you can't get top level spell slots from archetypes, but you can get focus magic from archetypes and the three point limit is universal, the Wizard chassis is providing a disproportionate benefit that ought to be considered.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know this is emant to be a wizard thing, but should archetypes be brought up? I know Alchemist is popular, and I was sorely tempted to try Cleric.Yes this was about the wizard class. If a class needs a Multiclass archetype to be strong, then the people saying that the wizard is too weak have proven their point.
This doesn't really track for me. If there's an archetype that's good on a wizard, why wouldn't people talk about it?
You make it sound like taking a dedication is somehow cheating.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What should a prospective wizard do?
When you play you must scout, think ahead and be smart about what you are doing. If that is not you or your group them play an Arcane Sorcerer instead of a Wizard. In a longer campaign the Wizard can be better.
1) Determine your theme and character
2) Determine your role. It should be largely around area attack, controller, fire support, utility. If you are thinking primarily melee then think again or embrace the challenge and don't complain.
3) Figure out a basic 3 action combat routine. Your first 2 actions are likely a spell or a saving throw cantrip (Electric Arc/Frostbite). So what are you doing with your 3rd action besides move. There are lots of options, choose several:
a) Metamagic. Reach, Widen, and Conceal.
b) Range weapon attack sling/crossbow/bow/alchemical bomb. Mediocre effect compared to martials but still a reasonable damage contribution.
c) Recall Knowledge is useful for finding clues and potential vulnerabilities, and working out if their fortitude save is 5 lower than their reflex save.
d) Medicine check - it is still good enough even if your Wisdom ability is low.
e) Single action spell typically shield or forcebolt but there are more options
f) Command a companion (requires an archetype)
4) What reaction are you going to use? This is a hard question. I'll get back to it. But there are some spell options.
5) What focus spell are you going to use? Choose a useful school. Ars Grammatica, Battle Magic, Boundary, and maybe Mentalism are OK. The others are underwhelming. Archetype out for one if you want.
6) Choose a Thesis.
a) Spell Blending is the best at high levels as max number of higher rank spell slots, but does nothing early
b) Staff Nexus adds more capacity
c) Spell Substitution adds flexibility
d) Improved Familiar Attunement is fine but familiars are niche still, unless you want to go full in - but then be a witch.
e) Experimental Spellshaping is OK if you don't want any of the others but it is basically a few feats.
7) Train the Stealth skill - it is useful for initiative and you must be able to scout, Society, and probably the basic level in Athletics and Acrobatics.
8) Select spells. Read my Spell Guide which is up to date or Tarandors.
9) Fix up your AC when you can. Even if that means taking leather armour till you can get bracers, and stay out of the line of battle.
What should a prospective wizard do?When you play you must scout, think ahead and be smart about what you are doing. If that is not you or your group them play an Arcane Sorcerer instead of a Wizard. In a longer campaign the Wizard can be better.
100% this. It cannot be emphasized enough. Prepared casting inherently loses ground to Spontaneous casting if you don’t have a party that’s thinking strategically. Not just tactically (as in turn by turn combat tactics) I mean strategically, as in you spend time scouting ahead, retreat and end the adventuring day early if you feel like the Wizard can improve their spell list for tomorrow to make the encounter easier, skip and/or change the order of encounters, etc.
Other Prepared casters can deemphasize this because they get compensated with super strong class/subclass features (Witch), focus spells/cantrips (Witch/Druid), or a ton of additional generically useful slots (Cleric). Wizards have to rely on this to function anywhere near their ceiling.
d) Improved Familiar Attunement is fine but familiars are niche still, unless you want to go full in - but then be a witch.
Well the big thing is that, as you already established, the best way to function as a Wizard is to be consistently gaining information about what’s coming up and using that to your advantage. Improved Familiar Attunement tends to be pretty useful if the rest of your party is unable to support you via their own scouting, stealthing, etc. If you don’t have an ally that’s excellent at these things, it’s often better to just throw your familiar in instead, and Improved Familiar Attunement + Enhanced Familiar can give you enough unique abilities that your familiar will often auto-detect things with special senses and/or be completely unnoticed without a check while also leaving room for some of the spell slot and focus point related abilities if you need them.
My players stop to use scouting strategies after 2 stealth failures that resulted in the scout player fleeing and my NPCs calling "Intruders! Call for reinforcements" and they having an entire hideout going after them!
Scouting is a good strategy but also risky. If your GM tries to make the NPCs acts realistically and your checks fails you can end in a pretty dangerous situation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My players stop to use scouting strategies after 2 stealth failures that resulted in the scout player fleeing and my NPCs calling "Intruders! Call for reinforcements" and they having an entire hideout going after them!
Scouting is a good strategy but also risky. If your GM tries to make the NPCs acts realistically and your checks fails you can end in a pretty dangerous situation.
Conversely, if GM makes NPCs act realistically, Familiars get way, way better. Even in a world where familiars are commonplace, if you’re in a dungeon and you see a rat/bat your reaction won’t be to call the entire camp’s worth of enemies down; at worst you’ll shoot a few arrows at the creature and if it scurries away you’ll just include it in your next report.
This is, of course, context dependent. If you’re trying to sneak into the king’s personal quarters the rat will absolutely justify a huge reaction. However it is true that in every single context, a familiar will warrant less of a reaction than an actual Rogue who gets caught.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My players stop to use scouting strategies after 2 stealth failures that resulted in the scout player fleeing and my NPCs calling "Intruders! Call for reinforcements" and they having an entire hideout going after them!
Scouting is a good strategy but also risky. If your GM tries to make the NPCs acts realistically and your checks fails you can end in a pretty dangerous situation.
Invisibility, Clairvoyance, Scouting Eye, Ethereal Jaunt, Animal Vision (primal), Pest Form tend to be safe.
Also in mid levels and above are not uncommon to NPCs and monsters to have See the Unseen or Truesight what basically disables most of these spells.
It's not like I made every NPC and Monsters constantly seeking for intruders but those who are guarding usually are. This prevents the players from constantly scouting and trying to cheese most encounters with information and preparations. So they now change their strategy to advance all together in Stealth using Follow the Expert to try to take kill the enemies faster and to prevent then to call for help but doing this in group and even with Quiet Allies sometime they fails but due they are all together to deal with the enemies this usually is not a big problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The whole reason I took the Ars Grammatica school was to have clairvoyance as a focus spell that lasts a whole hour, which I’ll get at our next level. I thought I’d never use the first level protective wards one, only my party tends to stay pretty close to our wood/water kineticist’s protective tree, and now I often find myself casting protective ward in the second round, once the enemy engages us and the amount of damage it prevents has been impressive. The sustain cost is expensive but I only pay it when we really need to keep the defenses up. If I need to move, it usually means the fight has changed enough not to need the ward any more. I’ve been really impressed with school as a whole. My wizard really feels like a seeker of lost runes who understands the power of language.
Re:scouting. If your party has a lot of AoE and good defenses, combining encounters is easier on you than trying to fight them all discretely, especially as a wizard. Fireballing 3 enemies feels good. Getting 7 is amazing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not like I made every NPC and Monsters constantly seeking for intruders but those who are guarding usually are. This prevents the players from constantly scouting and trying to cheese most encounters with information and preparations.
…and you say that prepared casters struggle at your table? After going out of your way to unnecessarily nerf spells that would help the party prepare for encounters? You don’t say…
I don’t think a general seek action should give a sense that a creature is acting abnormally, as that is part of the sense motive activities purpose. So minimally, summoning a small animal and using animal eyes should be two perception checks to tell something is off, and if it is at a distance, I’d really recommend applying a circumstance penalty.
Now it seems like generally your interest in curtailing advanced scouting is about splitting the party, but taking away magical means of scouting without splitting the party is only taking away players ability to learn more about upcoming encounters because you feel like spell casters are too powerful with this knowledge? That is a huge red flag for me as a player, because of course people are struggling to play prepared casters and wizards especially if GMs are making the game harder to play them.
No I'm not nerfing anything at all. I just doesn't allow that players can trick every creature without any check due magic in a multiverse where magic is common enough to the creatures that lives there has some additional care against magic.
Why do you make to think that a place protected by guards have no magic protections or that these guards are not trained to deal with magic treats?
Just allow the spells to simply ignore the detection systems is like a bank without metal detection protections in our world to find people with hidden guns.
No I'm not nerfing anything at all. I just doesn't allow that players can trick every creature without any check due magic in a multiverse where magic is common enough to the creatures that lives there has some additional care against magic.
Why do you make to think that a place protected by guards have no magic protections or that these guards are not trained to deal with magic treats?
Just allow the spells to simply ignore the detection systems is like a bank without metal detection protections in our world to find people with hidden guns.
I absolutely use magical defenses and alarms where it makes sense to do so in the dungeons I design, but I try to limit those options to what the forces present have available to them, and PF2 makes setting up permanent anti-magical defenses difficult. Even long term ones tend to involve rituals and fairly high level casters.
The alarm spell is a great low level option but it only goes off for small or larger corporeal creatures, probably because having a dungeon with no rats in it is exceedingly difficult to maintain for very long if there are creatures living in the dungeon, eating there/ generally existing.
There of course will be exceptional circumstances and fantastically difficult places to get into, but these things are incredibly expensive and difficult to do in game...hence why hiring some regular guards is so much more common in the first place. Training your guards to be on the look out for unusual creatures is a smart idea, but if the castle is in a city, and your guards are hunting every rat crawling around your building, they are either spread too thin or you better have a lot of them. Magical solutions to magical problems are very expensive. Its like saying that being aware that hacking is a thing in the real world means that most people or businesses are doing much more than the bare minimum to protect against the most obvious threats. Meanwhile large institutions are paying a lot of money to try to protect data, but all of it is only as strong as its weakest link.
PCs should generally not represent the common threat that any organization is expecting to come after them, they represent the threat that the enemy has severely underestimated and has a very strong possibility of destroying them. Maybe the end boss has some secrets prepared, especially if they have been tracking the party for a decent part of the campaign, but the bandit that assumes that the squirrels are all witch familiars should be mocked by the other bandits unless these bandits are exclusively stealing from witches all the time.
That's why I only restrict these checks to guards and usually guards are some levels bellow the PCs because they usually are the first defense line and this kind of training and magical tools necessary to detect magical treats is expensive giving some breachs to PCs but I don't like the idea that these guards and patrols have no preparation against magical threats.
And as I said before this is usually valid only for guards and patrols I rarely give checks or detection spells internal NPCs/monsters that are resting or not expecting an invasion exactly because they expect that the guards and alarms does this job allowing then to rest or focus into other things.
This also prevents frenquently abusive things like:
- Lets check with riskless spells what goes ahead.
A spell scouts ahead without risk of failure.
- OK there are 2 enemies ahead guarding the gate.
Casters:
- OK let us summon some small harmless creatures and put then closer to the guards and we they are close enough we will use Final Sacrifice exploding then without any chance of reaction!!!
Riskless scout can give an enourmous advantage to PCs especially the most criative ones. This cannot be made without risk or it will allows to easilly trivialize the encounters.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No I'm not nerfing anything at all. I just doesn't allow that players can trick every creature without any check due magic in a multiverse where magic is common enough to the creatures that lives there has some additional care against magic.
Why do you make to think that a place protected by guards have no magic protections or that these guards are not trained to deal with magic treats?
Just allow the spells to simply ignore the detection systems is like a bank without metal detection protections in our world to find people with hidden guns.
This is why quite a bit gets oversold or undersold on these forums. It is DM dependent on how valuable something is.
Some DMs will run invisibility as not provoking perception checks from enemies unless the caster does something to cause it, others will run it requiring stealth checks and more than one which they are bound to fail.
Some run familiars or small animal scouting loosely claiming a small animal wouldn't be noticed. While a DM like you rationalizes lots of magic in the world leads to more careful observation of small animals and such. Both could be argued as the correct way to view things.
DM style can heavily influence the value of spells, class abilities, and the like. There are no hard rules for using small animals or familiars as scouts that no enemy gets to oppose, but some folks take it for granted because the DM at their table runs a very loose rule interpretation at their table making certain spells and actions more valuable.
I tend to run a bit more like you myself, which is why all my characters take Stealth. I do require opposed checks. Sending your familiar or some summoned animal or some pest form polymorphed person into a guarded area is a good way to get them killed unless they have truly built up stealth to scout. I'm not going to assume the monsters think small animals are safe because in a magical world, they are not. They are familiars or polymorphed druids, so guards should be careful of them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is a big difference between “riskless” and “resourceless.” Are items that give climb speeds unfair because they remove the risk of climb checks?
I agree that the value of being able to access information about a campaign is GM dependent, but it is something that good adventure writers build in to their campaigns and there are many ways to do it. Be careful as a GM not to be deliberately taking away very useful ways to feed information to players that directly counter intensive resource choices they’ve put into their characters, or at least talk to them about this and discuss your expectations, with the potential for them to retrain options that feel too resource intensive compared to what they can gain from it.
If you make it so that skill checks can do everything spells can do better than spells, you make all of those spells useless, but that is your choice as a GM.
Since this is a player advice thread, I would say to future Wizard players again, don’t try to surprise your GM with your creative ideas in the moment. You will get burned, and left frustrated, especially if your idea requires a shared understanding of the games rules and general expectations. If you want to use a lot of illusions or summons outside of combat, or you’re familiar a lot, talk to the GM in session 0 about these ideas, or when you pick up the abilities. Not when you first try to use them. If a GM is never going to give a stealth advantage to your invisible character over if you were a non-invisible character, you want to know that before you learn the spell.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is a big difference between “riskless” and “resourceless.” Are items that give climb speeds unfair because they remove the risk of climb checks?
I agree that the value of being able to access information about a campaign is GM dependent, but it is something that good adventure writers build in to their campaigns and there are many ways to do it. Be careful as a GM not to be deliberately taking away very useful ways to feed information to players that directly counter intensive resource choices they’ve put into their characters, or at least talk to them about this and discuss your expectations, with the potential for them to retrain options that feel too resource intensive compared to what they can gain from it.
If you make it so that skill checks can do everything spells can do better than spells, you make all of those spells useless, but that is your choice as a GM.
Since this is a player advice thread, I would say to future Wizard players again, don’t try to surprise your GM with your creative ideas in the moment. You will get burned, and left frustrated, especially if your idea requires a shared understanding of the games rules and general expectations. If you want to use a lot of illusions or summons outside of combat, or you’re familiar a lot, talk to the GM in session 0 about these ideas, or when you pick up the abilities. Not when you first try to use them. If a GM is never going to give a stealth advantage to your invisible character over if you were a non-invisible character, you want to know that before you learn the spell.
Should I provide this same advantage to a rogue because they are a rogue?
I'm not giving casters special treatment while making the rogue or ranger make stealth checks. You don't get a break. Your summoned creatures and familiars still have to make skill checks to conduct scouting. And other rolls that are required by a spell, just like any other stealth class sneaking in.
Same with casters going in invis.
If a divination spell allows near riskless scouting, then they get it. Otherwise, I see no reason to give special treatment to casters over other classes that can scout.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is a player advice thread, so I don’t want to jump too far down a GM tangent hole, which is why I pulled it back to “talk to your GM, because making assumptions about what spells will and won’t do can lead to frustration.”
If I get time I’ll start a separate GM thread for helping players use spells to learn information about the campaign and why I think it is better to over share than under.
This is a player advice thread, so I don’t want to jump too far down a GM tangent hole, which is why I pulled it back to “talk to your GM, because making assumptions about what spells will and won’t do can lead to frustration.”
If I get time I’ll start a separate GM thread for helping players use spells to learn information about the campaign and why I think it is better to over share than under.
For all classes I hope.
People playing the rogue and ranger class fantasy have an idea of being great scouts as well and garnering information as that is a classic rogue or ranger fantasy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A player with a bunch of different gambits to use with the spells they have available to them will have more fun and the game master will as well.
Giving NPCs a chance to countering these gambits with skill rolls is better than just disallowing them.
As a player in game where scouting is so fraught, I think I would frequently be baiting guards into ambushes ,or simply away from their posts.
Would the guards then get another roll to figure out it was a feint?
What about burrowing animals?
Would the guards get a skill roll to detect them underground?
If the whole compound is roused 3 nights in a row,is there a penalty imposed due to fatigue?
I dont see ultra wary guards as a reason to not use scouts, I see them as a means to an end.
In a game where your average guard is ready for magical intrusions,a wizard can be even more powerful by becoming the boogyman.
False alarms create complacency, and encourage the enemy to make mistakes.
For example ,if you can capture one of the enemy, you can send an Illusionary Creature back in their place.
Lets assume it is discovered and defeated.
Send another one.
Same result.
Then send back the actual captive and watch them slaughter one of their own.
Even evil creatures should be disconcerted,if not dismayed.
This will be the distraction, so your Familiar/Rogue/strike force can slip past the guardians.
If Invisibility isnt much of a boone to Stealth, then it upgrades Figments into an even better distraction.
The tells that reveal an Invisble character become the Figments that guards should treat like an Invisble character.
Another distraction and this one creates huge savings in the special effects budget.
Invisibility .. almost useless when applied in a PC without Stealth and the only advantage is to allow a stealth character to hide without cover if it doesn't already have some feat that allows this.
Which PC doesn't have a rank in Stealth? Plus Foil Senses. If you stay outside a range of about 30 ft, and keep away from casters you are very hard to find.
Clairvoyance is an interesting spell that my players don't demonstrate interest to take. Also I don't know how to deal with it with places that caster don't know.
Improvise. Cast a few in succession. Take your time and wait and see what the enemy does. The object is to learn about the enemy and engage on a different day.
I don't treat it as a perfect scout. I usually treat guards and patrols like they was constantly seeking so I give to them a Perception check vs Spell Caster DC to detect the Scouting Eye and if they note it the usually sound an alarm or something like that.
I can't see a justification for giving a Perception check here.
Scouting shouldn't be perfect and risk free or it will trivialise the game. There should be rolls if the player tries some activity close to an opponent. But there is potentially a lot of useful information that a wizard can find out if they try. At least do the easy stuff which is watch and observe from distance for a few days. Plot dependent of course. It doesn't have to take long in terms of play time.