| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Q: Could Class Archetyping Fix Wizard?
A: *If* the Wizard is “broken” then yes, because class archetypes can pretty much change an entire class. That says way more about the potential power of class archetypes than the wizard class though.
|
| 1 person 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.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.
Oh no, it was 100% on theme and foreseeable.
Every character should always have a plan for what they do when their main shtick gets shut down. And occassionally, spellcasting will be impossible.
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.
Neat idea. I think I might try this out as a wizard and see how I like it. Play a war wizard focus on being a walking WMD.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen a lot of discussions about whether the wizard class is balanced or in need of fixing. Honestly, after checking out other systems, I've noticed that their wizards are all spectacular. Then I look at the 2e wizard and wonder: is this seriously the best we can do? We can do better than this! Fingers crossed that the new rune archetype improves things a bit, because this shouldn’t be the best the 2e wizard can ever be.
Pathfinder 2e shouldn't need to break it's system just because other systems cannot make a balanced Wizard and let it break their games. Wizards/mages break every system I've played it, from DnD to Shadowrun to World of Darkness, 13th Age, Pathfinder 1e. They always are unbalanced and force the entire game to bottleneck around them and their playstyle, and force the gameplay to center entirely around what those players want to play. I applaud 2e for not doing this and actually forcing wizard players to play as part of a team and being just another class you can pick, instead of the best option that gets to force the GM to play around their BS or have nothing matter mechanically.
|
I've seen a lot of discussions about whether the wizard class is balanced or in need of fixing. Honestly, after checking out other systems, I've noticed that their wizards are all spectacular. Then I look at the 2e wizard and wonder: is this seriously the best we can do? We can do better than this! Fingers crossed that the new rune archetype improves things a bit, because this shouldn’t be the best the 2e wizard can ever be.Pathfinder 2e shouldn't need to break it's system just because other systems cannot make a balanced Wizard and let it break their games. Wizards/mages break every system I've played it, from DnD to Shadowrun to World of Darkness, 13th Age, Pathfinder 1e. They always are unbalanced and force the entire game to bottleneck around them and their playstyle, and force the gameplay to center entirely around what those players want to play. I applaud 2e for not doing this and actually forcing wizard players to play as part of a team and being just another class you can pick, instead of the best option that gets to force the GM to play around their BS or have nothing matter mechanically.
You're bringing in issues from outside PF2 to colour your opinion of what is being asked for by people who want to improve the Wizard.
Literally no one is asking for whatever you think people are asking for.
PF2's Wizard has specific issues which are true for it within the context of this edition and how it interacts with the game as a whole.
It's important to read what people are saying, not what you think people are saying.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I was to decompose the Wizard, there are 2 main builds:
The Spell Substitution Wizard, aka the out of combat toolbox. Spell Substitution is absolutely massive if you value out of combat casting a lot. Unfortunately, that's extremely GM and campaign-dependent. From my experience, APs and other adventures don't put the focus on out of combat enough to make such a Wizard shine. But in parties where the GM makes the necessary work, this build has clearly its place and the players of such a Wizard really love it.
The Spell Blending Specialist, aka the battle mage. With Spell Blending you can cast all day long top rank spells. Flexible casting really complement this build by giving it a crazy flexibility. The issue of this build is that it plays in opposition to how the Wizard used to be played, so a lot of players disregard it. Still, you'll never see the player of a Spell Blender complaining about the Wizard class.
Then we have... the rest. Paizo, in my opinion, doesn't realize how the Wizard is supposed to be played and continues to release options that are just killing the class. All the Familiar/Metamagic/Staff Theses are suicidal: They replace your main mechanic by unimpactful abilities. The end result is bland as hell and unable to compete with an actual Wizard.
Then we have... the players. They have an image of the Wizard, inherited from the previous versions, of a class that just work as is and is better than anything else in absolutely everything. So they absolutely loathe optimization and specialization and just want to do whatever they want and be good at it without any effort. In general they build their Wizard for the maximum amount of versatility and then complain of its weakness compared to specialized builds.
So, is the Wizard problematic? First, it is, as some of its options are really bad. You have 2 good builds and a bunch of bad builds, which creates a lot of dissonance between those who play the good builds for the good reasons and those who play the bad builds or the good builds for the bad reasons.
But is it that much of an issue? Lots of classes have bad builds and options and players learn to avoid them. They will still judge the class as a whole on what it does well and not on what it does badly. The real issue there is that players don't want to learn how to play a Wizard, they still want to use their old PF1 recipes even if they no more work in PF2.
So... what's the solution to this problem? Keeping it as is obviously doesn't work considering the endless stream of "Wizard is bad" discussions. Buffing the Wizard for the whinners will put it way above the norm and as such imbalance the game. Buffing the weak options is in my opinion the best solution. Familiar Thesis should give powers like the Witch Stitched Familiar, Metamagic Thesis should give more than just a few feats and really improve your use of Metamagic, Staff Nexus should give you more than what it gives currently.
Nothing that justifies a Class Archetype. So, no, there's no way you can "fix" Wizard with a Class Archetype. You need to buff its weak options. And to be honest, I think Paizo developers fall for the same things than the average Joe: Considering that the Wizard still plays as it used to. That's why they don't realize that there are very few functional builds and why they don't really separate the crowd of "Wizard is bad" players and the crowd of "Wizard is fine" players. If they were to analyze why some players hate it and why others like it, they'd realize that there's an issue that is easy to solve.
|
|
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think you are way out of line Bidi, and its difficult to take seriously when you are trotting out the same anti-player rhetoric you've been saying since the start of the edition.
Seriously, and I'm saying this for both this thread and every other time someone pulls this out for no reason: No one is asking for the 3.5/PF1 Wizard back. It's not true, stop saying it. It's nothing more than an attempt to stop conversation. It's tired, it's old. Move on.
_______
Moving on:
The problems with the Wizard can be broken down into 3 primary categories, all 3 are interrelated and inform on the themselves:
Theme & Identity
- Wizard lacks a solid mechanical identity, seperate from other casters
- Wizard's theme isn't meaningfully fulfilled or explored. With neither their scholar nor magical-scientist themes being used for anything bar a some ability names.
GM Dependence & Table Variance
- Several issues with Wizard seem to resolve around them needing a disproportionate amount of attention, cooperation and buy-in from the GM.
- This level of GM Buy-in is generally not communicated to either the player or the GM and needs to be "discovered"
- Table variance been Wizard experiences can be huge because of this.
Mechanical Implementation
- Wizard has several specific issues in how the class is designed and how it interacts with the above two. These involve but aren't limited to:
-- Thesis options which are either bad, don't do anything for many levels or are now in the domain of other classes.
-- Lack of a full compliment to focus spells and good ones at that. Wizard's being the only class with focus spells not to get the full compliment and the ones they do have are generally weaker than most others.
-- Legacy design principles seem to stop the Wizard with the evolving with the rest of the game.
- Specific call out to the change to the Curriculum slot restrictions diminishing one of the otherwise stated power-levers of the class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No one is asking for the 3.5/PF1 Wizard back.
And I've never said anything like that. I'm speaking of keeping the habit not keeping the expectations.
From my experience, most players are unable to even build a Wizard spell list properly. Because they continue to believe on the old PF1 principles of versatility when the PF2 Wizard is not versatile anymore.Theme & Identity
Irrelevant to the discussion, as this is a discussion about effectiveness. Actually, most of the long lasting discussions about the Wizard are about effectiveness.
Also, I don't have a horse in this fight.GM Dependence & Table Variance
The tree that hides the forest. If the Wizard's bad it's because of the nasty GM. There must be a shortage of nice GMs. Why can you somehow criticize the GM work and can't I criticize the player work?
Mechanical Implementation
- Wizard has several specific issues in how the class is designed and how it interacts with the above two. These involve but aren't limited to:
-- Thesis options which are either bad, don't do anything for many levels or are now in the domain of other classes.
-- Lack of a full compliment to focus spells and good ones at that. Wizard's being the only class with focus spells not to get the full compliment and the ones they do have are generally weaker than most others.
-- Legacy design principles seem to stop the Wizard with the evolving with the rest of the game.
- Specific call out to the change to the Curriculum slot restrictions diminishing one of the otherwise stated power-levers of the class.
Now we're talking. And actually stating the same things: Weak options, legacy design principle that players embrace instead of focusing on working principles and a few minor points (Wizard doesn't need Focus Spells and some curriculums are part of the weak options but overall it's rather unimpactful).
We are stating the exact same thing. The difference being that you want the Wizard to change to accommodate to players when I encourage players to change to accommodate to the Wizard.
As a side note, you're an old Wizard player: Have you played a Spell Blending Wizard? And if yes, what were your impressions?
Oh no, it was 100% on theme and foreseeable.Every character should always have a plan for what they do when their main shtick gets shut down. And occassionally, spellcasting will be impossible.
Not knowing what is being referenced I'll bow to superior knowledge.
If it was 100% foreseeable then I'll argue that the wizard should still not be required to rely on martial tools. Their best weapon should be their mind/intelligence and ability to prepare appropriately.To me a wizard is the magical equivalent to the fighter. A fighter will tend to specialise and favour some weapons but should also have enough tools in their bag to deal with things that are weapon resistant or immune. Same with a wizard. If an encounter nerfs spellcasting there should still be other options for "winning" or surviving that do not depend on a character relying on someone else's schtick. Allowing other classes to shine - sure - but for some wizards asking them to take up arms would be akin to asking some fighters to cast a spell or rely on diplomacy alone.
For whether an archetype can fix the wizard? No - if one exists then it becomes the only valid option imho further restricting what one can do with the class.
I'm glad Paizo has fixed the math to allow for more balance across classes across low to high levels.
I'm not glad that wizards (which should be the arcane spellcasting master) have to eye enviously what other classes can do with arcane magic without being able to match or do better themselves (except in narrow areas).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since we are at this wizard stuff again, I'll restate what I always do. They over-nerfed the wizard while trying to maintain the thematic parts that aren't that interesting or good:
1. Arcane list vastly reduced in combat power. Shares too many power spells with other classes and has few unique power spells and lacks best in class spells it used to have like heroism.
2. Spell slots greatly reduced with no additional slots from a high ability score.
3. Even their school abilities are much, much weaker than previous school abilities like Intense Spells with Evocation and or the Diviner initiative ability.
4. Wands and staves greatly reduced in power and utility with very limited charges. Wands are like a single use scroll with a much higher cost and staves are just ok with the primary recommendation being pick up a staff of divination for a bunch of sure strikes which is pretty sad compared to what staffs used to be.
5. Only one thesis uses the wizard's ability to change spells throughout the day. If you don't take Spell Substitution, you're pretty much locked in to your spells for the day.
6. Spontaneous Casting greatly improved with a huge spell list for spontaneous casters and the ability to heighten creating on demand spell versatility with signature spells far greater than the wizard can match with a locked in spell list daily.
7. Weaker familiars.
8. Spellshaping feats far weaker and more limited than PF1. Metamagic feats in PF1 is part of what made the wizard king as the wizard was the best user of Metamagic/Spellshaping in the game able to slot spellshape feats with spells making their spells far more diverse and powerful.
9. A total of lack of innate special abilities that make up for all that they lost to at least make them interesting and somewhat on par with other caster classes like the druid, bard, or sorcerer which even with reducing casting maintained powerful features that make for interesting builds.
The one feature setting wizards apart is their Bond. The Bond has highly limited functionality in the game.
The wizard was nerfed heavily from PF1 to PF2 systemically while porting over features that don't stand out or compete well absent all the systemic features that made them what they were. Given all the systemic changes and the above changes, they really needed to remake the wizard from the ground up to make it competitive just like they did with the other classes where they ported over class features from PF1 into PF2 in a manner that still made the features feel powerful. You might even say Untamed Shift is better now than it was. Bard is definitely still amazing. Sorcerer has some great bloodlines and in the remaster they made the sorcerer even better. The wizard was one of the few classes made even worse in PF2 with the limited school slots becoming even more limited and no real standout feats that play well.
I still think you can clearly show an Imperial Sorcerer is a better arcane caster than a wizard. The wizard should have at least been the very best arcane caster in the game and they aren't.
I still think you can clearly show an Imperial Sorcerer is a better arcane caster than a wizard. The wizard should have at least been the very best arcane caster in the game and they aren't.
I can build you a Wizard that is on par with an Imperial Sorcerer across its whole career.
But I agree you can easily build a Wizard that is worse than an Arcane Sorcerer.Now, I don't understand what you mean by being the best arcane caster in the game unless you consider the Wizard should be somewhat overpowered compared to other Arcane options.
No you can't.
No you can't.
What allows you to be so sure?
Because I definitely can. Obviously, both characters will be significantly different so you may prefer one or the other. But the difference between both won't be high enough to consider one to be subpar compared to the other.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
No one is asking for the 3.5/PF1 Wizard back.And I've never said anything like that. I'm speaking of keeping the habit not keeping the expectations.
From my experience, most players are unable to even build a Wizard spell list properly. Because they continue to believe on the old PF1 principles of versatility when the PF2 Wizard is not versatile anymore.
My apologies, that bit wasn't aimed at you specifically, its just that, for some reason, whenever there is a thread about Wizards, its a sentiment that seems to bubble up.
GM Dependence & Table VarianceThe tree that hides the forest. If the Wizard's bad it's because of the nasty GM. There must be a shortage of nice GMs. Why can you somehow criticize the GM work and can't I criticize the player work?
It's not about good or bad GM's, or even the players really. The core function of the Wizard needs a greater degree of coordination between the player and the GM to ensure effectiveness. The Wizard's lack of decent fall-back options or meaningful ability to adapt mid-day means that the experience of the player is going to change table by table and maybe even session by session. It has more varience in experience than anything else.
legacy design principle that players embrace
I'm saying the exact opposite actually. I'm saying that Paizo designed the Wizard with a series of legacy assumptions in mind. This ended up creating a class which isn't vibing with the current edition like it should.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Spell Substitution Wizard, aka the out of combat toolbox. Spell Substitution is absolutely massive if you value out of combat casting a lot. Unfortunately, that's extremely GM and campaign-dependent. From my experience, APs and other adventures don't put the focus on out of combat enough to make such a Wizard shine. But in parties where the GM makes the necessary work, this build has clearly its place and the players of such a Wizard really love it.
Spell Subsitution should be a class feature or a feat. It shouldn't be an arcane thesis. Certain players really value this flexibility and making it a thesis cuts them out of other options.
The Spell Blending Specialist, aka the battle mage. With Spell Blending you can cast all day long top rank spells. Flexible casting really complement this build by giving it a crazy flexibility. The issue of this build is that it plays in opposition to how the Wizard used to be played, so a lot of players disregard it. Still, you'll never see the player of a Spell Blender complaining about the Wizard class.
The issue is that it costs spell slots and so it is useless early and really hurts in the mid game. Lower level spells slots are much more useful for things like reactions than they ever have been before. PF2 is not the same as it was 4 years ago. For sure it is good at high levels. But SB doesn't have an actual high level slot advantage over the sorcerer as the sorcerer makes better use damage and save wise of its slots.
Then we have... the rest. Paizo, in my opinion, doesn't realize how the Wizard is supposed to be played and continues to release options that are just killing the class. All the Familiar/Metamagic/Staff Theses are suicidal: They replace your main mechanic by unimpactful abilities. The end result is bland as hell and unable to compete with an actual Wizard.
I do agree that Wizard familiars have been kept so weak by design that they are ignorable. It is regretable.
Metamagic is just a few low level feats. I really don't understand why they don't have an option to have a limited Metamagic Mastery available much sooner.Staff Nexus is Ok for what it does. But that is just a modest amout of flexibility. At high levels it is not great.
So yes I agree all these need a buff.
Then we have... the players.
I don't think it is fair to compare casual players with the diehard fans.
So, is the Wizard problematic? First, it is, as some of its options are really bad. You have 2 good builds and a bunch of bad builds
That pretty much exists everywhere. A good half the feats in the game are poor. Yes I see it as a problem. Remaster improved things a lot in terms of subclasses, but it didn't do anything for the wizard as it was not seen as problematic.
I'm saying the exact opposite actually. I'm saying that Paizo designed the Wizard with a series of legacy assumptions in mind. This ended up creating a class which isn't vibing with the current edition like it should.
We have the same point of view. But I also add that players embrace this vision of the Wizard. Paizo is not alone in making that mistake, because there are ways to build perfectly fine Wizards. But when someone bring them, it's seen as a marginal way of playing the Wizard.
I consider Spell Blending as the main Thesis for the Wizard as it's the one that really reinforces its strength. But most players don't and will choose Spell Substitution as its main Thesis, despite the fact that it's of nearly no point for combat (and it's a game of combats).
No you can't.What allows you to be so sure?
Because I definitely can. Obviously, both characters will be significantly different so you may prefer one or the other. But the difference between both won't be high enough to consider one to be subpar compared to the other.
It is a judgement call. Obviously the details are going to be highly game dependant. GM and options are going to come into it.
I'm just not seeing anything the wizard can do that the sorcerer can't do. In my opinion it is much better overall.
How are you compensating for the differences in maths the classes can have?
There are no real maths differences, or should I say they are vastly overvalued.
To compare to a Sorcerer, I tend to use the Flexible Spell Blending Specialist, as Flexible casting gives you a lot of flexibility. But when I speak of this build, you have reactions that the Wizard now has a very limited number of spell slots... which isn't the case at all.
Let's compare them in terms of spell slots at low level:
Level 1 : Wizard 4 / Sorcerer 3
Level 2 : Wizard 4 / Sorcerer 4
Level 3 : Same number but the Wizard has an extra rank 2 spell when the Sorcerer has an extra rank 1 spell.
Level 4 : The Wizard has 1 less rank 1 spell.
Level 5 : Wizard 2 extra rank 3 spells / Sorcerer 1 extra rank 2 and 3 extra rank 1.
Level 6 : Wizard 1 extra rank 3 spells / Sorcerer 1 extra rank 2 and 3 extra rank 1.
Level 7 : Wizard 2 extra rank 4 spells / Sorcerer 3 extra rank 2 and 3 extra rank 1.
So from level 1 to 7 (with the exception of level 4) the spell slot advantage is for the Wizard.
Level 8-13 are much more balanced. Clearly, depending on your prefered playstyle, you'll like one of the other. It's only at level 14 that the Sorcerer starts getting unarguably ahead in terms of spell slots (mostly because you stop using Spell Blending all the way to the top around this level).
In terms of "Spell Repertoire", the Wizard has 50% of the Sorcerer spells known. But 25% of the Sorcerer spells come from its Bloodline and they are rarely all good. Also, the Sorcerer has spells of every rank when the Wizard can concentrate on its best spells. And all the Wizard spells are Signature spells, so twice more than the Sorcerer. And then the Wizard can prepare another Spell Selection the next morning (the impact of being a Prepared caster is highly campaign-dependent, so I won't insist on that even if I think it's a major selling point to some people (not me)).
When it comes to feats and class features, the Sorcerer has Dangerous Sorcery (or its new name) which is really nice. But the Wizard also has some high value feats: Conceal Spell, Irresistible Magic, Knowledge is Power among others.
So, both character will be significantly different and I think that the highest levels will see a domination of the Sorcerer when the lowest ones are more for the Wizard. But overall, it's a wash. Proving that the Sorcerer is significantly better than the Wizard will be very hard, there are clearly environments where the Wizard will be better (mostly due to the variable value of Preparing spells).
Lower level spells slots are much more useful for things like reactions than they ever have been before.
They are much more useful than they have ever been, I agree (I was nearly never casting a rank 1 to 3 spell at some point so it's not hard to make them "more useful"). But a +2 to AC and 3 points of damage reduction is hardly a selling point. Overall, they won't affect the game much.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen a lot of discussions about whether the wizard class is balanced or in need of fixing. Honestly, after checking out other systems, I've noticed that their wizards are all spectacular. Then I look at the 2e wizard and wonder: is this seriously the best we can do? We can do better than this! Fingers crossed that the new rune archetype improves things a bit, because this shouldn’t be the best the 2e wizard can ever be.Pathfinder 2e shouldn't need to break it's system just because other systems cannot make a balanced Wizard and let it break their games. Wizards/mages break every system I've played it, from DnD to Shadowrun to World of Darkness, 13th Age, Pathfinder 1e. They always are unbalanced and force the entire game to bottleneck around them and their playstyle, and force the gameplay to center entirely around what those players want to play. I applaud 2e for not doing this and actually forcing wizard players to play as part of a team and being just another class you can pick, instead of the best option that gets to force the GM to play around their BS or have nothing matter mechanically.You're bringing in issues from outside PF2 to colour your opinion of what is being asked for by people who want to improve the Wizard.
Literally no one is asking for whatever you think people are asking for.
PF2's Wizard has specific issues which are true for it within the context of this edition and how it interacts with the game as a whole.
It's important to read what people are saying, not what you think people are saying.
How exactly am I supposed to not jump to that conclusion, when the entire premise of the post i am replying to is "other systems wizards are better so PF 2e should be like them."
I think that wizards not having a "theme" is perfectly fine. Fighters also don't have a theme because part of their shtick is to be the "quintessential martial character", though in the case of wizards they are supposed to be the quintessential caster character. Spell blending and spell substitution are just to strong to be compared to the other thesis, which are either situationally bad or straight up bad. Schools are also in weird spot in which the newer version is technically more flavorful than the what we used to have but way weaker at the same time.
I would honestly remove schools altogether and instead increase the amount of spell slots wizards have per day by one, then either make spell blending and spell substitution baseline features or make it like a second subclass of sorts so you have to chose to have one of them at 1st level. That would leave us with experimental spellshaping, improved famliar attunement, and staff nexus as the only thesis for wizards...and if I had to be honest I wouldn't mind removing these too. Staff nexus is a trap option, and if someone wants a familiar they'll likely be playing a witch instead, and I guess experimental spellshaping could also become a baseline feature kinda like the fighter's combat flexibility at 9th level or so. IMO this version of the class feels like the caster equivalent of fighters, which I think should be the goal of wizards.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still think you can clearly show an Imperial Sorcerer is a better arcane caster than a wizard. The wizard should have at least been the very best arcane caster in the game and they aren't.I can build you a Wizard that is on par with an Imperial Sorcerer across its whole career.
But I agree you can easily build a Wizard that is worse than an Arcane Sorcerer.Now, I don't understand what you mean by being the best arcane caster in the game unless you consider the Wizard should be somewhat overpowered compared to other Arcane options.
Yes. The wizard should be an arcane caster like the fighter is best at hitting things and the cleric is best at healing and the rogue is best at skills. Arcane power should be the wizard's thing and they should be the best arcane caster in the game. It's all they do and all they can do.
I agree that the wizard should be the equivalent of fighter for casters, I said so myself in my previous comment, but if we take it in a literal way that would mean the wizard should start at expert with their spell proficiencies, scale up to master at 7th and legendary at 15th, though IMO I think that would be harmful to the system. A fighter can have the luxury of having better proficiencies because that's their whole thing, since martials usually have class features that make them different from each other. In PF2e, casters barely have features and their power budget comes almost entirely from their spells, so if wizards had better spellcasting proficiencies that would probably make it too good of a choice and would make playing non-wizards a big deal since they would fill so much worse in comparision.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have stayed out of this thread mostly because it is a bit of a trap thread. The OP is asking whether a class archetype could make more people enjoy the wizard as a class. Of course good class archetypes win some folks over.
Then they say flexible casting is a weak archetype for a wizard, and the new fix archetype needs to be better. I hardly think there is consensus about flexible casting being weak, even if I would never choose it because I like spell slots and spell substitution as a thesis, which is used out of combat, but actually makes a wizard much more combat flexible as you rearrange your combat spells in the time everyone else is treating wounds and refocusing. But thesis isn’t really something tied to class archetypes currently and would probably be a bit of a weird place for it when you could just make new theses if there are ideas currently missing.
I predict many players will be pretty upset when rune lord archetype primarily grants stuff for wizards to use a polearm and limit their casting even more than anything like schools.
I don’t really know what people who are unhappy with the wizard want it to be because 8 to 10 different ideas come out every one of these threads and many of the ideas push for the wizard to be more mechanically powerful or to emulate other PF2 classes more.
Also people will say things like wizards have bad focus spells and thesis options when they mean that some of them under perform other wizard focus spells and thesis options which is something that remains true of every class in the game, and is “fixed” by just continuing to publish new options.
I think it is ok to not like PF2’s take on prepared casting but it is not like there are not tons of other types of casters to play
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you would be fine giving the wizard 4 slots per level and a focus ability to increase the DC of a spell. People expect the wizard to be one of the strongest classes every edition. It is tradition.
I'm saying the exact opposite actually. I'm saying that Paizo designed the Wizard with a series of legacy assumptions in mind. This ended up creating a class which isn't vibing with the current edition like it should.
legacy design principle that players embrace
I find this really interesting. Given the “evolution” of class design (Kineticists and Animists, Exemplars and even Thaumaturges) in PF2 and then the Remaster, how does anyone think the Wizard, free of the assumptions of legacy Wizards AND taking some pointers from those “evolved” class designs, *should* have been designed?
I also think Deriven’s point of the Wizard being the apex Arcanist is likely a good place to start, given they….apparently don’t have anything else.
I think you would be fine giving the wizard 4 slots per level and a focus ability to increase the DC of a spell. People expect the wizard to be one of the strongest classes every edition. It is tradition.
Really, I think this is where the Wizard ultimately has failed as a class. When all you have to offer for a class is "It's a mechanically powerful spellcaster," it's not very interesting or variably playable as a class. The #1 reason the Wizard was powerful was specifically because of its mechanical power. Getting access to spells 1 level (or more) before everyone else, having access to all of the most powerful spells you could possibly need (and most other spellcasters didn't have them), and being able to solo the entire game by 5th level or so, were really the only reasons players chose the Wizard as a class.
If the Wizard did not have any of those things in those editions, do you think it would have the same praise or reverence that it currently has today? I think not, and the Remaster proves that. Changing a class to better suit its flavor at the cost of reduced power ceiling and scaling, just makes it feel worse, especially since it comes across as taking away a child's "fun toy." Sure, we can say "But the Sorcerer was bad, it should have been buffed to match the Wizard so it isn't invalidated as a class!", but again, if we gave Sorcerers the same progression as Wizards, as well as the same bonuses, pretty sure the Sorcerer would have won out again, because 1. Charisma was still probably better as an attribute, and 2. The Sorcerer flavor is both cooler and more fun to work with than some old fart that's a bookworm.
It also doesn't help that they seriously buffed the significance of Charisma as an attribute, while nerfing Intelligence as an attribute, but that was ancillary to the Wizard's power in previous editions; I suppose that now that spellcasters in general aren't as potent as they used to be, they need to shore up that lost power any way they can, and Sorcerers can shore it up a heck of a lot better than Wizards can.
|
|
I predict many players will be pretty upset when rune lord archetype primarily grants stuff for wizards to use a polearm and limit their casting even more than anything like schools.
I'm just really hoping I won't be forced to change my PFS Runelord of Pride to whatever they come up with for the new one. I like the way she works now. But I'm afraid she'll end up with the Oracle treatment.
(That said, "Illusion" is theoretically the easiest school to port over, since it is a trait that Remaster spells can have, and the restrictions probably can't be as bad as losing Conjuration and Transmutation -- but I built around those restrictions.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How are you compensating for the differences in maths the classes can have?There are no real maths differences, or should I say they are vastly overvalued.
To compare to a Sorcerer, I tend to use the Flexible Spell Blending Specialist, as Flexible casting gives you a lot of flexibility.
You aren't being fair here. You need to pick one.
But when I speak of this build, you have reactions that the Wizard now has a very limited number of spell slots... which isn't the case at all.Let's compare them in terms of spell slots at low level:
Level 1 : Wizard 4 / Sorcerer 3
Level 2 : Wizard 4 / Sorcerer 4
Level 3 : Same number but the Wizard has an extra rank 2 spell when the Sorcerer has an extra rank 1 spell.
Level 4 : The Wizard has 1 less rank 1 spell.
Level 5 : Wizard 2 extra rank 3 spells / Sorcerer 1 extra rank 2 and 3 extra rank 1.
Level 6 : Wizard 1 extra rank 3 spells / Sorcerer 1 extra rank 2 and 3 extra rank 1.
Level 7 : Wizard 2 extra rank 4 spells / Sorcerer 3 extra rank 2 and 3 extra rank 1.So from level 1 to 7 (with the exception of level 4) the spell slot advantage is for the Wizard.
Level 8-13 are much more balanced. Clearly, depending on your prefered playstyle, you'll like one of the other. It's only at level 14 that the Sorcerer starts getting unarguably ahead in terms of spell slots (mostly because you stop using Spell Blending all the way to the top around this level).
There are rank 1 spells that remain relevant. SureStrike, Befuddle, Illusory Object, Fear. So the lower level spells are still valuable.
Only partial Spell Blendling now?
You need to consider the value of spells like Slow (3), that is always relevant.
Then reactions like Cloud Dragon's Cloak, or Shadow Projectile. Always relevant.
These remain useful even at high level. Where action economy and action efficiency become more important than actual slot numbers.
In terms of "Spell Repertoire", the Wizard has 50% of the Sorcerer spells known. But 25% of the Sorcerer spells come from its Bloodline and they are rarely all good. Also, the Sorcerer has spells of every rank when the Wizard can concentrate on its best spells. And all the Wizard spells are Signature spells, so twice more than the Sorcerer. And then the Wizard can prepare another Spell Selection the next morning (the impact of being a Prepared caster is highly campaign-dependent, so I won't insist on that even if I think it's a major selling point to some people (not me)).
As you have slandered them lets look at the Imperial Sorcerer's Bloodline spells: I've left my stars in so you can see what I think of them:
Detect Magic ★★★ , 1st: Force Barrage ★★★★ , 2nd: Dispel Magic ★★★★, 3rd: Haste ★★★★, 4th: Translocate ★★★★, 5th: Scouting Eye ★★★ , 6th: Disintegrate ★★★★, 7th: Retrocognition ★★, 8th: Quandary ★★★★, 9th: Implosion ★★★.Only one Retrocognition is poor, and that is because it is situational. It is not really a bad spell. But that is OK I don't have to cast it. I can just use its slot for one of the other good spells I choose at rank 7.
You forget that Sorcerers has spells from other ranks that are signatured and heighten well. My signatured Chain Lightning from rank 6 is looking good here.
Sorcerers have good options for every slot.
When the Wizard is half way through his day he has used half his slots so he only have half his spells as options. A sorcerer has all of theirs. The difference is quite stark. The sorcerer never has stranded spell slots locked up in special spells reserved for circumstances that just didn't happen.
Sorcerers have more effective spell slots than Wizards.
When it comes to feats and class features, the...
Those feats are OK but not compelling. Conceal Spell and Convincing Illusion are the 2 that I miss as a sorcerer. There is a whole lot of good new feats via a vis blood magic in the PC2 sorcerer.
I think you would be fine giving the wizard 4 slots per level and a focus ability to increase the DC of a spell. People expect the wizard to be one of the strongest classes every edition. It is tradition....But doesn't the Wizard already have 4 spell slots per spell rank?
If you pick a school.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you pick a school.I think you would be fine giving the wizard 4 slots per level and a focus ability to increase the DC of a spell. People expect the wizard to be one of the strongest classes every edition. It is tradition....But doesn't the Wizard already have 4 spell slots per spell rank?
But also, for what it's worth, soon enough there will be 4 4-slot casters in the game. It's not a UPS anymore (and thanks to the Sorcerer, never actually was.)
If we wanted to consider the Wizard as an apex arcane caster, they would need to be structured differently in a number of ways. But with the possible exception of the Imperial Sorcerer, all casters are relatively the same in terms of effectiveness.
So if they aren't more effective casters, they would then need to cast more to have some sort of "mastery". This element has also been eroded. 4 4 slot casters, the Oracle can cast just as many top-level spell slots as a Wizard thanks to a feat, we don't yet know what the Animist will do on release. The value prop of the Arcane list has also been eroded, it's not like Wizard's had excessivity to begin with, but I would argue that Occult has taken a lot of what was formerly some of the strengths of Arcane and added healing to the mix. Plus, it's not like Wizard's got anything from being a single-list caster anyhow, Pick-a-list vs Mono-list doesn't seem to appear as a lever for class balancing.
Thus if you aren't better at casting than other casters, you can cast just as much as some other casters, your single spell list is both available broadly and has been lessened in its impact. Then where does the Wizard get it's claim to being a strong caster?
The answer is the same as it's been since the start of the edition:
The Wizard might have a single spell slot over some other casters.
You aren't being fair here. You need to pick one.
I don't get it, what do I need to pick? A school?
There are rank 1 spells that remain relevant. SureStrike, Befuddle, Illusory Object, Fear. So the lower level spells are still valuable.
From experience, I never cast a first rank spell during combat past the very first levels. Not because they are irredeemably bad but because I can cast higher rank spells which are more impactful. Why cast Fear at all when you have Slow or Fear 3?
On the other hand, I agree about reaction spells. Reactions are so cheap on a caster and they siphon your spell list so quickly that there will always be a place for them, even if it's a first level reaction. Still, they are more like cheap tricks than stellar bonuses.Only partial Spell Blendling now?
I agree with Deriven that when you start getting into the 2-digit levels you should consider partial Spell Blending. Switching 2 rank 7 spells for a rank 9 spell is not really a good move. The main goal of Spell Blending is to get rid of your useless spell slots for more useful spell slots, not to get rid of your useful ones.
Now, depending on players, environments and adventuring days, you'll get more or less high.You need to consider the value of spells like Slow (3), that is always relevant.
Definitely. And you actually can't get rid of all your rank 3 slots so there'll be space for Slow 3. Still, and again, Slow 3 won't be your major selling point as a high level caster, you will only use it when it's strong so not that often.
Detect Magic ★★★ , 1st: Force Barrage ★★★★ , 2nd: Dispel Magic ★★★★, 3rd: Haste ★★★★, 4th: Translocate ★★★★, 5th: Scouting Eye ★★★ , 6th: Disintegrate ★★★★, 7th: Retrocognition ★★, 8th: Quandary ★★★★, 9th: Implosion ★★★.
And for Spell Repertoire spells, mine would be: Detect Magic ★★★★★ , 1st: Force Barrage ★★★★★ , 2nd: Dispel Magic ★★★★★, 3rd: Haste ★, 4th: Translocate ★★, 5th: Scouting Eye ★, 6th: Disintegrate ★, 7th: Retrocognition ★, 8th: Quandary ★★★★, 9th: Implosion ★★★★.
So half of them would never fit in my Spell Repertoire unless I'm forced to. But I agree I'd have a Scroll of some of them (like Scouting Eye, Translocate and Retrocognition).
When the Wizard is half way through his day he has used half his slots so he only have half his spells as options.
My build is a Flexible Wizard. If you want a combat oriented Wizard I think it's a no brainer. If you want an out of combat build then you take Spell Substitution. Anything in between feels meh (I clearly think half of the choices the Wizard can make are traps).
There is a whole lot of good new feats via a vis blood magic in the PC2 sorcerer.
The super combo between Diabolic and Elemental Bloodline put aside, they are nice but not massive. Also, the nerf to Crossblooded Sorcery is a big one. Anyway, I was just stating that the Wizard has a few good feats you may want. Overall, I don't feel that feats are the selling point for both Wizard and Sorcerer.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You aren't being fair here. You need to pick one.I don't get it, what do I need to pick? A school?
You are comparing a Wizard against a Sorcerer and sometime using Spell Blending and sometimes using the Spell Substitution . You can be only one.
There is a whole lot of good new feats via a vis blood magic in the PC2 sorcerer.The super combo between Diabolic and Elemental Bloodline put aside, they are nice but not massive.
Annoit Ally on a melee ally then Explosion OF Power
It is only 1d6 per rank damage in a 5ft emmantion.But action wise it is almost free. It could easily triger several times in a combat or even twice in a round. It is not strong enough to dictate tactics but it is extra damage that is just going to happen.
You are comparing a Wizard against a Sorcerer and sometime using Spell Blending and sometimes using the Spell Substitution . You can be only one.
I think there's a confusion between Spell Substitution and Flexible Caster (the class archetype). I obviously speak of a Spell Blending Wizard.
Annoit Ally on a melee ally then Explosion OF Power
It is only 1d6 per rank damage in a 5ft emmantion.
But action wise it is almost free.
Free? You mean that you use Annoit Ally as your Exploration Activity?
Why are we still calling the wizard a 4 slot caster? Because it isn't. Technically, it's never been, the chart says 3, but in the past schools were big enough you were almost 4 slots (everyone ignores Universalist here).
But now they're a very limited list, so it's quite clear that wizards are a 3 slot caster whose entire power budget goes into getting ways to get additional slots. This is distinct from the actual 4 slot casters, who have 4 slots and also have other things on top of that.
I mean, no one calls clerics 4 slot casters, despite the fact for most of their career they have additional spells slots equal or greater than ranks of spells known.
When you can cast 4 spells per spell rank during your entire career, do you think the designation of "4-slot caster" is wrong? Because I don't.
The Schools create a limitation on one slot per rank, but if you have properly chosen your School (which you should) you should be able to fill most of your ranks with valuable spells. If your first or second rank School spell is not really useful at level 10+ I don't think anyone really cares. And if you really hate all Schools then you can go Universalist. It costs you one top rank spell but you no more have limitations on your 4th slot.
So the Wizard is definitely a 4-slot caster. The only exception would be the Spell Blending Thesis which really moves your spell slots everywhere and creates a slot pattern which is more akin to a 3-slot caster with extra top ranks spells.
|
|
I can understand the argument against the Wizard being considered a 4-slot caster. I don't agree, but I certainly understand it.
Other 4 slot casters have full use of their slots for whatever they like and can use those slots interchangeably.
The Wizard's 4th slot is, and always has been, conditional. With it limited to only a certain subset of spells and can't be used interchangeably with other slots in a number of circumstances.
Previously, however, the conditions on this conditional 4th slot have generally been loose enough that you were using this slot in a way that it functional the same as a proper 4th slot (You were putting the spell you wanted in that slot anyhow).
With the remaster change this conditional slot has become dramatically more restricted, and you probably won't be using this slot for the spell you would have if it was either fully unrestricted or we still had the old system. You almost certainly wouldn't be filling them all from whatever school list you are drawing from.
Honestly, since the remaster, Spell Blending is the thesis that makes the most sense. If for no other reason than being able to recycle restricted slots into unrestricted ones. Moving the Wizard into a state of being a 5-2 slot caster instead of a true 4 slot. But that is a different argument.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Looking at what SuperBidi suggested, I will admit that there's some merit to it. The flexible casting, spell-blending specialist does have a high number of top rank slots and can use them for a variety of good effects (depending on spell preparation for the day). This is an effective build - IF you're looking to create a semi-nova-like wizard who burns very hot for a few encounters - before burning out.
I do however, see some issues with it.
First of all, it strongly relies on the Flexible Spellcaster archetype, which comes from a legacy non-Core book. Realistically, it will be available to most players but not all of them. It also locks you out of any other class archetype (let's hope the upcoming Runelord isn't too enticing, eh?) and will delay your access to any other archetype in a non-FAT game. The loss of a class feat is more than bearable for a wizard, so I don't really consider this a downside. But without the archetype, the whole thing falls flat, reducing your above-average caster to just another spell blending wizard.
So this is more of a specific build than a real improvement to the class. That doesn't seem like a good way to "fix" the wizard at all. You don't see anyone argue that the wizard isn't fragile just because he can bolster his Armor Proficiency, HP and saves via archetypes, after all. That's all true but none of that solves the class's problems. Hence my initial assessment that the base class needs real fixing, not just some tacked-on archetype.
And secondly, I don't really think this build is that much better than a sorcerer...? Yes, it has something like 2 more top rank slots (meaning top two ranks) and can use them for a variety of high level spells, if you prepare them in this manner. But the Sorcerer still has a good number of spell slots and thanks to signature spells also a good number of spells to choose from and vastly superior class features and feats.
The Wizard wins for RAW spell power, but I don't think that is anywhere nearly overwhelming enough to dwarf the sorcerer, or even to come equal.
Comparing the two made me come back to something I realized quite a while ago: The wizard is a good caster, but everyone else is a better class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And secondly, I don't really think this build is that much better than a sorcerer...? Yes, it has something like 2 more top rank slots (meaning top two ranks) and can use them for a variety of high level spells, if you prepare them in this manner. But the Sorcerer still has a good number of spell slots and thanks to signature spells also a good number of spells to choose from and vastly superior class features and feats.
The Wizard wins for RAW spell power, but I don't think that is anywhere nearly overwhelming enough to dwarf the sorcerer, or even to come equal.
Your words are conflicting.
Is this build better than a Sorcerer: No. It's a good build, it's not an overpowered one. Is it worse than a Sorcerer: No. They are extremely close in absolutely every meaningful values. The differences are more on the feats and main attributes than in the spellcasting ability.IF you're looking to create a semi-nova-like wizard who burns very hot for a few encounters
As I've said, you have similar number of slots compared to a Sorcerer, more at low level, less at high level. Unless you consider that a Sorcerer burns hot for a few encounters then this Wizard won't.
On top of it, you lose the slots you can easily replace: If your low level slots are so important to you, you can just grab Witch Dedication and the spellcasting feats and you'll have more slots than a Sorcerer during your entire career.This is a fully functional build, not a weird edge case.
But without the archetype, the whole thing falls flat, reducing your above-average caster to just another spell blending wizard.
Not at all. When people are complaining about the Wizard, they don't complain about the Spell Blending Wizard, they complain about the other Theses. Spell Blending Wizard works fine, I've seen more praise of it than criticism, I'm actually still waiting for someone to criticize it.
So this is more of a specific build than a real improvement to the class.
That's the crux of the problem. If I bring a Greatsword Barbarian and show how it works fine people will consider that the Barbarian works fine. But if I bring a Spell Blending Wizard and show how it works fine, people won't consider that the Wizard works fine. Because this is not how people see the Wizard. The crux of the problem is that their way of seeing the Wizard is based on assumptions that don't work anymore in PF2. So the discussion is not about the actual effectiveness of the Wizard, because this one's quite fine (not stellar, I agree, there are better classes out there). The discussion is about how the PF2 Wizard badly replicate the PF1 gameplay.
The Spell Blending Wizard is the archetypal combat-oriented PF2 Wizard. The Wizard is all about top rank spells and specialization, that's its main assets and increasing them is just basic optimization. As long as people will consider the Spell Blending Wizard as "just a build" they will miss the PF2 Wizard gameplay entirely and as such continue to complain.
That's why you really have 2 crowds when it comes to the Wizard and they are solely based on expectations. Those who have an expected gameplay in line with the class strengths don't have issues, those whose expected gameplay is not in line with the class strengths have issues. Like putting a square peg in a round hole, it doesn't work and blaming the peg is not the solution.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I bring a Greatsword Barbarian and show how it works fine people will consider that the Barbarian works fine. But if I bring a Spell Blending Wizard and show how it works fine, people won't consider that the Wizard works fine
I don't think that is true. It's certanly not something I've observed. If anything, people are very resistant to "One true build" narratives of class design.
The crux of the problem is that their way of seeing the Wizard is based on assumptions that don't work anymore in PF2.
Can you expand on this for me? You said some variant of this a few times now, but I could use some solid examples. As, at least for what I want to see from the Wizard, it's all very much PF2 specific.
They are extremely close in absolutely every meaningful values. The differences are more on the feats and main attributes than in the spellcasting ability.
The Wizard has nothing that can compete with remastered Ancestral Memories.
Remastered Imperial Sorcerer can both outdamage a Wizard and can have improved outcomes for Spellcasting than a Wizard while casting the same spells on the same targets. All while having a comparative number of spell slots and more focus spells.
Throwing a no-save/no-check -3 status penalty on an enemies save is a hell of a thing.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think you would be fine giving the wizard 4 slots per level and a focus ability to increase the DC of a spell. People expect the wizard to be one of the strongest classes every edition. It is tradition.I don't think people expect wizards to always be one of the strongest class, but they do expect it to have a high floor, especially compared to other casters.
I disagree, and strongly enough to wonder if you used the wrong word there. People expect the wizard to have a high ceiling, but it's also had a low floor. They started incredibly weak in original D&D. Later editions made them stronger at level 1, but they remained super squishy and devoted their entire power budget to their spells, and only those they scribed into their book. If they chose bad spells, they couldn't get into melee like a bard and couldn't fix it on day 2 of a dungeon crawl like clerics.
But the wizard ceiling was much higher. Mostly because they got the best spell list and gained higher level spells faster than spontaneous casters. Now the spell lists are treated interchangeably and all casters get new tanks at the same level. The additional monetary cost to expand access to your list also feels bad when your list isn't better than a druid or cleric's. A good thesis (blending or substitution) still gives them a a solid niche to excel in, but it isn't where people expect the wizard to excel.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is this build better than a Sorcerer: No. It's a good build, it's not an overpowered one. Is it worse than a Sorcerer: No.
If a specific Wizard build including a specific archetype is needed to hit the baseline power of the Sorcerer, something is wrong with the Wizard.
They are extremely close in absolutely every meaningful values.
And what values are those? Spells known/prepared and spell slots?
The differences are more on the feats and main attributes than in the spellcasting ability.
They differ in feats, class features and focus spells. In each of those, the sorcerer wins without breaking a sweat. If they are equal in spellcasting, but the sorcerer is equal (proficiencies, HP) or better in quite literally everything else, the wizard still doesn't look all that hot.
I happen to like intelligence characters even though I think charisma is objectively better, so I won't go into attribute discussion.
As I've said, you have similar number of slots compared to a Sorcerer, more at low level, less at high level. Unless you consider that a Sorcerer burns hot for a few encounters then this Wizard won't.
I don't consider the Sorcerer burning out because he has more lower level spells and better focus spells as fallback when the top levels run out.
On top of it, you lose the slots you can easily replace: If your low level slots are so important to you, you can just grab Witch Dedication and the spellcasting feats and you'll have more slots than a Sorcerer during your entire career.
Unless the sorcerer also takes an archetype to extend his flexibility and staying power. Why does only the wizard get that option?
And as I said in my previous post: I don't think archetypes should play a role in class comparison at all.
Not at all. When people are complaining about the Wizard, they don't complain about the Spell Blending Wizard, they complain about the other Theses. Spell Blending Wizard works fine, I've seen more praise of it than criticism, I'm actually still waiting for someone to criticize it.
They don't complain about the thesis. They definitely complain about the rest of the class. Spell Blending happens to be both a good thesis on its own and also the solution to another frequent complaint, the school slots and curricula. That doesn't mean they like the curricula, focus spells or feat selection of the wizard. Just like someone spending all their class feats on archetypes might not complain because his character works well. But that's hardly thanks to the wizard's "amazing" feat selection.
If I bring a Greatsword Barbarian and show how it works fine people will consider that the Barbarian works fine.
The barbarian doesn't need a specific subclass and an archetype to wield a Greatsword really well.
But if I bring a Spell Blending Wizard and show how it works fine, people won't consider that the Wizard works fine.
I do consider the wizard to work fine. As I said, it's a great caster and that alone makes it powerful and good to have around. But to make it actually satisfying, I have to choose the school with the best least bad focus spell and Spell Blending so the bad curriculum spells don't sit in my slots unused all the time. Then I end up taking nearly identical feat on all my wizard builds because there's barely more than a dozen useful ones in the 44 PC wizard feats. That's only if I play with free archetype, because if I don't, getting an archetype instead of at least half of my wizard feats is nearly always more attractive.
And I personally find even the best wizard feats terribly uninteresting.
----------------------------------------------------------
Let me stress again that I think that the wizard is perfectly playable power-wise. And yes, Spellblending makes it even better if you want raw power over flexibility. But even with that, the class lacks identity. It's a good caster, but even if you would consider it the best caster, it's still a poor class. There's simply nothing actual exciting to look forward to on level up. At least not more than with any other caster, as all of them get new spells frequently. But each and every one of the others also gets better things to do alongside "cast a spell from a slot" and most of them get better or even much better feats.
I don't necessarily want the wizard to become stronger mechanically. But more interesting and more unique would be very welcome.