| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Wizard has nothing that can compete with remastered Ancestral Memories.
I missed this change. And it's completely broken. The issue is not just for the Wizard it's for absolutely every spellcaster, Sorcerer included as other (Arcane) Bloodlines are made weak by Ancestral Memories.
It's just a bug waiting for an errata (at least I hope, it's the kind of things I could forbid around my table). But I don't think we should always compare to the most broken option in the game, it makes all other options look weak.Can you expand on this for me?
With pleasure. Give me a bit of time to write what will certainly be a big wall of text.
Once again, are we calling clerics 4 slot casters? Because the schools are really, really narrow at base now, and max rank heals are worth more than the second copy of whatever utility spell you're using in your non-top slot. Druids also get infinite top rank polymorphs and infinite 4th rank fly, are they infinite slot casters? Yes, Wizards can get more spells per day than their spell table indicates, but so can the other prepared casters too. Saying they're 4 slot prepared casters makes it sound like they've got a significant advantage in that aspect when they... don't, really.
I don't really agree with you, but anyway it's more of a feeling that you convey. And I definitely agree that Schools are now more limited than ever and that it has an impact.
I get that spell blending works, but the problem is it's a late bloomer build
I've played enough casters to know that the first 4 levels are hard. Only the Cleric navigates well in these levels. So it's hardly a late bloomer.
Also, exchanging a spell slot for more cantrips is definitely interesting during the first levels as cantrips will be your basic combat options at these levels.it's main appeal is getting rid of one of your other subclass choice
No, it's main appeal is to increase your high rank spell slots. Even if it was not possible to remove these spell slots I'd consider Spell Blending very strong.
I agree that Schools are annoying as you have to take options that are bad at some ranks. But these are mostly the low ranks so the final impact on your character is low. You should normally be able to find appealing options for your mid and top ranks as otherwise I'd question your School choice.
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
A "spiritual successor" to Pathfinder Unchained?
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.
To a point; other spellcasters are more forgiving and variable in their choices, but the Wizard's choices aren't really choices since the class is basically only functional in a One True Build kind of sense. Playing other ways is extremely crippling, almost as bad as a Magus with MCD Wizard/Witch, but without Spellstrike or martial capability. Also, the same was said for PF1 Fighter and Rogue, but those classes got significantly changed and buffed in the following edition.
And honestly, I think the identity became synonymous with its power. "I studied magic to know the best stuff there is" doesn't have the same narrative weight anymore when it is just as strong as someone who was simply born with it and used adventuring to help them navigate through what it means for them. After all, Necromancers are best done with Clerics, not Wizards, meanwhile a lot of NPC Necromancers are shown to be Wizards, not Clerics.
A "spiritual successor" to Pathfinder Unchained?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
I don't have the exact quote here but I'm pretty sure someone at Paizo said that they weren't going to do an "Unchained" again. But regardless of that, the Remaster is kind of a unchained already, so I doubt Paizo is even thinking of doing a third pass for some of the classes that were left behind. More so when they would need to first Remaster the stuff that wasn't remastered yet.
I still do not understand how so many undervalue lower level slots in PF2 where DCs are not based on spell level at all. Blending away lower level slots is not a great idea unless you are 100 percent sure you will not need them.
1st: Sure Strike is great. Fleet Step or whatever is called now.
2nd: Reveal the Unseen is great. Stupefy not bad at all. Mirror Image. Enlarge.
3rd: This is where it gets real tough to justify blending slots away. Slow is always good. As is haste. 3rd level force barrage is good.
4th: Vision of Death. Fly.
5th: Howling Blizzard. 5th level force barrage. 5th level fireball or lightning bolt which does more than heightening another level. People don't seem to want to accept that a higher level slot doesn't make up for a few lower level slots as heightening doesn't make up for the base damage. A 5th level fireball is 10d6 damage. But two 3rd level fireballs is 6d6 on two separate occasions or 12d6 damage.
6th: Chain Lightning. Wall of Force.
I could go on and on showing Spell Blending isn't as great as some paint it. I personally greatly prefer having access to lower level slots as there are still lots of useful lower level spells with DCs set at a static DC. I see no reason to give up lower level slots.
Another recent change in the Remaster also further hurt wizards without even trying to do so: improved cleric blasting. I'm running a group right now with two clerics. The healing and blasting power of clerics now is pretty nuts. You can now run with clerics and no other caster in your group and be just fine. The upgrade with spirit damage clerics received on top of having the best healing, best condition removal, good weapon choices, and feats that allow for quality casting archetyping has likely made clerics the most powerful and versatile caster in the game. Clerics were heavily buffed up. Even bless is better now.
Clerics didn't even need this boost. They were kind of boring, but effective. Now they're bard level caster now. Bard, Cleric, and druid are probably the strongest casters in the game now.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Wizard has nothing that can compete with remastered Ancestral Memories.I missed this change. And it's completely broken. The issue is not just for the Wizard it's for absolutely every spellcaster, Sorcerer included as other (Arcane) Bloodlines are made weak by Ancestral Memories.
It's just a bug waiting for an errata (at least I hope, it's the kind of things I could forbid around my table). But I don't think we should always compare to the most broken option in the game, it makes all other options look weak.
Considering how drastically they changed it, I don't think its a bug. Its not like its the same spell with the numbers transposed or something. It might get an errata, but unlike a lot of PC2 (which was obviously half-baked), this one feels pretty deliberately thought out.
Of course, it's also pretty easy for any caster with the CHA to get via the archetype, since its just two feats and done.
Clerics didn't even need this boost. They were kind of boring, but effective. Now they're bard level caster now. Bard, Cleric, and druid are probably the strongest casters in the game now.
Oracle is up there too, IMO. For all the many things I hate about how they changed it, it's definitely capable of keeping up in the "raw caster power" department.
Clerics didn't even need this boost. They were kind of boring, but effective. Now they're bard level caster now. Bard, Cleric, and druid are probably the strongest casters in the game now.Oracle is up there too, IMO. For all the many things I hate about how they changed it, it's definitely capable of keeping up in the "raw caster power" department.
I haven't tried the new oracle yet. I miss the unique mystery benefits. Not sure I love the direction they went, but I won't make a call on it until I try one. I don't like to comment on things I haven't played or seen played for a substantial number of levels.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't tried the new oracle yet. I miss the unique mystery benefits. Not sure I love the direction they went, but I won't make a call on it until I try one. I don't like to comment on things I haven't played or seen played for a substantial number of levels.Clerics didn't even need this boost. They were kind of boring, but effective. Now they're bard level caster now. Bard, Cleric, and druid are probably the strongest casters in the game now.Oracle is up there too, IMO. For all the many things I hate about how they changed it, it's definitely capable of keeping up in the "raw caster power" department.
I'm playing it in Kingmaker, having converted mine over to the Remaster version. There's already threads about what I hate about it (which includes lack of Mystery benefits), so I'll skip that. The stuff relevant to this thread is that in terms of casting power, its good. It's a 4 slot with no restrictions caster, like a Sorcerer. So out of the box it has more spells than a Wizard.
Then it's got the Cursebound stuff, which is an extra renewable resource that Wizard doesn't have. Some of these are quite good. IMO Oracle also has some focus spell options that are better than Wizard ones (and with its CHA its very easy to jump into Sorcerer for those too), but it also has Weapon Trance which is insultingly bad. So you know, take your pick.
Being a spontaneous caster, it can't do the "you can change your spell list to suit what you plan to do today" the way a Wizard or Cleric can. But whatever it can do, it can do a LOT of during a day. And if you follow the version of the PFS ruling that says it gets 4 spells in its repitoire per rank, its got a pretty diverse set of options available all the time.
The other caster in my party is a Remaster Cleric, and who winds up being more effective varies from fight to fight. Obviously individual builds matter there, but I'm finding that power wise it definitely holds up.
I mean, if I took that character and made then a Wizard, I don't think it would be a gain power wise, and I would have to track a spellbook which I don't now. Its more complex but I'm not getting a lot for it.
IMO - If I could make one change to Wizard, it's that Spell Substitution would become a core class feature.
I haven't tried the new oracle yet. I miss the unique mystery benefits. Not sure I love the direction they went, but I won't make a call on it until I try one. I don't like to comment on things I haven't played or seen played for a substantial number of levels.Clerics didn't even need this boost. They were kind of boring, but effective. Now they're bard level caster now. Bard, Cleric, and druid are probably the strongest casters in the game now.Oracle is up there too, IMO. For all the many things I hate about how they changed it, it's definitely capable of keeping up in the "raw caster power" department.I'm playing it in Kingmaker, having converted mine over to the Remaster version. There's already threads about what I hate about it (which includes lack of Mystery benefits), so I'll skip that. The stuff relevant to this thread is that in terms of casting power, its good. It's a 4 slot with no restrictions caster, like a Sorcerer. So out of the box it has more spells than a Wizard.
Then it's got the Cursebound stuff, which is an extra renewable resource that Wizard doesn't have. Some of these are quite good. IMO Oracle also has some focus spell options that are better than Wizard ones (and with its CHA its very easy to jump into Sorcerer for those too), but it also has Weapon Trance which is insultingly bad. So you know, take your pick.
Being a spontaneous caster, it can't do the "you can change your spell list to suit what you plan to do today" the way a Wizard or Cleric can. But whatever it can do, it can do a LOT of during a day. And if you follow the version of the PFS ruling that says it gets 4 spells in its repitoire per rank, its got a pretty diverse set of options available all the time.
The other caster in my party is a Remaster Cleric, and who winds up being more effective varies from fight to fight. Obviously individual builds matter there, but I'm finding that power wise it definitely...
Do you have a thread discussing how well the new curse stuff works?
Do you have a thread discussing how well the new curse stuff works?
This one starts about Mysteries, but goes into Curses too. Since the Mystery and Curse are tied together and the Mystery doesn't do much of anything now, you can't really talk about one without the other.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still do not understand how so many undervalue lower level slots in PF2 where DCs are not based on spell level at all. Blending away lower level slots is not a great idea unless you are 100 percent sure you will not need them.
1st: Sure Strike is great. Fleet Step or whatever is called now.
I've got a Rogue who got a Spell Tattoo of Helpful Steps on a whim.
I cannot overstate how awesome this spell has turned out to be. Three levels later, there has not been a single session where being able to summon a 40 ladder or staircase 1/day has not solved a problem. It's gotten to be a running joke.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have played 7 different wizards. It is definitely misleading to say that there is only one true wizard build.
I tend to play spell substitution wizards because both the combat and out of combat flexibility of being able to rotate through spells throughout the day really feels like a cool and unique thing to the wizard, but I have also played two spell blending wizards and one (then called) metamagic thesis wizard.
The meta magic/spell shaping thesis gets more hate than is necessary because people tend to undervalue the low level spellshape feats. 2 extra class feats is a pretty decent boon, especially for a caster class that starts with 0 class feats. If you are not playing Free archetype or a Human, it is not a bad thesis. It probably doesn't have the wow factor of spell blending or spell substitution as far as "you can do something no other class can come close to doing," but being having a free class feat to swap around every day is pretty good. Nonlethal spell, conceal spell and reach are all good options at lower levels that are not feats that every caster needs all of, all of the time. One flexible feat can pretty much cover all three of those for many campaigns where you know social stuff is coming up, or you will need to capture a vital enemy, or there are going to be hostages that you don't want to kill.
Then, later, explosive arrival is another higher level option that is wizard only and good if you and your party are built to exploit it. Like you have forcible energy and you summon a creature the next round that has the corresponding trait, you can trigger that weakness several times on your turn. I think Experimental Spellshaping's biggest drawback is that so many people use the Free Archetype variant rule, that its value drops significantly when you get a lot of extra class feats from other places.
I personally find trying to game familiars in RPG to annoying as both a player and a GM. I'd prefer they all have no mechanical benefit and just be an RP thing, at least for everyone except the witch, who has such strong narrative claim to being the familiar class. There is just so much Fantasy literature connecting familiars to wizards that I think Paizo had to offer it as an option or people would have revolted. The fact that it is not a very good thesis makes sense to me though. You just can't really offer anything that cool with it and not have it be something that witches should be able to do too, and better. So in that regard, it is a tiny bit of an RP trap option, but it kinda had to be. Its also not that big of a trap, because you get 4 additional familiar abilities, which can be extra spells per day, bonuses to skills and a number of other useful abilities. They just don't feel uniquely cool, because any character can get a familiar to do one or two of the good things familiars can do, but the improved familiar can really cover a bunch of them. And all of this is without trying to use a familiar as a scout or any of the other gamey things that players and GMs end up butting heads over about familiars.
Staff nexus is nearly as good as spell blending for players trying to use up school slots they don't like. I personally don't value lower level slots that much, especially at higher levels, so spell blending tends to do a better job of what staff nexus can do for me personally, but it is a perfectly fine thesis that is useful, and can make a wizard really lean into their staff if they have the right spells in it...again, it just ends up not feeling nearly as unique as spell substitution or spell blending, so I think it gets written off by many players.
So I personally don't like many theses/wont ever pick them, but I wouldn't say they fail to do what they offer on the box, and spell substitution is just way too cool of an option for me to pass on as a player, because I enjoy playing wizards as a research class that focuses entirely on trying to gather information about the adventure ahead, and then come up with creative ways to apply spells to address the challenges those adventures will pose. The class works very well for this style of play, but, as Superbidi points out, it can work as a spell hammer very effectively too if you build it that way, and none of this touches on just how high the ceiling of the class is when the player is doing a great job with their spell selection every day.
Which gets to the bottom-line issue with the class. The ceiling of the class in PF2 is still very high (near the top of classes), although not as high as it was in PF1 or many other RPGs. But playing it to that ceiling is challenging and it is more of a gambler class than many people imagine the smart studious wizard to be. Just like how many players have felt like the default difficult of PF2 is too high, especially when bringing in assumptions from other RPGs that don't apply to PF2, players that fail to hit the ceiling with their wizard that often are often left lamenting that they wish that the floor of the class was higher, without recognizing how difficult it is to raise the floor of the class without also raising the ceiling (hence why so many of the suggestions like "make the class a pure 4 spell slot class" are only asking to power boost the class), which the class as a whole doesn't really need.
I have played Druids, Bards, Oracles and Clerics in PF2 as well as a handful of martials. There is still no caster I'd rather have in my party than a wizard when it comes to being able to creatively problem solve adventures and encounters with spells in this game. Spontaneous casters just tend to result in repetitive loops of casting the same spells in every encounter (at least as far as I have usually seen them played, although I did see Raving Dork get pretty creative with a dragon sorcerer in a 10 level campaign I ran, so I am willing to admit that the sorcerer can be played pretty creatively, just not wizard level creatively). Druids (and witches) are so focus spell centric that they pull off interesting spell stuff once every couple of sessions but often end up burdened with other caster expectations (like being the party healer) for their limited spell slots that they struggle to have the spare slots to put anything too outside the box into their daily list, which is also what can limit the cleric too (although the divine list is pretty restricted from the fun problem solving spells as well).
Which is all to say that I much rather would see the folks unhappy with the PF2 wizard given either an archetype or a new class that addresses the play style limits that the wizard runs into for them as players than have the whole class gutted from being the "cast spells from spell slots" class that it currently is, which I find really fun to play. I lost the magus as a fun class in the changes from the playtest to secrets of magic, and the kineticist too. I feel for folks that feel like they lost the Oracle in the remaster, as it is rough to have a class you really enjoy get gutted from what makes it fun for you because too many other players wanted a more direct and straight forward playstyle. I don't think the wizard needs to be a direct and straight forward class defined thematically or mechanically by class features and focus spells. There are already tons of options for that in the game and it is the most open ended space for new casters to go. I think that the biggest "mistake" about the PF2 wizard is that it is packaged in the Player Core 1 as this default, easy to play caster class, when that role really belongs to the sorcerer, and if the sorcerer and the wizard could swap places, I think that would have made a lot more sense. Especially as schools could have really benefited from having more books to pull spells from than just the PC1.
I still do not understand how so many undervalue lower level slots in PF2 where DCs are not based on spell level at all.
Experience. If at the end of the day I have all my rank 1 slots sitting idle then I should have blended them away. Simple.
I never use all my Rank 1 and 2 spells past the very first levels. I must admit I even forget about reactions like Blood Vendetta but they are so unimpactful it doesn't change my point much. So blending Rank 1 and 2 spells is basically free.
Rank 3 spells are useful for longer, but exchanging 2 rank 3 slots for a rank 5 one is a net gain: The rank 5 spell has the same power level than both rank 3 spells combined but costs twice less actions to cast.
Because I've blended my rank 2 slots I have 1 extra rank 4 slots. Even if rank 4 slots are much more useful I rarely use them all so having more of them is less interesting than having more rank 6 slots.
I start thinking about stopping blending with rank 5 slots. But at that stage I'm level 13 at least and unlike you I have more experience in the low to mid levels than in the very high levels. And even if I choose not to blend them I still have an extra rank 5 and 6 spell slots, which is valuable.
Fly.
Why would I use a spell slot for Fly? Do you use it every adventuring day or are you sitting on it most of the time? Because all my level 7+ casters have a Scroll of Fly and I'm still waiting to use it.
Many of your examples are good Scrolls candidates (Mirror Image, Haste, Fleet Step, Fly) as you will need them extremely rarely and can waste the action if you ever really need them (and some of them are nice prebuff spells so you don't even waste an action to use them). Unless you prebuff every other fight (it's not my case) the cost is negligible.
Also, you mostly focus on high levels (considering that rank 6 spells could somehow be blendable shows how your view is skewed towards the top end of the game). Spell Blending is extremely strong at level 5-8, it is strong at level 9-12 and it starts becoming just useful after that. So if you focus on level 13+ then it's as its weakest.
It also roughly compensates the caster progression: Casters are really nice at high level when they have so many tools at their disposal and so much sustainability thanks to their crazy number of spell slots. On the other hand, they have hard time at low level. So even if Spell Blending is not immediately useful, it still helps the Wizard when it's important. That's a good dynamic if you intend to play your Wizard from level 1 onwards (I must admit, Cleric put aside, I have hard time finding a caster that pulls its weight at level 1-4 so for me level 1-4 are a bit of a bad moment to go through when I play a caster).
I still do not understand how so many undervalue lower level slots in PF2 where DCs are not based on spell level at all.Experience. If at the end of the day I have all my rank 1 slots sitting idle then I should have blended them away. Simple.
I never use all my Rank 1 and 2 spells past the very first levels. I must admit I even forget about reactions like Blood Vendetta but they are so unimpactful it doesn't change my point much. So blending Rank 1 and 2 spells is basically free.
Rank 3 spells are useful for longer, but exchanging 2 rank 3 slots for a rank 5 one is a net gain: The rank 5 spell has the same power level than both rank 3 spells combined but costs twice less actions to cast.
Because I've blended my rank 2 slots I have 1 extra rank 4 slots. Even if rank 4 slots are much more useful I rarely use them all so having more of them is less interesting than having more rank 6 slots.
I start thinking about stopping blending with rank 5 slots. But at that stage I'm level 13 at least and unlike you I have more experience in the low to mid levels than in the very high levels. And even if I choose not to blend them I still have an extra rank 5 and 6 spell slots, which is valuable.
Fly.Why would I use a spell slot for Fly? Do you use it every adventuring day or are you sitting on it most of the time? Because all my level 7+ casters have a Scroll of Fly and I'm still waiting to use it.
Many of your examples are good Scrolls candidates (Mirror Image, Haste, Fleet Step, Fly) as you will need them extremely rarely and can waste the action if you ever really need them (and some of them are nice prebuff spells so you don't even waste an action to use them). Unless you prebuff every other fight (it's not my case) the cost is negligible.
Also, you mostly focus on high levels (considering that rank 6 spells could somehow be blendable shows how your view is skewed towards the top end of the game). Spell Blending is extremely...
I operate in a group. I often have to fly non-casters in the group. I would rather reach spell and fly a non-caster to get them in motion than pull my scroll and cast fly.
It's a matter of how we engage something. We don't get a lot of time to pre-buff. Stealth is often used by the enemy to ambush PCs. We don't have time to draw scrolls or consumables a lot of time.
Reveal the Unseen with a Revealing Light is the primary way the group caster deals with invisibility to enable the non-caster martials to attack.
You sound like you tend to look after yourself, whereas in my group we tend to operate as a group as one person trying to operate as a unique individual unit would get us wasted it. If the caster was ignoring healing and buffing teammates to keep them up and get them into battle, the group would end up dead.
So a lot of lower level slots for things like See the Unseen and Revealing light are kept in hand as one bad invisibility ambush can really lead to a bad outcome.
I guess this once again comes down to how we all play and what we go against. In our campaigns, it is paramount we operate as a group to survive with casters very focused on healing and dealing with unique enemy magic tactics.
Obviously this isn't every encounter, but the meaningful encounters will have lots of problems the casters have to deal with. They need to be prepared. There are still lower level slots good for this.
We also tend to run long with no breaks. It is not at all uncommon to clear entire dungeon levels or encounter areas in one long encounter day requiring casters to use resources intelligently. So using lower level slots to drop lesser AoE while holding on to higher level slots to take on bigger targets is very common.
I know you sound like you tend to like to unleash early and often. Your groups must rest more often than ours.
The druid, cleric, and bard carry their weight at level 1 to 4 in my experience. Carry more than their weight often times.
I have played 7 different wizards. It is definitely misleading to say that there is only one true wizard build.
I tend to play spell substitution wizards because both the combat and out of combat flexibility of being able to rotate through spells throughout the day really feels like a cool and unique thing to the wizard, but I have also played two spell blending wizards and one (then called) metamagic thesis wizard.
The meta magic/spell shaping thesis gets more hate than is necessary because people tend to undervalue the low level spellshape feats. 2 extra class feats is a pretty decent boon, especially for a caster class that starts with 0 class feats. If you are not playing Free archetype or a Human, it is not a bad thesis. It probably doesn't have the wow factor of spell blending or spell substitution as far as "you can do something no other class can come close to doing," but being having a free class feat to swap around every day is pretty good. Nonlethal spell, conceal spell and reach are all good options at lower levels that are not feats that every caster needs all of, all of the time. One flexible feat can pretty much cover all three of those for many campaigns where you know social stuff is coming up, or you will need to capture a vital enemy, or there are going to be hostages that you don't want to kill.
Then, later, explosive arrival is another higher level option that is wizard only and good if you and your party are built to exploit it. Like you have forcible energy and you summon a creature the next round that has the corresponding trait, you can trigger that weakness several times on your turn. I think Experimental Spellshaping's biggest drawback is that so many people use the Free Archetype variant rule, that its value drops significantly when you get a lot of extra class feats from other places.
I personally find trying to game familiars in RPG to annoying as both a player and a GM. I'd prefer they all have no mechanical benefit and just be an RP thing, at least for everyone...
In my experience, the wizard is a good magical problem solver if Spell Substitution.
Also in my experience, you will not miss them if you don't have one as groups usually have enough resources amongst them to get almost anything done. There are so many other classes that offer so much more than the wizard in a group.
I operate in a group. I often have to fly non-casters in the group. I would rather reach spell and fly a non-caster to get them in motion than pull my scroll and cast fly.
It's a matter of how we engage something. We don't get a lot of time to pre-buff. Stealth is often used by the enemy to ambush PCs. We don't have time to draw scrolls or consumables a lot of time.
I operate in many different groups, some created just for the game (PFS) some long lasting ones. I play with experienced and less experienced players. Our experience definitely change our point of view.
I've never cast Fly as of now. Fights with flying opponents who keep their distance are the rarity for me.I rarely have any time to prebuff, but it's still nice to have a buff at the ready for these moments.
Most encounters start in media res in PFS adventures. So enemies are not stealthy per se but you are still ambushed or close to.
Reveal the Unseen with a Revealing Light is the primary way the group caster deals with invisibility to enable the non-caster martials to attack.
PF2 stealth rules are really tough on invisible opponents so I don't really care about Reveal the Unseen: I've always properly positionned my Faerie Fires and Revealing Lights. Revealing Light is more than just a spell against invisibility, it's definitely a good debuff to keep in the spell list.
You sound like you tend to look after yourself, whereas in my group we tend to operate as a group as one person trying to operate as a unique individual unit would get us wasted it. If the caster was ignoring healing and buffing teammates to keep them up and get them into battle, the group would end up dead.
I think I end up in more varied situations when it comes to party composition. Supporting the party is important if the party is functioning well, but when no one deals damage then I have to step forward and take that role. In my opinion, you are the one playing in a specific environment. I tend to play with beginners and experienced players, people who do care about mechanical optimization and others who are bringing uneffective characters and having fun with them, people who are ready to have a tactical discussions and GMs who forbid tactical discussions during play, etc...
So a lot of lower level slots for things like See the Unseen and Revealing light are kept in hand as one bad invisibility ambush can really lead to a bad outcome.
A lot, really? Invisibility ambushes are a staple, but facing more than one in an adventuring day is a bit repetitive. It never happened to me (even if I always have a Scroll in case my Revealing Light is not enough).
I know you sound like you tend to like to unleash early and often. Your groups must rest more often than ours.
We never rest unless there's a rest written in the adventure. We don't cut dungeons in half unless there's a reason to do so (and retrieving spell slots is never one).
I operate in a group. I often have to fly non-casters in the group. I would rather reach spell and fly a non-caster to get them in motion than pull my scroll and cast fly.
It's a matter of how we engage something. We don't get a lot of time to pre-buff. Stealth is often used by the enemy to ambush PCs. We don't have time to draw scrolls or consumables a lot of time.
I operate in many different groups, some created just for the game (PFS) some long lasting ones. I play with experienced and less experienced players. Our experience definitely change our point of view.
I've never cast Fly as of now. Fights with flying opponents who keep their distance are the rarity for me.
I rarely have any time to prebuff, but it's still nice to have a buff at the ready for these moments.
Most encounters start in media res in PFS adventures. So enemies are not stealthy per se but you are still ambushed or close to.Reveal the Unseen with a Revealing Light is the primary way the group caster deals with invisibility to enable the non-caster martials to attack.PF2 stealth rules are really tough on invisible opponents so I don't really care about Reveal the Unseen: I've always properly positionned my Faerie Fires and Revealing Lights. Revealing Light is more than just a spell against invisibility, it's definitely a good debuff to keep in the spell list.
You sound like you tend to look after yourself, whereas in my group we tend to operate as a group as one person trying to operate as a unique individual unit would get us wasted it. If the caster was ignoring healing and buffing teammates to keep them up and get them into battle, the group would end up dead.I think I end up in more varied situations when it comes to party composition. Supporting the party is important if the party is functioning well, but when no one deals damage then I have to step forward and take that role. In my opinion, you are the one...
I do play in a very specific environment. It's been a long, long time since I've done pick up games. Last time I did that was in an online game and I did find the DM to be pretty lax compared to what I'm used to. This was years ago.
Level 4 invisibility is something we put in every caster's list that can have it. Spell lists are adjusted to maximize enemy tactics. For whatever reasons across all editions, module designers are often very bad at spell lists. So we've always adjusted spell lists to maximize enemy casting ability like a player optimizing. We see no reason why enemy spellcasters would choose inferior options for flavor. So almost any time we're facing casters who can cast level 4 invis or the even worse disappearance, they use it.
At higher level when mind blank becomes available, we do have to use other means to land the Revealing Light. Sometimes it's a real chore.
From what I've read others tend to use encounter difficulty to rate encounters as moderate to severe or what not. I don't use any of those ratings. I send what I think will give the PCs a hard fight and make them feel like they are going to lose unless they play tight. I generally base this on tactics utilized by the PCs as they level up.
To try to put it into words, I optimize enemy encounters like I try to optimize my characters. Spell lists, combat tactics, add some feats or abilities to counter some PC tactics, and I make sure the fight is painful.
I guess this colors my view of things. I don't want to kill the PCs, but I also don't want things easy. So I will kill them if my players play badly. They know this over the years and thus make a real effort to play tactically well. My NPC enemies will employ optimal tactics and if the party can't deal with them, I guess they go down.
It's been so long since I've played with inexperienced players or in pick up groups that run by the book, it's hard to see that point of view very well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If at the end of the day I have all my rank 1 slots sitting idle then I should have blended them away. Simple.
You can't do that.
You can exchange as many spell slots as you have available. Bonus spell slots must be of a spell rank you can normally cast, and each bonus spell slot must be of a different spell rank.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's my wall of text!
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.
I've written this answer twice but I don't find a good way to convey what I mean. So I'll take some examples and develop from there.
I'll use examples from Tarondor's guide to the Wizard (nothing against Tarondor's guide specifically, these are just good examples).
I'll also choose level 8 spell lists as it's a level where spell ranks are extremely clear: There is a strong difference in effectiveness between rank 1-2 spells and rank 3-4 spells (that I'll call top ranks in my demonstration and I'll mostly focus on them are they are the ones carrying the weight of your combat contribution).
Example spell list:
1st Rank: charm, command, translate
2nd Rank: false vitality, revealing light, loose time’s arrow
3rd Rank: fear, fireball, haste
4th Rank: enlarge, fly, vision of death
It's a very good example because there are so many issues in there.
First, Fly is a utility spell. You won't cast it every day, for sure. Using one of your top ranks on a conditional utility spell is pure waste of spell slots, a Scroll would do the trick without issue.
Fear, Haste and Enlarge are evergreens. Evergreens are very nice for your low slots but they don't carry enough weight to be in your top slots.
To illustrate that I'll take the example of Slow, one of the best debuff in the game for boss fights (I hope you agree): between the critical failure effect that basically wins the fight and the lost action even on a success to the save, it reduces a boss offensive ability by 10-15% on average per casting (because bosses saves are high in general so success to the save is the expected outcome). Still, at level 5, I'd never prepare Slow as it's strictly inferior to... Force Barrage. Force Barrage reduces boss hp pool by 15-20% and as dead bosses don't retaliate, it also reduces their offensive ability by the same value. So Force Barrage is a stronger "debuff" than Slow. That's how evergreens are balanced. As such, neither Haste 3, Enlarge 4 nor Fear 3 carry enough weight to be on top slots.
Enlarge 4 is also a very interesting spell. Enlarge doesn't work without party coordination: If you Enlarge your Barbarian and everyone fights as usual then the Barbarian will get a single AoO out of it and the impact will be one of a Cantrip. For Enlarge to pull its weight you need the party to fight evasively, so the Barbarian will get as many AoOs as possible. It's a complex spell, not one you take without consideration.
Fireball also impacts the party strategy. Unless you are lucky to be the first in initiative, martials will have to either Delay or position themselves properly so you can Fireball the opposition.
Even Vision of Death and Fear impact the party strategy as the goal is to focus on the debuffed enemy.
So we see 2 rather complex strategies and one simple strategy. How do you expect your party to be coordinated for these strategies?
Having clearly identified combat patterns is extremely important as your fellow teammates have far more things to take care of than the caster's spell selection. My Angelic Sorcerer of Sarenrae generally starts fights with a Fireball, it's his signature spell. Everyone knows it and the party coordinate efficiently. As a consequence, I have no issue fireballing enemies when a lot of players report having issues positioning their Fireballs because of the martials getting in the way.
Then, Haste, Enlarge, Fireball and even Fly are combat openers: They are supposed to be used during the first round of combat. What is supposed to be this spell list second round when the fight is a tough one that could lead to a TPK? Electric Arc?
Having only 2 spells that can be used with full effectiveness after round 1 is another massive issue.
Finally, this spell list is full of support spells. But what are you supposed to do when your main damage dealer critically fails a save against Phantasmal Calamity (I've been there...)? Cantrips, again?
This spell list is based on PF1 assumptions that didn't carry to PF2.
First, the "right spell for the job". In PF1, you rarely needed to cast multiple spells in a row, because fights were much shorter but also because a single spell was having so much impact that it was actually a valid combat contribution all on its own. In PF2, it's over, you have to think about round 2.
The second assumption is that you don't have to optimize your spell selection (mostly because you had many effective spell slots in PF1). Scrolls of Fly already existed back then but it was much easier to prepare the spell as you had far enough slots to carry all day long. That's not true anymore, you have to optimize your spell list. Itemization is important as you can't prepare conditional spells without cluttering your spell list.
All of this hits the prepared casters much more than the Spontaneous ones. Because as much as I criticize this spell selection for a Wizard, it would make perfect sense as a Spell Repertoire. Your base spells would be Revealing Light, Fear and Vision of Death and you would play nicely during multiple fights. But Prepared casters don't have this luxury of casting the same spell multiple times unless they prepare it multiple times, and as such they are much more specialized.
Another spell list to illustrate a last point:
1st Rank: command, enfeeble, weaken earth
2nd Rank: blood vendetta, carrion mire, ghostly carrier
3rd Rank: fear, haste, vampiric feast
4th Rank: enervation, summon undead, vision of death
Fear and Haste are evergreens. Vision of Death is as good as usual.
Summon Undead, Enervation and Vampiric Feast are conditional spells. For them to have their full effectiveness you need specific circumstances that won't arise often. You can otherwise use them outside their best conditions but they then have reduced effectiveness.
The issue of this spell list is that you can't put that many conditional spells in your top slots. Either they'll clutter your spell list waiting for the right moment to be used or you'll have to use them when they are the wrong spells for the job. I call these kind of spell lists the "Grease Wizard". You know, this Wizard who casts Grease for absolutely no good reason, forcing martials to now move around the greasy area to avoid falling. Conditional spells that can be used for reduced effectiveness and that are actually used for reduced effectiveness don't make your Wizard shine, quite the opposite.
So, these 2 spell lists have lots of issues:
- They don't last. You'll be forced to use a lot of cantrips.
- They ask a lot from your teammates because all your spells are complex and most of them impact their actions. It's hard to determine what will be your role as it's hard to forecast your next action.
- They don't "click". It's just a collection of good spells with the expectation that it's enough to make a spell list. But a spell list also has to be considered as a whole.
If I had to give an example of what I consider a functional Prepared spell list:
1st Rank: Command, Interposing Earth, Feather Fall
2nd Rank: Enlarge (x2), Revealing Light
3rd Rank: Force Barrage, Fireball, Lightning Bolt
4th Rank: Vision of Death, Insect Form, Sleep
Force Barrage, Lightning Bolt and Vision of Death are trivial to use. Also, they can be used during any round. So you know they'll be there when you need it.
Insect Form is meant to cover Will-o-Wisps, Golems and any situation where you can't fully use your magic. But it is otherwise a basic damage oriented spell and you shouldn't end a long adventuring day with it. Same can be said about Revealing Light.
Fireball and Sleep are harder to use and need some conditions to shine but they have the potential to trivialize a fight. Still, I hardly imagine a long adventuring day where these situations don't rise at all.
I've also put 2 Enlarge as a credit to the first spell list. But there it's clearly meant to be a signature spell. When the party faces what should be a Moderate encounter the Barbarian gets Enlarged and then carries the burden of dispatching enemies. As it's meant to be used often the party is expected to properly play around it. It's also a way to leverage low level spell slots to last longer.
Assets of this spell list:
- It's meant to last. With this spell list you'll go through exceptionally long fights and long series of fights without being forced on Cantrips (at level 8 I no more use Cantrips unless there's just a last low hit points enemy left).
- It's simple. Simple to use so you can't face situations where none of your spells is useful. And simple to understand, your allies won't be lost between all your spells, coordination is simple.
- It's specialized. That's a drawback actually, but you can't have the cake and eat it, too. That's why Scrolls are so important to Prepared casters.
I hope I managed to be clear :)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still do not understand how so many undervalue lower level slots in PF2 where DCs are not based on spell level at all.Experience. If at the end of the day I have all my rank 1 slots sitting idle then I should have blended them away. Simple.
I never use all my Rank 1 and 2 spells past the very first levels. I must admit I even forget about reactions like Blood Vendetta but they are so unimpactful it doesn't change my point much. So blending Rank 1 and 2 spells is basically free.
Rank 3 spells are useful for longer, but exchanging 2 rank 3 slots for a rank 5 one is a net gain: The rank 5 spell has the same power level than both rank 3 spells combined but costs twice less actions to cast.
I don't understand that mentality. I can prepare a ton of useful spells in those slots even if I'm combat focused. Stuff like Command, Enfeeble, Grease, Fear, they're all spells that are useful even at higher levels. And it's better to sometimes just have those on deck instead of carrying 10 staffs and 20 scrolls and needing to constantly waste actions pulling out and dropping items on the floor constantly, at least imo.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand that mentality. I can prepare a ton of useful spells in those slots even if I'm combat focused. Stuff like Command, Enfeeble, Grease, Fear, they're all spells that are useful even at higher levels. And it's better to sometimes just have those on deck instead of carrying 10 staffs and 20 scrolls and needing to constantly waste actions pulling out and dropping items on the floor constantly, at least imo.I still do not understand how so many undervalue lower level slots in PF2 where DCs are not based on spell level at all.Experience. If at the end of the day I have all my rank 1 slots sitting idle then I should have blended them away. Simple.
I never use all my Rank 1 and 2 spells past the very first levels. I must admit I even forget about reactions like Blood Vendetta but they are so unimpactful it doesn't change my point much. So blending Rank 1 and 2 spells is basically free.
Rank 3 spells are useful for longer, but exchanging 2 rank 3 slots for a rank 5 one is a net gain: The rank 5 spell has the same power level than both rank 3 spells combined but costs twice less actions to cast.
Because bad action economy is bad, and a lot of those spells don't do anything on a success, where you are at the levels that enemies are likely to succeed against your spells. Honestly, they are better as scrolls, and since Scroll Robes are a thing, why not?
Level 4 invisibility is something we put in every caster's list that can have it. Spell lists are adjusted to maximize enemy tactics. For whatever reasons across all editions, module designers are often very bad at spell lists. So we've always adjusted spell lists to maximize enemy casting ability like a player optimizing. We see no reason why enemy spellcasters would choose inferior options for flavor. So almost any time we're facing casters who can cast level 4 invis or the even worse disappearance, they use it.Sounds like you've found a "local optimum" for both casters and opponents, where there are clear-cut choices for the former because of the consistent and predictable spell lists the GM creates for the latter. No wonder your group doesn't miss wizards when they are absent: when the spells cast by the opponent are well known, spontaneous casters with repetoires tuned for that threat will rule.
Still, I greatly appreciate you, Bidi's, and Unicore's descriptions of your different play experiences. It shows how widely tables can range, and brings home the point that different classes and play styles will likely be better or worse depending on a lot of table factors. Back on the OP topic, seems like overwhelming agreement that while more class archetypes would be cool, it's definitely not the 'right' way to address player complaints about the class.
It's not a "local optimum." This seems to imply we're creating this on our own rather than parsing the game to find out what is optimal.
What happens is I have optimizing players. The players figure out the best spells to use to win. If I as a DM try to get clever with enemy tactics, then I find out the choices I've made are inferior and lose quickly to the players using optimal tactics.
The players parse the game for the best tactics. They don't just make them up. Each new edition they try new stuff. They read the spells and the abilities testing stuff until they figure out what is optimal meaning what will let them win the fastest and most often.
Then I as a DM have to adapt to the optimal tactics that the the other five minds have devised when creating characters. The best way to do that is the learn from them and provide enemies with similar abilities with maybe a few twists I throw in that I determine are optimal ways to counter what they are doing.
The idea of a "local optimum" is not what it is. My players would walk into any game anyone on this board does and rip it apart unless you are employing house rules or take direct effort to make sure they don't.
They would walk into Gortle's game or Unicore or Superbidi or James Jacobs or anyone's game, break down the optimal way to win, and build the group in that direction. We've done this for years across game systems with different DMs.
Figuring out how to dominate pen and paper game systems is fun. I know it's not everyone's cup of tea, but it's something I and a few others in my group enjoy doing.
That's why I should have a signature disclaimer that says, "My opinions are based on power gaming optimization. If you're doing something because you enjoy it, please disregard my posts."
I don't even pretend at this point. I'm there to win and I want a challenge from the DM. I don't want a DM that doesn't know how to build strong encounters to make winning feel good. You don't want a killer DM either who kills you because they can, but you also don't want a DM that doesn't know how to challenge optimized tactical play. You want that happy medium.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand that mentality. I can prepare a ton of useful spells in those slots even if I'm combat focused. Stuff like Command, Enfeeble, Grease, Fear, they're all spells that are useful even at higher levels. And it's better to sometimes just have those on deck instead of carrying 10 staffs and 20 scrolls and needing to constantly waste actions pulling out and dropping items on the floor constantly, at least imo.
But I do that. I have spells prepared on my lowest slots (or in my first rank Spell Repertoire). But, by experience, I just never use them.
The question is not: Are these spells useful? Because they are. The question is: Are these spells competitive at high level? Nope. So I never cast them because there's something better to do instead and I'm facing a large Red Dragon and not a lame goblin. Fear and Enfeeble have no point at all, they're too weak. Grease and Command have super niche uses that are super strong, on that I agree, so I often have a Scroll of them for this very specific case where they are actually the best thing to do.
The idea of a "local optimum" is not what it is. My players would walk into any game anyone on this board does and rip it apart unless you are employing house rules or take direct effort to make sure they don't.
Maybe what you say it's true. But first, you can't prove it. And second, from our point of view, all we have is your words. We can't be actually sure that your players would be dominating our own games.
Especially because there are so many tables and ways to play that you can end up in a game where your basic assumptions are not met. You even state it: "unless [...]". It's kind of a True Scotsman fallacy: Your players would dominate our games unless we don't play the game the One True Way.So, it's very certainly a local optimum. It will be really hard for you to prove it's a global optimum.
Also, I think it's pointless to prove it. What we can all be sure is that your players are very much into tactics and that they are certainly quite effective at playing the mechanical side of the game.
|
The idea of a "local optimum" is not what it is. My players would walk into any game anyone on this board does and rip it apart unless you are employing house rules or take direct effort to make sure they don't.
For one, you are literally employing house rules that make (prepared) casters better, so it feels weirdly hypocritical to say that you're at a global optimum unless house rules are employed. Secondly, different playstyles are not direct effort to counter you specifically. If your players walked into a game from someone on this board and they were playing in such a way that your tactics are less effective, that's not them countering you intentionally or playing incorrectly. Your playstyle is not the only one, nor is it more correct.
The idea of a "local optimum" is not what it is. My players would walk into any game anyone on this board does and rip it apart unless you are employing house rules or take direct effort to make sure they don't.For one, you are literally employing house rules that make (prepared) casters better, so it feels weirdly hypocritical to say that you're at a global optimum unless house rules are employed. Secondly, different playstyles are not direct effort to counter you specifically. If your players walked into a game from someone on this board and they were playing in such a way that your tactics are less effective, that's not them countering you intentionally or playing incorrectly. Your playstyle is not the only one, nor is it more correct.
The rules were not altered until we figured out the base game first. This is a process that took over a year. We played for a full year, two major campaigns without altering the rules as we wanted to know how the base game works first.
I don't understand that mentality. I can prepare a ton of useful spells in those slots even if I'm combat focused. Stuff like Command, Enfeeble, Grease, Fear, they're all spells that are useful even at higher levels. And it's better to sometimes just have those on deck instead of carrying 10 staffs and 20 scrolls and needing to constantly waste actions pulling out and dropping items on the floor constantly, at least imo.But I do that. I have spells prepared on my lowest slots (or in my first rank Spell Repertoire). But, by experience, I just never use them.
The question is not: Are these spells useful? Because they are. The question is: Are these spells competitive at high level? Nope. So I never cast them because there's something better to do instead and I'm facing a large Red Dragon and not a lame goblin. Fear and Enfeeble have no point at all, they're too weak. Grease and Command have super niche uses that are super strong, on that I agree, so I often have a Scroll of them for this very specific case where they are actually the best thing to do.
The idea of a "local optimum" is not what it is. My players would walk into any game anyone on this board does and rip it apart unless you are employing house rules or take direct effort to make sure they don't.Maybe what you say it's true. But first, you can't prove it. And second, from our point of view, all we have is your words. We can't be actually sure that your players would be dominating our own games.
Especially because there are so many tables and ways to play that you can end up in a game where your basic assumptions are not met. You even state it: "unless [...]". It's kind of a True Scotsman fallacy: Your players would dominate our games unless we don't play the game the One True Way.So, it's very certainly a local optimum. It will be really hard for you to prove it's a global optimum.
Also, I think it's pointless to prove it. What we can all be sure is that your players...
There is no maybe. I can tell you exactly why some things are optimal. I doubt you would really argue with them. You even employ some of the tactics we use. Others not as much near as I can tell due to group variation and the specifics of PFS play.
The main difference between myself and most others on here is I have played with the same group for thirty years. We take every single version of D&D and now PF and power game with it.
PF2 is the least power gamey edition I've ever played. You can still optimize, but the math is so tight it has much less of an effect than previous editions. This is nice as the power gamers can't dominate like they did in 3rd edition. You still win and fairly easy, but you don't have to do insane things to make the game challenging like 3rd edition or PF1: the ultimate power gamer edition.
I'll stop there as this tangent is the same in every thread. Everyone should know what is optimal in PF2 by this time and they should also know that optimizing isn't necessary to win the game. PF2 has a very wide path to victory and a very narrow optimization path, which means you can do things a lot of different ways to have fun.
Because PF2 doesn't punish a lack of optimization doesn't mean optimal tactics, abilities, classes, and the like don't exist.
I'll stop there.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like Wizard has been in a couple of different states since the game release, but it's never been a very ideal one.
In the initial release, every caster was kinda awkward. Tiny variety in spells with some clear cut ones and a bunch of meh. Divine list was terrible. The Wizard, by virtue of being an Arcane caster, was alright, but the class was boring as hell in its internal options and feats. And also extremely hard to play to even a decent level, despite being one of the "core four".
As new content released, the Arcane list grew quite a bit, but so did other lists (comparatively more). Wizard right before the Remaster was very solid for experienced players, but still had all the old issues of inaccessibility, lacking identity, and cool options for feats, subclasses, focus spells, etc.
And then the Remaster... only made the class worse while buffing every other caster except maybe Druid. Now on top of not being the most exciting, it has to deal with having questionable mechanical advantages. Being an Arcane caster is worth a lot less now that every list is good, and its direct competition in terms of being one (Arcane Sorcerer) was gigabuffed while Wizard got a nerf to schools, a pat in the back, and none of its problems solved.
I'm definitely not happy with the state of the class right now.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What is wrong with the wizard?
First there is the ease of play ability: spell substitution should probably be a class feature.
Post remaster the Wizard focus spells slightly improved, but they were kicked in the guts with the arcane school changes which gave them a much more restricted list for one of their spells per level. Spell casting has always been their best feature. This hurts.
At the games release Arcane was clearly the strongest and largest spell list. Over time every spell list has improved. The distinctiveness of the lists has weakened to the extent that you can now build a blaster cleric without bringing in spells from other traditions. Powerwise there is not much difference between the lists.
Then Imperial Sorcerer got given a numeric fix for spells that a portion of the community have been complaining about since day dot. Yes other casters can get it via archetyping but that is an ugly experience for roleplayers.
Recall Knowledge has been clarified and made good. Which is excellent and a good boost to Intelligence classes. The issue is really that almost ever other class or archetype that uses this Recall Knowledge can rank just one skill to recall knowledge on anything. Wizard is stuck with the impossible task of having to learn an open ended number of lore skills or archetype again. That arcane sorcerers can do this with class features is just salt in the wound. It is like there is a special rule that says Wizards are hobbled.
That is not to say the wizard plays badly. It does work fine. But you wil want to archetype to patch the holes in the class.
The one thing I would love to get for the Wizard is the ability to pick a 2nd Wizard school. That would allow the Wizard to expand their 4th slot's access to more spells, and would theoretically allow the Wizard to pick up a feat to snag a 3rd Focus Spell (and thus, a 3rd Focus Point) within the class itself instead of needing to pick up an archetype or multiclass.
It would also make sense within the class' fantasy, too. There's plenty of people who go back to college and pick a new major, and that major can be wildly different from the first one. Why can't the Wizard learn from one Wizard school, then later in their career, go back to a different school and expand their knowledge base? Seems like a no-brainer to me.
Not neglecting all the other interesting things about the class that have been mentioned I just want to focus on arcane school - the problem (if my summation is correct) is the nerfing of the school slot from a large swathe of spells related by how the spells are made, to a very narrow slice of spells related by their resultant effects. And the reason why this has been done is to remove an artificial construct of magical theory (and distance PF2e from the OGL) and replace it with more exhibited flavour (and allow for new spells that don't fit one of the legacy traditions).
But the upshot is that by showcasing flavour over spell construction, the options for the curriculum (school spell list) have devolved to something niche.
I admit to being surprised when seeing the school curriculum lists being so small. For a student of the arcane to only study a core of so few spells seems negligent on the part of the school. It's more like a vocational certificate course or summer extension program rather than a school curriculum.
I have no problem with exhibited flavour being the driving factor, but the spell curriculum should be vastly expanded, and if a wizard should be favouring spells from their school, then have some other benefit beyond just a limited slot to cast them (eg. increase DC or to hit AC by 1, or add a metamagic effect (provided they also have the feat) as a free action instead of a single action, or create scrolls/wands of those spells at half cost, etc.)
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I always find these post funny. Fix the wizard, fix the wizard, the wizard is no long OP fix the wizard.
I’ve played 3 remastered wizards and have yet to see anything broken about the Wizard. My staff wizard with school of battle magic rains down death and destruction with ease. I effectively have more slots to play with than any other caster that been played in our group (except cleric if you count the bonus heal/harm).
My Familiar school of mentalism is doing an awesome job of being our groups stealthy thief/spy in Edge Watch.
And finally I expect my spell blending school of Ars Grammatica who’s only second level look like he’s going to work out fine.
The problem isn’t really a matter of Wizards needing fixing it’s a matter that either the GM being lazy (adventure paths are notorious for this ) and only using single or dual creatures in combat encounters or lack of team work in the party.
There is at least one solid spell for every spell rank of school either at that rank or one that can be up casted to that rank. There’s a fallacy that the more limited school spell lists is a handicap, this is a fallacy because in almost every case with the older broader schools you ended up the same number of effective choices but a illusion of more.
No the Wizard doesn’t need fixing it has a higher learning curve than most of the other casters but it’s not broken.
I mean, I don't want to say you are wrong, but nothing you said is unique to wizards. All casters can do that.
All casters can do that.
That's what makes all casters balanced, they all have legendary scaling casting proficiency.
Besides the differences in 3 and 4 slot casting, everything else seems to be considered too minor to effect balance.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
the wizard is no long OP fix the wizard.
Droll.
The problem isn’t really a matter of Wizards needing fixing it’s a matter that either the GM being lazy (adventure paths are notorious for this )
No the Wizard doesn’t need fixing it has a higher learning curve than most of the other casters
In your own post you identified two seperate issues with the class.
Being more GM dependant and having a higher curve with no reward for such are legitimate problems with the class.
There is at least one solid spell for every spell rank of school either at that rank or one that can be up casted to that rank. There’s a fallacy that the more limited school spell lists is a handicap, this is a fallacy because in almost every case with the older broader schools you ended up the same number of effective choices but a illusion of more.
Ironically this argument is closer to a fallacy than the thing you are calling a fallacy. What's more it's simply untrue by the numbers. Some premaster schools did lack some good spells at certain levels (looking at you divination), but we still have this problem now except more accute.
|
|
Except his isn't a fallacy. Is the wizard boring? For the most part it is. Is it more GM dependent? Meh, GM's are different. But like most games of this nature the type of GM goes a long way towards what kind of character you'll play. Like I can tell you now, I wouldn't want to play in a game run by Deriven. Between his house rules and his style of gaming, I'd be miserable regardless of what class I played.
Now if you want to say the wizard is a lot more difficult to play in a pfs game or a game you jump into at your FLGS, I'd readily give you that one. But that doesn't make the wizard broken
P.S. that wasn't a shot at you personally Deriven, we just have different views and you're usually quite vocal about your house rules and...
Closer to, in that its based on a mistaken belief about why the limited choices are a problem for some players.
GM and table variance is a problem is felt more for the Wizard because the Wizard lacks the same set of fall-back, ever-green functionality that most other classes enjoy. Don't get me wrong, it can be a problem for a lot of prepared casters, but without solid focus spells it's just worse.
But don't get me wrong, the Wizard potentially having a higher curve isn't something I have a problem with on principle. It's that that higher difficulty is both unrewarded and undeserved.
I'm also not calling the class "broken", at least not personally. I call it subpar, having several weird design elements which don't or no longer make sense in the context of game.
I assume a lot of people read broken and assume "mechanically non-functional". If the Wizard was mechanically non-functional I wouldn't be talking about it, I would be ignoring it until Paizo sorts it out. "Works" is my lowest level expectation in any given product.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can't make the class with more complicated parts more powerful just by virtue of being complicated. That doesn't work in this genre of game because it makes that option, by default, the best option while also creating an artificial gate from normal players enjoying it.
You cannot, in you tabletop game, balance this game as if it were a fighting game, where the answer is "Well yeah the more complicated character does way more damage when you master it. Game mastery is the point of the game." We tried that approach in 3.5 and PF 1e, and it led to way more problems than it solved.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can't make the class with more complicated parts more powerful just by virtue of being complicated. That doesn't work in this genre of game because it makes that option, by default, the best option while also creating an artificial gate from normal players enjoying it.
You cannot, in you tabletop game, balance this game as if it were a fighting game, where the answer is "Well yeah the more complicated character does way more damage when you master it. Game mastery is the point of the game." We tried that approach in 3.5 and PF 1e, and it led to way more problems than it solved.
Being rewarded doesn't necessarily mean being rewarded with more power, at least not vertical power.
I personally have no problem with the Wizard being more complicated than other classes on a matter of principle. I consider myself to have a high level of system mastery, so its not a impediment to me. That said, I also don't personally feel like the Wizard is a particularly difficult class.
It's the reason that people consider the Wizard more complicated to play that is the my general issue. The Wizard is often considered harder to play right mainly because they have less than other classes. The Wizard is just a standard prepared caster really. It's casting is no more of less complex or difficult than other prepared casters. The reason the Wizard has a higher curve is that it lacks the same sort of safety-nets that other prepared casters tend to have for when preparation goes wrong, and so the classes ability to function well in its role can live and die on the value of that spell selection alone.
It's not a satisfying sort of problem.
A class can have of complicated mechanics, where its payoffs happen when you really utilise them and their timing really well. That can feel satisfying in itself because pulling off your synergies and combos is difficult to do. But that isn't the sort of thing we have here.
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
"The class isn't weak you just need a GM to cater specifically to you" always feels like such a weird sentiment to me.
Like if you need the GM to go out of their way and alter APs to make your character useful and feel good to play isn't that just kind of acknowledging the problem with extra steps?
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Druid is a way more vanilla caster than Wizard, but we don't really see complaints about it very much. Why is that? Outside of the better chassis (8hp, medium armor) the druid has way better feats and focus spells to fall back even if you mess the entire spell preparation.
The feats also have better flavor...
the wizard is no long OP fix the wizard.
Droll.
The problem isn’t really a matter of Wizards needing fixing it’s a matter that either the GM being lazy (adventure paths are notorious for this )No the Wizard doesn’t need fixing it has a higher learning curve than most of the other castersIn your own post you identified two seperate issues with the class.
Being more GM dependant and having a higher curve with no reward for such are legitimate problems with the class.
There is at least one solid spell for every spell rank of school either at that rank or one that can be up casted to that rank. There’s a fallacy that the more limited school spell lists is a handicap, this is a fallacy because in almost every case with the older broader schools you ended up the same number of effective choices but a illusion of more.Ironically this argument is closer to a fallacy than the thing you are calling a fallacy. What's more it's simply untrue by the numbers. Some premaster schools did lack some good spells at certain levels (looking at you divination), but we still have this problem now except more accute.
Except his isn't a fallacy. Is the wizard boring? For the most part it is. Is it more GM dependent? Meh, GM's are different. But like most games of this nature the type of GM goes a long way towards what kind of character you'll play. Like I can tell you now, I wouldn't want to play in a game run by Deriven. Between his house rules and his style of gaming, I'd be miserable regardless of what class I played.
Now if you want to say the wizard is a lot more difficult to play in a pfs game or a game you jump into at your FLGS, I'd readily give you that one. But that doesn't make the wizard broken
P.S. that wasn't a shot at you personally Deriven, we just have different views and you're usually quite vocal about your house rules and...
I think most on here would enjoy my house rules personally. Funny thing about them is they make the game easier to run, not just boosting power. It's a smoother experience that makes prepared casters run smoother than prior requiring less spell list adjustment while maintaining the important balance points of PF2.
I don't talk extensively about my house rules, but the changes weren't just to improve prepared casters power but to smooth over gameplay as well.
Less tracking of signature spell lists and less tracking of prepared spell lists.
I figured since the spells were already balanced. Spell slots were already extremely limited. Going with spontaneous casting for all would not have a dramatic effect on gameplay. And it didn't.
I could discuss the mechanics of PF2 more deeply, but I like the layered balancing. The numerous balance points allow you to modify the game without breaking it or changing it much.
That's why after a year of playing by the base rules and seeing all the ways that the PF2 designers incorporated balance allowed me to customize the game for smoother and more entertaining gameplay. This is the fewest house rules I've had to write for any edition of this game. My house rules are very few.
The house rules I had to write for PF1/3E reached a point where only I could run it. No one else even bothered to run the game much as it was too hard to challenge PCs. That was a bad time for house rules.
PF2 house rules are very few. Mostly the ones I've stated on here due to casting and the free action for hand switching for two-handed weapons and drawing while moving.
I run a fun game. I tailor to my players. On here I mostly discuss mechanics and optimization because that is a touchstone drawn directly from the books.
In the games I run, I tailor to the PCs. I create an immersive experience within a story. But how do you discuss that much on a forum? You really can't as no one is going to have some kind of specific rules standard for how they create an RPG experience for individual players. There's no way to discuss that in an objective fashion when each player creating a unique character will respond differently to story elements. You have to set those up according to the individual player's interests.
I have no idea how you figure you would know whether you would enjoy a game I run when I wouldn't even know how to set the game up until I see what kind of player you are and what kind of character you have made. This isn't a one size fits all game when it comes to the RPG part of the game.
I don't have disdain for wizards. I wish people would stop claiming this when I have made it clear the wizard is my favorite class. I have played many wizards over the years. The PF2 wizard is to me designed in an extremely boring manner that doesn't offer much to build from, which I find frustrating since they did such a great job with the cleric, druid, bard, fighter, ranger, rogue, and just about every class but the porridge wizard.
The PF2 wizard is so bland and lacking from what it has been all these years that I find the lack of creativity frustrating since the wizard is my favorite class. I expect more given how much they gave so many of the other classes for standout abilities.
Druid is a way more vanilla caster than Wizard, but we don't really see complaints about it very much. Why is that? Outside of the better chassis (8hp, medium armor) the druid has way better feats and focus spells to fall back even if you mess the entire spell preparation.
The feats also have better flavor...
Why do you think this? The build options for the druid make for a far more interesting character than the wizard.
You can customize the druid in so many ways and take it in so many different directions. Untamed Shift alone has massive variation in build options. Animal companions have a lot of build options. Then you can delve here and there into other order options to customize in slightly different ways like a plant weapon or a lightning them with storm order.
Power is relative. The wizard, druid, bard, and such will all have equivalent DCs and effectiveness of their spells, which means customization in PF2 is more about visuals and slight differentiation of mechanics. The druid is one of the more visually customizable classes in the game in terms of what you can make it look and feel like.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can't make the class with more complicated parts more powerful just by virtue of being complicated. That doesn't work in this genre of game because it makes that option, by default, the best option while also creating an artificial gate from normal players enjoying it.
You cannot, in you tabletop game, balance this game as if it were a fighting game, where the answer is "Well yeah the more complicated character does way more damage when you master it. Game mastery is the point of the game." We tried that approach in 3.5 and PF 1e, and it led to way more problems than it solved.
So then why have complicated classes versus uncomplicated ones if the only fundamental difference is that one just requires more effort for the same effect?
Thanks for proving what makes the Wizard an obsolete class with that post. Why play a Wizard when a Sorcerer does the same thing except better and simpler? Unless you want to actually handicap yourself as some sort of self-imposed challenge, it makes no sense to do so.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF2 wizard is just boring. I don't even consider it underpowered at this point as I know how to build a low level caster now.
5E gets the wizard prize. They did a way better job of bringing the wizard back down to earth while still making it interesting and fun in my opinion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can't make the class with more complicated parts more powerful just by virtue of being complicated. That doesn't work in this genre of game because it makes that option, by default, the best option while also creating an artificial gate from normal players enjoying it.
You cannot, in you tabletop game, balance this game as if it were a fighting game, where the answer is "Well yeah the more complicated character does way more damage when you master it. Game mastery is the point of the game." We tried that approach in 3.5 and PF 1e, and it led to way more problems than it solved.
So then why have complicated classes versus uncomplicated ones if the only fundamental difference is that one just requires more effort for the same effect?
Thanks for proving what makes the Wizard an obsolete class with that post. Why play a Wizard when a Sorcerer does the same thing except better and simpler? Unless you want to actually handicap yourself as some sort of self-imposed challenge, it makes no sense to do so.
Because people want different things in order to enjoy the game? Some people enjoy really simplistic and straight forward gameplay, while others enjoy having more complexity to juggle while playing. That's not really been an unknown in TTRPGs, and as part of the whole "We're going to make the classes balanced and not have the tier system for class power" thing that everyone loves in PF 2e, that necessitates that all the classes have close to the same power levels as one another?
"Why have complicated classes" is the same question as someone asking "why have uncomplicated classes". It comes down to a purely preferential choice. Sometimes I really like playing a barbarian who attacks twice in their turn and doesn't need to think of anything beyond that. Other times I prefer to have to strategize my spell selections as a druid to try and gauge what we'll be facing that day. It's fun, and some people need that simplicity or that complexity in order to find a class fun.
And if being stronger is what makes you feel good while playing, it's literally right there for you in the more simplistic classes. PF 2e caters to a wide array of playstyles, without punishing you for choosing a playstyle the game devs decided was incorrect, IE martials vs casters from PF 1e and how the more complex you went, the objectively stronger you got.
You can't make the class with more complicated parts more powerful just by virtue of being complicated. That doesn't work in this genre of game because it makes that option, by default, the best option while also creating an artificial gate from normal players enjoying it.
You cannot, in you tabletop game, balance this game as if it were a fighting game, where the answer is "Well yeah the more complicated character does way more damage when you master it. Game mastery is the point of the game." We tried that approach in 3.5 and PF 1e, and it led to way more problems than it solved.
Being rewarded doesn't necessarily mean being rewarded with more power, at least not vertical power.
I personally have no problem with the Wizard being more complicated than other classes on a matter of principle. I consider myself to have a high level of system mastery, so its not a impediment to me. That said, I also don't personally feel like the Wizard is a particularly difficult class.
It's the reason that people consider the Wizard more complicated to play that is the my general issue. The Wizard is often considered harder to play right mainly because they have less than other classes. The Wizard is just a standard prepared caster really. It's casting is no more of less complex or difficult than other prepared casters. The reason the Wizard has a higher curve is that it lacks the same sort of safety-nets that other prepared casters tend to have for when preparation goes wrong, and so the classes ability to function well in its role can live and die on the value of that spell selection alone.
It's not a satisfying sort of problem.
A class can have of complicated mechanics, where its payoffs happen when you really utilise them and their timing really well. That can feel satisfying in itself because pulling off your synergies and combos is difficult to do. But that isn't the sort of thing we have here.
You bring up an interesting point that I think I can agree with. I do not have problems with Wizard in it's current iteration, but I can see what you're getting at where a reward for complexity/system mastery could be made to be easier to obtain on the wizard by giving it a few more mechanics to reward that effort.
Not so much power but perhaps in flexibility. The common idea of giving Spell Substitution and Spell Blending as class features instead of thesis's could, for example, give you those aforementioned safety nets as well as give it a horizontal increase to its power via flexibility.
Controversial as it may sound, I enjoy the school colleges. But I also love flavorful options, even if they're weak, and like working with my GM's to achieve that flavor. Perhaps a focus on further refining the schools with more spell options at the different ranks could be nice, or give each school its own version of Spell Blending where they can sacrifice a school spell slot to cast unique spells to the wizards. A kind of psudo-focus spell on top of other focus spells and pools.
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think everyone is largely happy with the flavour of the school change. It can certainly lead to some fun options (I have a personal aside here about my Blood Lords campaign Wizard). It's the implementation of the mechanics thats the big issue.
This has been compounded by the further context of the rest of the remaster material. Where most other classes made positive steps forward and improved - in some cases dramatically - The Wizard actually regressed.