| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We all know Wizard is seen as very weak but could a single Class Archetype for the class actually fix it? Not Flexible Caster but rather one that gives Wizard the Arcanist treatment from Pathfinder 1st Edition, where you either keep your 3 slots of magic without any additional school slots or you just get all 4 of your slots given to you with the ability to make a hyper unique spell list even if it is as limited as Flexible Caster, 2 spells of every slot in your list but you keep 3-4 slots, meaning you prepare 18-20 spells you can freely cast. I'd even give up my ability to learn spells outside of level up for this fix.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you try to "fix" all the wizard's problems with a single archetype, you might as well errata the base class accordingly. If pretty much everybody uses the archetype anyway, why have it be distinct from the class at all?
I'm also not a fan of your specific suggestions. Baseline Wizard spellcasting is good enough as it is. The main problem are the way too limited curriculum spell lists, overall weak focus spells, limited thesis selection (only two out of five are actually good), and lack of good feats (there are good feats but they are almost always the only good choice at their level).
None of the issues by itself breaks the class but all of them at once put some serious strain on the class's fun factor. And it doesn't help that most other casters got some seriously fun new toys with the remaster.
I hope we get lots of wizard stuff in the upcoming Lost Omens book. At least the new schools should hopefully have better curricula because they can draw from more books than just PC1.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with fixing a class with an archetype is that it makes the the base class a trap option for people who don't know to take the archetype. That's not really a fix so much as it is a workaround.
You'd also have to agree on just what the problems Wizard has that need fixing are, because as we see here, there's different views on that. Fixing Wizard by making it more like Sorcerer isn't the way I'd go, since we already have that.
Like Blave wrote, the combination of bad feats, super limited curriculum slots, bad focus spells and questionable thesis is what break wizards legs.
Class archetypes could fix that, but I don't like it mandatory options to fix a class, it limits character building, with that the lvl 2 feat is used and also locked out of another archetype until lvl 8 assuming that only picked feats from that class archetype.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A wizard class archetype or two would be great for whatever book spiritually succeeds secrets of magic.
Class Archetypes aren't designed to fix issues with a given class, they are meant to provide an additional option for players who think that it's worth it for their particular character. For an upcoming example, the Barbarian is a solid class all on its own (especially since it just got buffed pretty massively), but with the new Bloodrager Class Archetype coming, some players may want to make a Barbarian that can do some spellcasting as part of their schtick.
Taking the Wizard example, Flexible Spellcasting is essentially cutting your spell slots in half for Sorcerer level malleability, and since the Sorcerer is both a better class (better feats, better features, better flavor), as well as has the flexibility you want without losing half your slots, Flexible Spellcasting essentially becomes a trap option. Really, its only benefits are if A. You don't like Sorcerer/Witch flavor, or B. You want to purposefully handicap yourself to impose a personal challenge in your game.
And taking the hypothetical Arcanist, it's literally just a better version of Flexible Spellcasting, so making class archetypes just to "errata" other ones that don't work that way doesn't make sense, since Paizo can just errata Flexible Spellcasting to be on that desired level. Really, since you are already automatically paying a 2nd level feat (which locks you out of other archetypes and potentially other valuable class feats), having the added cost of losing half your spell slots is overtly punishing for most every class whose main schtick is "I cast spells." Short of classes like Druids and maybe Warpriests, this is just painful.
In my opinion, much like how we have martial fighting archetypes (like Mauler, Archer, etc.), Arcanist would be best suited for a non-class-specific spellcasting archetype, wherein you get Arcane spells, a choice of Spontaneous/Prepared, as well as a slew of Spellshape feats, and maybe even some specific feats that can let you blend some of those Spontaneous/Prepared elements. And we can do this for each tradition (Diviner for Divine spellcasting, Primalist for Primal spellcasting, Occultist for Occult spellcasting).
Anyway, back to the main topic; Wizards have a fundamental issue of having no powerful features (and class feats) with interesting choices and dynamics. "But what about Schools and Arcane Theses?" You ask. The problem with Schools is that, compared to what was available previously, the selections are far more limited, and they aren't that powerful except for at the levels you acquire them, and maybe one more spell level afterward. In short, by the time you get access to your 3rd level spells, your 1st level choices, for the most part, become outdated and pointless. Those slots essentially become "dead" due to the assumed scaling of the game, and very few spells remain good for both at the level you acquire them as well as later on throughout the game's progression. Very rarely will you have low level spells compete with high level spells unless you specifically tailor a school to work that way. And Arcane Theses can either be too weak (Familiar and Metamagic say hi), de facto choices (Spell Blending and Staff Nexus), or should have just been base features of the class (Spell Substitution). Also, where are my Scroll/Wand/Weapon Thesis choices?
And from there, the lackluster feats means taking Archetypes is better than most of your normal choices 90% of the time. When I can count on one hand the number of "good" Wizard feats, you know the feat selections are terrible. And to be fair, Wizard isn't the only one that suffers from bad feat choices; Druids, Champions, and Witches are also similarly bad, but that doesn't mean it isn't also a Wizard issue.
I think I am going to have to just agree with things that others have already said.
The best option is probably to homebrew a new Wizard class for your table. Large groups of the player base have different ideas for what they expect a Wizard to be, so no one solution is going to work for more than a small section of people. And a class archetype is a bit expensive for fixing something that is considered broken - it takes up your level 2 class feat slot.
An additional option that I can think of in addition to the arcanist treatment suggested in OP: Turn it into a focus caster. GM and player work together to decide a thematic school curriculum of spell slot spells on their school list. Those spells don't become School spell slots. Instead the class only has 3 spell slots per level, but those curriculum spells become focus spells that they get automatically.
It doesn't fix the lackluster feats that people are mentioning, but lackluster feat choices aren't Wizard exclusive either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
wizard are the only class become significantly weaker instead of stronger in pc1 and 2
flexible caster archetype couldn't save them
expect paizo to produce some miracle new runelord archetype to save wizard seem overly optimistic
Eh. I would put some qualifiers on that. I'd argue the caster baseline just got raised in general between the refocus changes and spell buffs, wizards are probably strong than before overall. But they aren't relatively stronger compared to other classes.
The other thing is the specific nerf (limited choices for curriculum spells) is explicitly written to allow the player and GM to collaborate and add more thematically appropriate spells, which is much cleaner than trying to homebrew the whole class. So at most tables you should be fine, but I have no idea how that works on PFS.
Other problems, like boring feats or bad focus spells, aren't new, and wizards got small improvements there in the remaster. These are also problems that you can bypass with multiclassing. I recognize this feels bad to have to do, but that's probably an expectation adjustment people should make. Cuz I agree with you that Paizo probably won't publish a miracle archetype that fixes everything.
|
I think "fix" is a strong word. Not only do people's opinions on what wizard needs vary quite a bit, but as said, it creates the possibility for a trap feature where people who don't know any better don't pick the archtype.
That said, multiple wizard class archtypes could each buffer one aspect of wizard people don't like, such as an arcanist-inspired archtype, as you said. Now that Paizo seem to be going back to the idea of class archtypes and making them single class only, i'm excited to see what we get, and I do hope we see some that remove or offest a single pain point, so people who really don't like X aspect of a class can now ditch it.
The new schools seriously limit the value of the extra school spell slot. While I haven't played much 2e yet, I have an illusionist at the moment and except for a few spells improving in the remaster, overall it feels like I'm going backwards.
For me the value of wizards was all about the ability to plan and have a spell for everything. The premier magic-user in the game. It certainly seems like the other spell-casting classes have been shown far more love to bring them up to wizard levels (and have their other tricks and benefits as well) while wizards have to suffer the limits of the tools that were traditionally theirs (wands, staves, scrolls, etc.)
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So the old excuse is that the arcane list is so good that the wizard should pay heavily for it. Now that we have PC2 we can see if that holds by comparing the wizard to the witch and sorcerer, who can also opt into arcane casting.
On a chassis level, they're almost identical. They all get unarmed and simple weapons, only unarmored, and start with poor saves. Their saves all go up at level 5, 9 and 17. Spellcasting proficiency also goes up all at 7, 15 and 19.
There's a small chassis difference in skills: the sorcerer gets two based on bloodline and two free choice. The witch gets one based on patron and three free choice. The wizard gets Arcana and two free choice. So one less than the others.
If you ignore school spells, wizard and witch get the same amount of spells per day. If you include school spells, wizard and sorcerer are the same. Conclusion: wizard has parity with sorcerer IF your school spells are solid.
The main difference is in the remaining class features:
Witch
Hexes -> Initial lesson from patron, can feat into more hexes
Patron -> Familiar Ability
Familiar -> Getting more familiar abilities across levels
Familiar -> Undying
Feats -> Additional lessons (hexes)
Sorcerer
Bloodline -> initial focus spell, option to feat into more focus spells
Bloodline -> Blood Magic, option to feat into more blood magics
Bloodline -> Extra spells known, sometimes 1-2 from outside your main spell list
Blood Potency
Wizard
Arcane Thesis
Arcane Bond
Arcane School
And aside from that of course the question, "does the class have good feats"?
For the sorcerer and the witch, the feat choices interact heavily with the class design. Witches take extra lessons to get more out of hexes and more out of their familiar. For sorcerers you will want to get at least a few heavy use bloodline focus spells to trigger blood magic a lot. And you'll lean heavily on your bloodline spells for that too.
For the wizard it just doesn't get to that kind of synergy. There's not a ton of interplay between the thesis and school for example.
I do think it lays out the improvement path for the wizard pretty clearly: the chassis is the same as the other classes, the problem is the lackluster theses and schools.
Solving that doesn't take an archetype. It just requires publishing better theses and schools. And perhaps some more spicy class feats.
Arcane Bond is nice as a pull a rabbit out of the hat - but you have to have worn the right hat earlier in the day (to horribly mangle the metaphor).
Arcane Thesis allows for some shifting of resources but is essentially a zero-sum game - so a bit of flexibility but no net advantage.
Arcane School has been fully nerfed and makes the new schools more like "sorcerer-love" than focus on an aspect of magic.
What would I do?
I haven't thought it through too much but for Arcane Bond I would give more benefits - like using it to increase the DC of a spell by 1, or extend the duration of a spell by a round, or other things to show a mastery of magic - at the expense of using it to recast an already cast spell.
Arcane Thesis should allow the wizard to get more out of items - use a wand twice per day (limit number or wands or level of wands), or add extra spells to a staff (beyond what Staff Nexus initially allows), or flat check to reuse a scroll, or things like that.
Again - these are just top of mind but I feel play more to distinguishing a wizard from the other spellcasters than drawing them closer.
|
|
Well for me the upshot of it is, the wizard IS fixable with future publications. It doesn't need a chassis revision, the chassis is pretty similar to sorcerer and witch. Chassis we would definitely not get a change on for the next couple years, we just had the remaster.
The place where the wizard lags behind the others is in thesis, school and feats. And those are things that CAN be extended easily in future books. And that are fairly easy things to add to with homebrew.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
In theory future options could help the Wizard...
In practice, Pathfinder 2 is 5 years old and Wizard was in the very first book of the game, so my expectations are basically nonexistent.
You know how you fix all design issues and flavor problems of the Wizard?
Them being Expert in Spellcasting and advancing it faster than other casters. Just make it the Fighter of Spellcasters.
I'm just half-way being sarcastic about it.
IMO, the wizard isn't necessarily a "bad" class; it's just mediocre outside of spells compared to other spellcasting classes. One thing it does do is place a premium on a certain playstyle: A wizard player needs to lean into tailoring the prepared spells for the expected session challenges; they can't rely on their focus spells or extra abilities from class feats as the primary load-bearing functions of the class.
I would agree that archetypes can help wizards by providing some extras to a bland set of options, similar to the pre-Remaster PF2 witch. It doesn't necessarily have to be a class archetype; although psychic (choosing Int-based casting) or witch can help provide more and different spells.
I've been fiddling with a wizard concept choosing the School of Battle Magic and the Experimental Shaping arcane thesis that takes the martial artist archetype (for Mountain Stance, Mountain Stronghold, and Mountain Quake; which can't all be taken with the multiclassed monk archetype). Mountain Stance explicitly states the stance bonus to AC is cumulative with armor potency runes on explorer clothing, mystic armor, and bands of force. The character is magical artillery with added defenses compared to other wizards/"cloth casters."
(yeah, yeah; "sucks" before 4th level, etc.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Taking the Wizard example, Flexible Spellcasting is essentially cutting your spell slots in half for Sorcerer level malleability, and since the Sorcerer is both a better class (better feats, better features, better flavor), as well as has the flexibility you want without losing half your slots, Flexible Spellcasting essentially becomes a trap option. Really, its only benefits are if A. You don't like Sorcerer/Witch flavor, or B. You want to purposefully handicap yourself to impose a personal challenge in your game.I have to mention that the number of Flexible spell slots is not half when counting only free slots (2/3) and not half when counting all of the slots for wizard (3/4). So this assessment is wildly inaccurate.
And another thing Flexible Spellcasting is not of Sorcerer's level malleability. It's MUCH better: all spells are always signatures AND you can change them daily.
You're still burning out one spell slot per rank for slightly better than Sorcerer malleability, which is both a significant expenditure and also not really worth the payment. You're paying a 2nd level feat (spellcasters getting less feats than martial technically means their class feats are a more precious character resource by comparison), locking yourself out of other solid archetypes (Wizard is one of the classes where taking an archetype is basically required since they get practically nothing from their class), and having reduced adventuring longevity for superficial adventuring efficiency (one less spell per day but I can heighten anything I prepare, which seems silly since I can already do that), doesn't seem like a good tradeoff.
I also never see anyone suggest Flexible Spellcasting as a character option in most advice threads, so it must not be all that good of a trade.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think an easy "fix" would be to allow School Spells to be considered part of a Repertoire and count as Signature spells, "burning" a prepared slot to cast at equivalent rank.
For me, this would solve the main issue of not having impactful School spells at each and every level and rank, while still allowing each Wizard to express their School flavor.
It would also take just a pinch of the cognitive load off from choosing which spells to prepare for Daily Preparations, retaining most of that hyper-prepared feel for those who are attracted to the class for that exact reason.
=)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that, since 4 slots casters are becoming slightly more common now with the oracle and the SF2e playtest, I wouldn't really bother if the arcane school slot was removed and they made the wizard a 4 slot caster too (which IMO kinda makes sense since the wizard and sorcerer are more or less the quintessential casters). I also think most of thesis could see some revisions. Most of them could become baseline wizard features or regular wizard feats and most people wouldn't even notice. In particular I think spell blending and spell substitution would be fantastic baseline features for the wizard because they would allow wizards to fully exploit their prepared potential which flavor-wise makes total sense for the class.
Sadly, I think we are too late for this since the remaster already happened. Unless people really hate on the wizard, which isn't happening, a new "re-remaster" for the wizard isn't going to happen.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Could a clas archetype fix the Wizard?
It certainly could, what's more, it's probably the only real option left. Paizo opted to nerf the Wizard in the remaster while not addressing any of the Wizard's actual issues.
Yes, fixing their unique penalty to weapon prof was nice, but it was something that never should have existed to be begin with let alone be considered a "buff". The old cornerstones of the Arcane list and 4-slot casting are largely dead as justifications for their otherwise poor options. The value prop of the arcane list has been generally eroded, and 4 slot casters are becoming more common. (Plus, the Sorcerer got a massive buff, so, like, what gives?)
Wizard's needed a revision to their Thesis', a non-regeressive change up to how schools functioned, additional focus spells and to get actually Knowledge mechanics so that they could actual function as a knowledge class.
They basically got none of this.
A single class archetype cannot fix all of this, but certain ones could tackle specific elements.
The problem is that Class Archetypes are still few & far between, reserved for special occassions rather than just expanding class options /remits.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Archetypes are the least preferable choice, but unless they decide to do an "unchained" style book or give it another shot in some future Player Core 3 style book, there doesn't exist a real alternative if their exists a desire to "fix" things on a fundamental level.
The upcoming Lost Omens book could shower the Wizard with options (Which I both hope it does and realistically needs to), but it won't correct the curriculum slot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Archetypes are the least preferable choice, but unless they decide to do an "unchained" style book or give it another shot in some future Player Core 3 style book, there doesn't exist a real alternative if their exists a desire to "fix" things on a fundamental level.
The upcoming Lost Omens book could shower the Wizard with options (Which I both hope it does and realistically needs to), but it won't correct the curriculum slot.
They could do a more significant errata, the way they did with Alchemist multiple times. I doubt they will since no other class ever got anywhere near that kind of attention, but it's not like its never been done.
Some of the benefits from the Remaster are things that I doubt I would ever use. Do I care that Wizards can now use all simple weapons? Not really. Why would I use a weapon when I have cantrips that do more damage, especially now that Needle Darts is available?
The change to some of the feats is nice (Conceal Spell), but as already has been mentioned this just brings the wizard up to some of the abilities of others without letting it shine in its own space.
Likewise with some of the spells - though this makes them more useful to arcane sorcerers than wizards.
I don't play "bang" mages. I prefer to use magic to do things that others can't do - change the rules of engagement and throw opponents off their guard. Makes for a more memorable game (imho), lets the martials shine in dealing damage (they are the blunt instrument in "my" toolbox"), and helps me showcase intelligent play over brute strength or magical blasting might.
The wizard (imho) should be the one who always has another (magical) trick up the sleeve. They should never try and beat someone else at the other person's game, but force/trick the other into playing by the wizard's rules instead.
We all know Wizard is seen as very weak but could a single Class Archetype for the class actually fix it? Not Flexible Caster
Why not Flexible Caster?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
We all know Wizard is seen as very weak but could a single Class Archetype for the class actually fix it? Not Flexible CasterWhy not Flexible Caster?
Let's fix a spellcasting class by cutting down the one good thing going for it. That is like fixing the Fighter by removing Legendary proficiencies.
Let's fix a spellcasting class by cutting down the one good thing going for it. That is like fixing the Fighter by removing Legendary proficiencies.
And what is this "one good thing going for" the Wizard?
Because I find the Flexible Caster Wizard to be quite the powerhouse, so I'm a bit surprised.|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's fix a spellcasting class by cutting down the one good thing going for it. That is like fixing the Fighter by removing Legendary proficiencies.What is the "one good thing going for" the Wizard?
Because I find the Flexible Caster Wizard to be quite the powerhouse, so I'm a bit surprised.
I think Darksol is suggesting that the reduction in spellslots from Flexible puts a limit on the Wizard's upper cap for spell variety. Spell variety being being one of the Wizard's only real strengths, such as it is. It's not what it once was, but its still technically a strength of theirs.
(As an aside, if I could burn the curriculum slot on Flexible, I'd like it a whole lot more. So that would be a cheap, easy, errata source.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think Darksol is suggesting that the reduction in spellslots from Flexible puts a limit on the Wizard's upper cap for spell variety. Spell variety being being one of the Wizard's only real strengths, such as it is. It's not what it once was, but its still technically a strength of theirs.
(As an aside, if I could burn the curriculum slot on Flexible, I'd like it a whole lot more. So that would be a cheap, easy, errata source.)
Yeah, I think people have a weird vision of the Wizard.
First, Flexible caster doesn't reduce Wizard's spell variety. You have a smaller spell list at the beginning of the day but a bigger one at the end of the day. Also, you don't have spell level limitations, all your spells being Signature ones. Overall, I feel that it increases Wizard spell variety more than it reduces it, and anyway it doesn't really change it by such a perceptible margin.
Also, Wizard's number of spell slots allows it to use Flexible caster. Flexible caster is much better on a class with tons of spell slots as the cost of losing one spell slot is lowered. Wizard is as such the ideal Flexible caster.
As a side note, a Spell Blending Flexible Specialist is an absolute powerhouse. It's one of the nastiest spellcaster in the game combining a crazy number of high level spell slots and all the advantages of both Prepared and Spontaneous casting (and even more as you only have Signature Spells). It is the elephant in this conversation, I find that crazy to exclude it when it is literally an "archetype fixing Wizard".
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can't fix what isn't broken and wizard isn't broken. Not liking the playstyle that wizard has is fine. But that isn't enough to claim it's broken.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
(As an aside, if I could burn the curriculum slot on Flexible, I'd like it a whole lot more. So that would be a cheap, easy, errata source.)That would require to completely remake Flexible archetype. As it is it only changes 'free slots' and doesn't touch 'additional' ones. To make it work like this for some classes and spend 'additional' slots only for wizards would be weird and costly in words.
Not really.
Here's all you need to do:
Restricted Spell Slots
When applying this archetype to a class that grants additional spell slots with restrictions, such asthe specialist wizard's specialist school spells orthe cleric's divine bond, you still gain those additional slots, but they work as normal for your class, and they don't add more spells to your spell collection. A healing font grants you additional spell slots to cast heal spells of the highest level you can cast, but doesn't add heal to your spell collection. A harming font does the same for the harm spell.As a specialist wizard, you prepare one spell per level from your specialty school, which also aren't added to your spell collection.
- You can cast fewer spells each day. Your number of spell slots per day
don't advance from 2 to 3 spells at even levels (see Table 5—1)advances as per Table 5-1.- Extra spell slots you gain that have additional restrictions, excluding the Wizard's specialist school spells, like the
wizard's specialist school spells orthe cleric's divine font spells, don't change due to this archetype, nor do such spells count toward the number of spells you place in your spell collection. See the Restricted Spell Slots sidebar- Spells gained from the wizard's specialist school spells may be removed to expand your spell collection. See ** on Table 5-1.
** If a Wizard has exchanged the spells from their wizard's specialist school to expand their collection, increase the number of spell slots from 2 to 3 at each even level
|
Some of the benefits from the Remaster are things that I doubt I would ever use. Do I care that Wizards can now use all simple weapons? Not really. Why would I use a weapon when I have cantrips that do more damage, especially now that Needle Darts is available?
So, I'm going to be vague to avoid spoilers, but even as a full caster, you should *always* have a weapon you can use. Just got through a section in an AP that was utterly designed to shut down spellcasting -- the thing that got us through it was that my Wizard had a Returning Spear she could throw.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, I'm going to be vague to avoid spoilers, but even as a full caster, you should *always* have a weapon you can use. Just got through a section in an AP that was utterly designed to shut down spellcasting -- the thing that got us through it was that my Wizard had a Returning Spear she could throw.Some of the benefits from the Remaster are things that I doubt I would ever use. Do I care that Wizards can now use all simple weapons? Not really. Why would I use a weapon when I have cantrips that do more damage, especially now that Needle Darts is available?
If it's what I'm thinking of, grabbing the remastered Alchemist Dedication is also pretty good in general. Quick Vial works fine, even without grabbing Quicker Bomber.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Depends of the level, because I would not be spending gold on a weapon as a full caster when striking runes are a thing unless I am using it regurlary, those runes are expensive, and I would already be expending on staves, scrolls and in the case of wizard also learning spells.
Let's fix a spellcasting class by cutting down the one good thing going for it. That is like fixing the Fighter by removing Legendary proficiencies.And what is this "one good thing going for" the Wizard?
Because I find the Flexible Caster Wizard to be quite the powerhouse, so I'm a bit surprised.
The one thing going for it is the 4 spell slots per rank. Cutting it down to 3 makes them infinitely worse than Sorcerers, as if they weren't already. Again, it is like capping Fighters at Master in weapons.
And no, you can't sacrifice school slots for it, so nice try on that.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can't fix what isn't broken and wizard isn't broken. Not liking the playstyle that wizard has is fine. But that isn't enough to claim it's broken.
There's a weird thing with the Wizard: many players want a specific playstyle, which is good for out of combat stuff, but want it to be good for combat stuff. When you direct them to combat oriented builds, they reject them because reasons.
This whole discussion is that again: The Flexible caster Archetype is clearly the one to focus on combat and it is rejected in the first post. Obviously the question is not "How to fix the Wizard with an Archetype?" because the Wizard doesn't need a fix when you use a build oriented towards your goal. I assume it'll be another endless rant by players who struggle to play their Wizard.
The one thing going for it is the 4 spell slots per rank. Cutting it down to 3 makes them infinitely worse than Sorcerers, as if they weren't already. Again, it is like capping Fighters at Master in weapons.
Have you ever even considered a Spell Blending Flexible Specialist Wizard? Because stating it's "worse than a Sorcerer" is clearly missing how strong it is: More high level slots and more spell flexibility. If what you're looking for is a combat powerhouse, then this is exactly what you want. If what you're looking for is an out of combat toolbox, then Spell Substitution is what you want. It's 2 very competitive Wizard builds that I give you.
Now, I agree that not all options are made equal in the Wizard. On that, I fully agree.
And no, you can't sacrifice school slots for it, so nice try on that.
I've never said anything like that. And anyway it's pointless as these slots are already sacrificed to Spell Blending.
The one thing going for it is the 4 spell slots per rank. Cutting it down to 3 makes them infinitely worse than Sorcerers, as if they weren't already. Again, it is like capping Fighters at Master in weapons.Have you ever even considered a Spell Blending Flexible Specialist Wizard? Because stating it's "worse than a Sorcerer" is clearly missing how strong it is: More high level slots and more spell flexibility. If what you're looking for is a combat powerhouse, then this is exactly what you want. If what you're looking for is an out of combat toolbox, then Spell Substitution is what you want. It's 2 very competitive Wizard builds that I give you.
Now, I agree that not all options are made equal in the Wizard. On that, I fully agree.
And no, you can't sacrifice school slots for it, so nice try on that.I've never said anything like that. And anyway it's pointless as these slots are already sacrificed to Spell Blending.
Spell Blending already cuts enough spell slots for more high-end spellcasting, Flexible Casting cuts it even more. At this point you might as well rest after the first combat because you are out of spells.
|
|
If it's what I'm thinking of, grabbing the remastered Alchemist Dedication is also pretty good in general. Quick Vial works fine, even without grabbing Quicker Bomber.So, I'm going to be vague to avoid spoilers, but even as a full caster, you should *always* have a weapon you can use. Just got through a section in an AP that was utterly designed to shut down spellcasting -- the thing that got us through it was that my Wizard had a Returning Spear she could throw.Some of the benefits from the Remaster are things that I doubt I would ever use. Do I care that Wizards can now use all simple weapons? Not really. Why would I use a weapon when I have cantrips that do more damage, especially now that Needle Darts is available?
That also would have worked, yes.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Spell Blending already cuts enough spell slots for more high-end spellcasting, Flexible Casting cuts it even more. At this point you might as well rest after the first combat because you are out of spells.
Obviously...
As I was saying, there's a mental block when it comes to optimizing a Wizard forcing lots of players to play suboptimal builds and complain about it.
Well, not a fight I'm interested in.
I still encourage you to count your spell slots because that build has a very high number of spell slots until very high levels. You have more spell slots than a Sorcerer up to level 7, then a similar number up to level 13 and it's only at such a high level that you start losing spell slots against a Sorcerer.
If someone really wanted to optimize and didn't mind the bookkeeping, you could blend away a bunch of slots for higher level slots and use crafting to replace the lower level slots with lots of cheap scrolls. As you gain levels, scrolls for low level slots become extraordinarily cheap compared to your wealth. You can churn them out cheaply and carry a bunch to stock up on lower level slots of key spells you would slot anyway.
Wizard doesn't heighten spontaneously, so no real need to concern yourself with lower level spells you might heighten as a sorcerer. You can stack scrolls of reveal the unseen, slow, haste, sure strike, and the like. Then you have to figure out an efficient way to use them.
So, I'm going to be vague to avoid spoilers, but even as a full caster, you should *always* have a weapon you can use. Just got through a section in an AP that was utterly designed to shut down spellcasting -- the thing that got us through it was that my Wizard had a Returning Spear she could throw.
Sounds like bad AP encounter design. It happens. Yes, a spellcaster should have a weapon or two (ranged and melee) they can use, but IMHO it is last resort (leaving aside archetypes and other myriad options to vary the character). In a 1e AP I was running the wizard PC used his dagger once in 20 levels, and that was only because he was out of relevant spells (none of the cantrips learned that day were suitable for this specific instance - ambush attack - hard to prepare for).
Given that 2e is more about teamwork and relying on a diverse party mix (or so I've constantly been told), I'd be worried if a vanilla wizard needed to use a mundane weapon more than a handful of times.