| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And that there lies the problem. The only strength a Prepared spellcaster has over Spontaneous is adjusting to extremely different encounters or challenges between each day, and some of those can be done with simply having scrolls on-hand.
If we just decide "Pick a spell loadout that is good all around," then you run into the issue of the Spontaneous spellcaster having an even better and more flexible spell list by nature of their feature letting them adjust to each similar situation, something a Prepared spellcaster can't do. So much for Prepared being more efficient.
Which again leads down into the "Why play a Wizard when the Sorcerer does it better?" argument, and now we're back to square 1.
Prepared is weaker than Spontaneous, I think we are past any debate on this question.
The Sorcerer (and the Oracle) got lots of (undue) buffs with the Remaster. No one was asking for it and it came. So it breaks the overall balance of the game, pushing towards Charisma as best main attribute for casters as it opens so much goodness.
So, if all you're looking for is "the best", then I think the Wizard is out of the picture (like most of the classes).
Which doesn't mean that the Wizard has no reason to exist. The Wizard is significantly different from the Sorcerer that both have their own space to exist. It's a bit like preremaster Barbarian and Fighter: The Fighter was better, but the Barbarian was fine and you could play one without crippling the party.
So, to answer your question: Because you want to play a Wizard for its specificities and there's no real reason not to play one as it works fine. Obviously: it works fine if you give up the versatility nonsense and play it to its strength.
I would even argue that during Premaster, Sorcerer, Oracle, et. al. were superior to Wizards. Remaster just makes it more obvious that is the case, since honestly, the Remaster didn't do much in terms of adjusting the value of their attributes; a lot of that was already set in stone. All it did was make potent feats a baseline in their class. Such things were not done for the Wizard.
As for Barbarian versus Fighter, the Barbarian had the benefit of doing significantly more raw damage and having more raw HP, both of which can be desirable traits, and their specializations can add things that a Fighter can't do, and this includes Premaster. Is it worth losing buffed accuracy, strong class feats, and defensive benefits like Heavy Armor and Evasion? Probably not. But it does offer an alternative playstyle that is viable when played to its strengths.
Wizards don't even get that alternative viable playstyle. If Intelligence did more as a stat, or if the Wizard had more features that interacted with their Intelligence (such as, I don't know, Additional Lores or Recall Knowledge abilities), it could be more interesting. Same can be said with their Focus Spells; Wizards in PF1 had some pretty cool and potent Focus Spells, why none of them made the cut in PF2, I don't understand. It was actually one of the few non-broken features of the class.
|
I'm seeing the word "Fine" used for the wizard a lot. Not quite "excellent," "great," or even "good."
They are still a mechanically functional class, so they are "fine" by that metric.
They aren't good, and people don't want to say bad, so fine it is.
I'm prone to it as well. "Bad" feels more combative, so "subpar", "has issues", "left behind", "weak" all get used in its place. And, in truth, the Wizard does have its moments. No one else*(except several classes at higher level) can cast as many Sure Strikes a day as a Staff Nexus Wizard!
We should just say bad and move on.
|
|
or if the Wizard had more features that interacted with their Intelligence (such as, I don't know, Additional Lores or Recall Knowledge abilities), it could be more interesting.
This is the ground I feel that needs expanded on. Most of the actually issues with the class can't be solved within our existing framesworks.
To bring it back to the subject of this thread for a moment, a suitably large class archetype is an avenue to address things, but it would, in essence, just be the Wizard 2.0 and probably be absurdly large.
Giving the Wizard several feats and perhaps a new Thesis which opens them up into a Knowledge class, with good and solid rewards for knowledge, makes the most sense.
It plays into the classes theme, gives more purpose to their KAS, and expands on a function they already want to be doing.
I would even argue that during Premaster, Sorcerer, Oracle, et. al. were superior to Wizards.
Sorcerer was, Oracle was weaker.
Remaster just makes it more obvious that is the case, since honestly, the Remaster didn't do much in terms of adjusting the value of their attributes;
Imperial Sorcerer has a crazy focus spell easily accessible, Oracle added the excellent Cursebound feats also easily accessible. Clearly, whatever caster you play, it's better if it's Charisma-based than Intelligence-based because of that. The difference between the attributes themselves is negligible in comparison.
But it does offer an alternative playstyle that is viable when played to its strengths.
Wizards don't even get that alternative viable playstyle.
So, the Barbarian tanking and smashing things is an alternative playstyle to the Fighter tanking and smashing things but the Wizard casting spells is not an alternative playstyle to the Sorcerer casting spells. I think you're buyist. Barbarian and Fighter are nearly clones, they do exactly the same thing the same way.
if the Wizard had more features that interacted with their Intelligence
I 100% agree. Knowledge is Power should be one in many. On top of it, even if it's rather nice, it's far from strong and very random (a lot of creatures have the unique tag for god knows what reason).
I definitely agree with the overall "blandness" of the Wizard, my main gripe with it (as I find it's overall effectiveness fine (not bad, fine)).We should just say bad and move on.
On my opinion, you can't be a "bad" legendary spellcaster. There's already so much power in this sole feature that you can't be subpar in terms of contribution. You can be fine, but not bad.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Clearly, whatever caster you play, it's better if it's Charisma-based than Intelligence-based because of that. The difference between the attributes themselves is negligible in comparison.
Charisma has several math-impacting, class-agnostic, abilites.
- Intimidate inflicts the Frightened condition
- Deception can inflict Off-Guard
- Diplomancy powers the Bon Mot feat.
All accessible from level 1 and only needs 1 feat.
So Charisma has a more direct-line to impacting combat in a way that Intelligence doesn't.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On my opinion, you can't be a "bad" legendary spellcaster. There's already so much power in this sole feature that you can't be subpar in terms of contribution. You can be fine, but not bad.
It's a standardised track progression for all full casters. I don't consider it a positive or a negative of the class, since full casters never deviate from it.
If the contention is "You can't have a bad full spellcaster", I think there is enough specific issues with the Wizard design in particular to disagree. Many premaster Witch players would probably also find it untrue.
Charisma has several math-impacting, class-agnostic, abilites.
- Intimidate inflicts the Frightened condition
- Deception can inflict Off-Guard
- Diplomancy powers the Bon Mot feat.All accessible from level 1 and only needs 1 feat.
So Charisma has a more direct-line to impacting combat in a way that Intelligence doesn't.
While I can't say you're wrong, the impact is negligible to your combat abilities.
I have many charisma based casters and truth is I rarely find the action to use Intimidate or whatever. Also, there are many alternate third actions, from Focus Spells to bow Strikes, that could compete with your 3 examples. So, even if Charisma is objectively better than Intelligence if you focus on combat, the actual impact is negligible.If the contention is "You can't have a bad full spellcaster", I think there is enough specific issues with the Wizard design in particular to disagree. Many premaster Witch players would probably also find it untrue.
I'm playing a Witch in SKT. I've used one Focus Spell and my Hex once in combat. So, before level 8 and the nice Familiar ability, I did nothing a preremaster Witch couldn't do. Still, I'm my party main damage dealer since I got my hand on a Fireball.
So, when a player tells me that "(whatever) caster is bad", I question the player first. I really mean it when I say you can't have a bad full spellcaster. There's at least a significant player contribution in making such a character bad.| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The difference between the attributes themselves is negligible in comparison.
So, the Barbarian tanking and smashing things is an alternative playstyle to the Fighter tanking and smashing things but the Wizard casting spells is not an alternative playstyle to the Sorcerer casting spells. I think you're buyist. Barbarian and Fighter are nearly clones, they do exactly the same thing the same way.
I disagree. Charisma gives you the authority to sway out-of-combat interactions with NPCs (as well as actually roleplay), and has great in-combat abilities between Bon Mot, Demoralize, Battle Cry, and Scare to Death. Intelligence gets...Recall Knowledge, and maybe Recognize Spell. From sheer numbers and even quality of effects, this does not compare.
Giant Barbarians can grow in size and do massive whirlwind attacks. Dragon Barbarians can grow wings to fly and get a Breath Weapon. Superstition Barbarians are extremely potent against magic users. These things are all potent and effective, and Fighters cannot do any of these things.
And that there lies the problem. The only strength a Prepared spellcaster has over Spontaneous is adjusting to extremely different encounters or challenges between each day, and some of those can be done with simply having scrolls on-hand.
If we just decide "Pick a spell loadout that is good all around," then you run into the issue of the Spontaneous spellcaster having an even better and more flexible spell list by nature of their feature letting them adjust to each similar situation, something a Prepared spellcaster can't do. So much for Prepared being more efficient.
Which again leads down into the "Why play a Wizard when the Sorcerer does it better?" argument, and now we're back to square 1.
Prepared is weaker than Spontaneous, I think we are past any debate on this question.
Who is the "we?" because it is not me, and it is clearly not the Paizo developers. There is pretty clearly no "Spontaneous caster is better than Prepared caster" happening at the class balance point level.
I do think that many people disappointed with the wizard feel this way, and continue to be disappointed because nothing the developers have done in errata or in the remaster starts from the position that prepared casters need more. Flexible casting is so wildly powerful because you can switch up your repertoire daily, which is why it costs an incredibly valuable spell slot. The spontaneous casters limited repertoire is a deal killer for me personally. Not always, I have played a pre-remastered oracle and enjoyed it, and probably will play a remastered one eventually, but it works for me because the divine spell list doesn't require as much fiddling (to me) as the arcane one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is pretty clearly no "Spontaneous caster is better than Prepared caster" happening at the class balance point level.
I don't speak of classes, I compare Prepared casting to Spontaneous casting. Spontaneous casting is superior to Prepared casting.
Who is the "we?" because it is not me, and it is clearly not the Paizo developers.
I think you are in the extremely small minority. As for Paizo developers, their lack of communication on what they think makes it hard to really know their position (we are infering their position from their changes of the game more than actually getting it).
Flexible casting is so wildly powerful
I don't consider Flexible casting to be prepared casting. It combines the assets of both forms of casting. It's superior to both Prepared and Spontaneous.
The spontaneous casters limited repertoire is a deal killer for me personally.
And I dislike the Bard class. Still, I won't say that it's bad because I just can't stand it.
I have played one bard. The optimal play style of the class that you are pretty heavy-handed pushed into ends up being very boring to me personally. There are some interesting flavor options to lean into this occult vision of the bard that deviates from the traditional singing ego-maniac that RPGs have leaned into previously, but I didn't enjoy the mechanics enough to keep with it.
But the bard is a good indicator that the developers don't feel like the bard having spontaneous casting took any of the class' power budget over had it been a prepared caster. It is not like the witch has any more mechanically powerful options than what the bard does, even though both are 3 slot casters with focus cantrips. In fact the chassis of the Bard is significantly beefier than the witches.
We agree that flexible casting is more powerful than either baseline casting types, but it is a modification of prepared casting. It is also something that D&D has pretty squarely made the baseline of the 5th edition wizard and that alone is pretty much a guarantee that Paizo wasn't going to go there with their remaster project, who's primary goal/purpose was to draw a line between the two systems.
But the bard is a good indicator that the developers don't feel like the bard having spontaneous casting took any of the class' power budget over had it been a prepared caster. It is not like the witch has any more mechanically powerful options than what the bard does, even though both are 3 slot casters with focus cantrips. In fact the chassis of the Bard is significantly beefier than the witches.
What are you trying to prove? That classes are not balanced properly against each other? We know that. That it may come from developer overvaluing some features? Certainly (notably Familiar in the case of the Witch). Now, it doesn't say anything about the actual balance between Prepared and Spontaneous.
I'm pretty sure the developers are fully aware the Bard is too strong, but it looks like they don't consider it a problem. Which I can understand: A strong option is not a problem by itself unless it somehow breaks the game or overshadow other options. The Bard works fine and I don't see people complaining about the Bard being a problem.
And that there lies the problem. The only strength a Prepared spellcaster has over Spontaneous is adjusting to extremely different encounters or challenges between each day, and some of those can be done with simply having scrolls on-hand.
If we just decide "Pick a spell loadout that is good all around," then you run into the issue of the Spontaneous spellcaster having an even better and more flexible spell list by nature of their feature letting them adjust to each similar situation, something a Prepared spellcaster can't do. So much for Prepared being more efficient.
Which again leads down into the "Why play a Wizard when the Sorcerer does it better?" argument, and now we're back to square 1.
Prepared is weaker than Spontaneous, I think we are past any debate on this question.
Who is the "we?" because it is not me, and it is clearly not the Paizo developers. There is pretty clearly no "Spontaneous caster is better than Prepared caster" happening at the class balance point level.
I do think that many people disappointed with the wizard feel this way, and continue to be disappointed because nothing the developers have done in errata or in the remaster starts from the position that prepared casters need more. Flexible casting is so wildly powerful because you can switch up your repertoire daily, which is why it costs an incredibly valuable spell slot. The spontaneous casters limited repertoire is a deal killer for me personally. Not always, I have played a pre-remastered oracle and enjoyed it, and probably will play a remastered one eventually, but it works for me because the divine spell list doesn't require as much fiddling (to me) as the arcane one.
Spontaneous casting is clearly better for combat.
Prepared casting can be better if you have more time to use it to solve problems.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When I gave up trying to fix the wizard was when I made it a spontaneous caster with free Spell Substitution thesis on top of another thesis and tweaked the focus spells to make them a little better and my players still didn't like the wizard much. Just the one guy and he doesn't even take wizard feats, he stacks casting archetype feats to cast lots of spells. He uses all his feat slots for more casting archetypes grabbing witch and cleric and sorcerer just to stack more spell slots to cast.
I asked him why and he said, "The wizard feats don't look good. I want to cast more."
I gave up at that point. If a spontaneous wizard with Spell Substitution doesn't make them overpowered, not sure what else I can do with. That's the layered balancing. Spells are inherently balanced as are the number of actions you can expend per round, so no amount of spells is going to break the game.
In PF1 you could break the actions per round with Quicken Spell usable all day, not so in PF2. The PF2 designer knew Quicken was one of the most broken spellshape feats in the game and made sure that did not happen in PF2.
Wizard in PF2 lacks spectacular abilities. It has nothing like when a bard boosts his Inspire Courage with Inspire Heroics to really give the party a crazy boost for a round while casting true target or the druid changing shape into a huge elemental or dragon all day to use reach or flank flying creatures or use a breath weapon all day.
The wizard just casts carefully balanced spells that can fizzle terribly if the opponent saves. That has a very up and down effect on the enjoyment of the class.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
IMO, the biggest issue with the PF2 wizard, both pre- and post-Remaster, is that the bard and the thaumaturge are the "lore" classes. Why Cha-based classes are the ones that specialize in "knowledge" instead of an Int-based class that is supposed to be all about deep learning is... a little off. Yes, the "bardic knowledge" thing has a long history but it's not as if the PF2 bard is so "weak" that it needs exclusive access to Bardic Lore, Know-It-All, and other ways to "optimize" recall knowledge checks.
Possibly the easiest fix would be to add Loremaster Lore as a class skill and the loremaster archetype feats to the wizard class feats. This would allow the wizard to be a master of knowledge, building up to when they take Unified Theory.
I'm not buying into the "you have to change your taste" stickAnd if you resonate with the comments about the Wizard being weak then it's on you. You may want to play your Wizard that way, it's just not the optimized way to play a Wizard in PF2.
It's not the PF2 Wizard. The edition change has changed the Wizard gameplay. The old Wizard is dead, long live the Wizard.
It doesn't matter whether you buy into it or not, since that is precisely what we have been told by developers in the past about this very subject.
As for making exceptions, you can blame Hasbro/Wizards for that garbage; if the OGL scandal didn't happen, none of this would be taking place, since people now feel the need to change things in an attempt to avoid frivolous lawsuits that will leave them bankrupt, or lose any semblance of profits in their products (thereby essentially killing the business).