Turning the wizard into the fighter of arcane

[Blue_frog]

Hello,

Reading the many threads here, I think most - if not all - are in agreement that after the remaster, the wizard ended up being mechanically weaker while other casters like the sorcerer or the oracle thrived.

(Short break to summarize)

When you compare a wizard of any build to an imperial sorcerer, the difference is painful. Sorcerer gets more flexibility, more damage, much better feats, spontaneous casting AND on top of that, better focus spells that allow to raise your DC by up to 3/add 3 to your spell attack roll.

Wizards are stuck with an outdated version of preparing spells, which was actually a good thing when spontaneous casters were stuck with a handful or spells, but is now an incredible drawback in PF2E where scrolls are cheap and arcane sorcerers can get the equivalent of a spellbook with a feat. There is simply no situation that comes to mind (or that happened in my many years of campaing) where preparing spells would be better than spontaneous since you can cover 95% of your needs with your actual selection and the 5% left with scrolls or your grimoire.

Only two wizard thesis have some merit (Spell Blending and Spell Substitution) and even then, they just patch weaknesses instead of giving the wizard some much needed oomph. The remaster added insult to injury with schools of dubious interest, where most of them aren't even considered apart from RP reasons, and where even the most battle-oriented one has glaring problems in its spell selection.

TLDR: Wizards are god-awful and need a huge buff.

(End summarize)

Suggested Fix

In our tables, we tried to fix it by giving all the thesis for free (apart from familiar thesis which stepped too much on the witch's toes. It was a step in the right direction but still wasn't enough.

So we thought about what the wizard was supposed to be: master of the arcane, like the fighter was a master of the blade. Other classes have a lot of special abilities: barbarian has rage, monk has flurry of blows and AC, ranger has hunter's edge and so on and so forth, but the fighter is the king of accuracy.

So here's what we are currently implementing in our tables:

Instead of the current arcane schools, wizards can choose one specific school and gets one proficiency better with it, just like the fighter with his favored weapon. All other spells are at regular proficiency - and cantrips aren't affected either.

So an evoker would start at level 1 with expert proficiency in his evocation spells using slots and trained in all others. Then master in evocation at lvl 7 and expert in all others, and so on, and so forth until lvl 19 where he gets legendary in everything like all other casters (and might get another perk at this time).

We first thought it would be too much but so far it's worked pretty well. +2 proficiency is a big swing in PF2E but it didn't unbalance the fighter and it didn't unbalance the wizard. Moreover, the fighter doesn't care about being extra proficient in only one kind of weapon since he usually won't change his fighting style during an adventure. But even the most specialized wizard cannot always rely on his expertise, since sometimes you need blasting, sometimes you need debuffing and sometimes you need utility.

So far, the schools we chose were mostly modeled on those already existing:

School of ars grammatica: Higher proficiency for all linguistic effects and counteract checks
School of battle magic: Higher proficiency for all elemental blasts
School of civic wizardry: Higher proficiency for all manoeuvers spells, higher wall HP
School of mentalism: Higher proficiency for all mental spells
School of the veil: Higher DC for all illusions

What do you think ?

[Blave]

I don't think the wizard needs a numbers boost. It's not really making the class any more interesting from a mechanical point of view, just more effective. It also risks shoehorning players into relying on certain types of spells more than they should and could be a trap especially for newer players.

I'd much rather see the class design fixed than its power. More useful and interesting focus spells and feats would be a great start. Maybe increase the uses of Arcane Bond (with some limitation to not give the class even more top level slots) and maybe the ability to spend those uses on various abilities depending on your thesis and/or school. For Example, the Spellshape thesis could allow you to spend an Arcane Bond "charge" to use a Spellshape as a free action or maybe to aply two Spellshapes to the same spell. Spell Substitution could spend an action and a Bond charge to instantly switch out a spell. Stuff like that.

Somehing along those lines would makes the thesis/schools choice more interesting and give Arcane Bond an identity that goes beyond "more spells".

[NorrKnekten]

Personally I think that wizards are just fine the way they are. Thats not to say I don't have issues with them.

I love spell shaping and staff nexus to a fault as it gives access to what essentially is the fighters combat flexibility or a minor version of spontanious casting to fuel an ungodly amount of low rank spells. (Granted Sure Strike was nerfed but there are still other great spells)

So in that aspect I think wizard is actually in a better spot than druid in pretty much all ways but one. That being the actual focus spells. Wizard focus spells are rather lackluster even compared to cleric domains.

Protective ward didnt get the treatment bless/bane did so it takes several rounds before it gets useful.
Force bolt is still lackluster except to cause things to trigger of damage.
Earthworks is decent but is still just difficult terrain that you can put in air.
Charming push is only good while you are attacked and has incap.
These I feel is the biggest shortcoming of the wizard.

Meanwhile Hand of the Apprentice, Fortify summoning and Scramble body are absolutely great.

It would also be great if the thesis actually had an active part to them because right now they are pretty much all passive or out of combat gains.

[Blave]

NorrKnekten wrote:

Meanwhile Hand of the Apprentice, Fortify summoning and Scramble body are absolutely great.

That's funny. Those three are the absolutely worst of the wizard's focus spells for me.

Always interesting to see how much opinions differ between players.

[NorrKnekten]

Blave wrote:

NorrKnekten wrote:

Meanwhile Hand of the Apprentice, Fortify summoning and Scramble body are absolutely great.

That's funny. Those three are the absolutely worst of the wizard's focus spells for me.

Always interesting to see how much opinions differ between players.

Hand of the Apprentice: Single action weapon strike using spellcasting. Expensive to invest in but it really is worth the damage and potential crit effect. Some people rule that potency rune doesnt apply, Other people do which does make its value vary from table to table.

Fortify summoning: Using creatures with auto-grab abilities, stench, knockdown, engulf/swallow or similar.

Scramble body: 2 action evil eye hex. but it instead targets fortitude and comes with slowed 1 + sickened 2 if they crit fail. Does lack the sustain part but i've never seen a witch sustain that hex outside having a spare action with nothing else to do.

[Easl]

Our group is pretty good at sussing out weaknesses and throwing that type of damage or that type of save at the opponent, so +2 across the board to spellcasting would be very strong for us. I could see a +2 to AC spells. And I have no problem with the "wizard is the caster's fighter" theme. Paizo didn't go that way, but it's a way they could reasonably have gone.

Personally, honestly? I'd prefer cooler feats to a numbers boost. So many concepts they could've explored which currently only exist as archetypes or not at all. Knowledge expert. Magic item expert. 'Contacts and resource' class. 'Knows all the spells' class. Etc.

[NorrKnekten]

Easl wrote:

Our group is pretty good at sussing out weaknesses and throwing that type of damage or that type of save at the opponent, so +2 across the board to spellcasting would be very strong for us. I could see a +2 to AC spells. And I have no problem with the "wizard is the caster's fighter" theme. Paizo didn't go that way, but it's a way they could reasonably have gone.

Personally, honestly? I'd prefer cooler feats to a numbers boost. So many concepts they could've explored which currently only exist as archetypes or not at all. Knowledge expert. Magic item expert. 'Contacts and resource' class. 'Knows all the spells' class. Etc.

Yeaaaa, Didnt Paizo devs also admit to being rather conservative with the earlier classes to try and set a good bench point? Yes they got their themes and all but the classes we have seen as of late and trough playtests makes everything we got in the CRB seem bland and samey.

[Blave]

NorrKnekten wrote:

Hand of the Apprentice: Single action weapon strike using spellcasting. Expensive to invest in but it really is worth the damage and potential crit effect. Some people rule that potency rune doesnt apply, Other people do which does make its value vary from table to table.

Non-muscle Wizards will very likely use it with their staff. At best, you're looking at 4d8+7 damage for a single action. Not terrible (especially at the huge range), but still a very steep gold cost which might be better invested into other things, like a more powerful staff or more spells. Critical Specialization is unreliable and just a 10 ft knockback that's even defined as forced movement, limiting its usefulness.

Applying potency runes to this is very much a house rule and shouldn't be part of such discussions.

Quote:

Fortify summoning: Using creatures with auto-grab abilities, stench, knockdown, engulf/swallow or similar.

Auto-Grab is no longer a thing in the remaster. But the worst thing about Fortify Summoning is that it essentially eats your whole turn since you also need to sustain the summon to get any use out of it. Spending two whole turns to get a slightly buffed summon is not a great deal in my book.

Quote:

Scramble body: 2 action evil eye hex. but it instead targets fortitude and comes with slowed 1 + sickened 2 if they crit fail. Does lack the sustain part but i've never seen a witch sustain that hex outside having a spare action with nothing else to do.

It's still a two-action spell (i.e. basically eats your whole turn) that does nothing on a successful save. It's the only one that somehow got worse with the remaster since fort is often a strong save on enemies. The old version was a spell attack so it could at least benefit from off-guard and attack buffs.

Anyway, that's just my take. I'm not going to argue about this. We ulitmately agree that many of the wizard's focus spells are sub-par, even if we're thinking of different ones.

[SuperBidi]

Blue_frog wrote:

What do you think ?

That Wizards are not god awful and needing a huge buff.

Besides that, PF2 is an extremely solid framework. Even if people tend to scream in front of a change as extreme as a proficiency boost, the actual truth is that the game will certainly not be affected much. So in my opinion, if it's what you want, go for it.

The only thing I'd worry about is that Wizard become the only real choice for Arcane casters due to this boost. It's hard to ignore a +2 to spell DC when choosing your class. But considering the low number of Arcane casters in the game (and the fact that we already have this effect with the Arcane Sorcerer) it's not much of a problem.

[Easl]

Blave wrote:

Applying potency runes to this is very much a house rule and shouldn't be part of such discussions.

? I'd read "you deal the weapon's damage as if you had hit with a melee Strike" as applying all the damage runes. That's not just what "as if you had hit..." means, it's the obvious thematic result: if you whack someone with a magic sword using telekinesis instead of your arm, it's still the same magic sword.

Quote:

But the worst thing about Fortify Summoning is that it essentially eats your whole turn

Again, ? It's a 1a focus spell. So a PC uses 1a to sustain, 1a to fortify, leaving them 1a for other things.

I get what you're saying: the opportunity cost of "+1 to your summons' checks" is high given that if the wizard didn't do that they could sustain the summon and cast a 2a direct damage spell instead. So you are losing an attack you could otherwise have made. But to be nitpicky, no it doesn't eat your whole turn.

[NorrKnekten]

Just to clarify some things as to why I think these are better.

Blave wrote:

NorrKnekten wrote:

Hand of the Apprentice

Non-muscle Wizards will very likely use it with their staff. At best, you're looking at 4d8+7 damage for a single action. Not terrible (especially at the huge range), but still a very steep gold cost which might be better invested into other things, like a more powerful staff or more spells. Critical Specialization is unreliable and just a 10 ft knockback that's even defined as forced movement, limiting its usefulness.

Applying potency runes to this is very much a house rule and shouldn't be part of such discussions.

The only discussions i've seen regarding hand of the apprentice and potency runes are those that fall under ambigious rules, its just not mentioned what interaction is the correct.

Nor have I seen a table where a wizard will actually pay full price instead of just transfering runes from gear the party plan to sell either way. We are talking 65 sp for a striking rune and maybe another 50gp before its time to think about the second striking. I've seen knives used too more often than not whenever they arent going weapon training + hammer.

Blave wrote:

Quote:

Fortify summoning: Using creatures with auto-grab abilities, stench, knockdown, engulf/swallow or similar.

Auto-Grab is no longer a thing in the remaster. But the worst thing about Fortify Summoning is that it essentially eats your whole turn since you also need to sustain the summon to get any use out of it. Spending two whole turns to get a slightly buffed summon is not a great deal in my book.

I mean its just 1 action that you cast at the same time as the spell itself, If they kill the summon then so be it but it improves their survivability too and auras still apply so eating two turns with it just sounds like ineffective usage compared to treating it as a spellshape. I'm also not talking about the Grab/Improved grab ability when using "Auto-Grab", I'm talking about things like the Grasping Tendrils Aura or Pine Pangolin's Secrete Tar. Things that forces creatures to save or suffer a condition without needing the summon to spend more actions outside maybe first using the ability.

Blave wrote:

Quote:

Scramble body:

It's still a two-action spell (i.e. basically eats your whole turn) that does nothing on a successful save. It's the only one that somehow got worse with the remaster since fort is often a strong save on enemies. The old version was a spell attack so it could at least benefit from off-guard and attack buffs.

On this we agree, It is harder to 'land' and probably shouldn't be 2 actions. I typically treat it as an alternate demoralize. Which still means its generally more usable than the rest outside certain scenarios. Ain't nothing worse than an earthworks that works against your party, Like realizing afterwards that the creature has Reactive Strike and the rogue is now unable to step.

But yeah, Wizard focus spells kinda suck compared to other classes. Which ones need it the most is largely subjective and comes down to playstyle.

[Blave]

Wait, how do you cast fortify summoning at the same time as a summon spell? Those are exclusively 3 actions, are they not? Do you quicken your summons or something? Because without quicken, I don't see how you can use the focus spell on the same turn as the summon spells.

[NorrKnekten]

Blave wrote:

Wait, how do you cast fortify summoning at the same time as a summon spell? Those are exclusively 3 actions, are they not? Do you quicken your summons or something? Because without quicken, I don't see how you can use the focus spell on the same turn as the summon spells.

Oh wait, yes you are right there. That is absolutely my bad, Though the summon do gets two actions the same turn you cast it.

Edit: Right here is what I was doing with that free action, Before Quickened Casting I had Distracting Performance and Cooperative Nature, So aid and giving allies offguard.

[exequiel759]

I honestly would just take most of the arcane thesis and turn them into baseline features of the class. Experimental Spellshaping should be the wizard's equivalent to a fighter's Combat Flexibility, Improved Familiar Attunement is in a weird spot since the witch's release so I would either remove it or make it into a feat, Spell Blending and Spell Substitution are IMO the only two thesis that make sense as subclasses so I would either make them both baseline or make them the only two thesis, and Staff Nexus is pretty much a trap option so remove it or turn it into a feat.

I would also buffs a ton of the feats the class has because I honestly find casters suffering from having boring feats. Luckily the last few casters we got aren't like that anymore, but the wizard sadly still is.

[Squiggit]

The main complaints I see about the Wizard are mostly thematic and QoL based. Boring options, a lack of variety, no meat to spell schools, bland focus spells, lack of meaningful specialization.

Just giving them a flat +2 to rolls and DCs doesn't really address anything, except specialization but even then does so in kind of the least interesting way.

I think this suggestion sort of just misses the mark of why the class is awkward.

[Bluemagetim]

Pursue magical paths over mundane ones.

have wizard abilities do more of this with school theme as a guide to the ways in which they focus magic application. Other casters focus their given or natural talents on combat, but a wizard designs their magic through study and can do so to make life more magical in general.

[Dragonchess Player]

IMO, the wizard is "OK but nothing special" as a primary caster in PF2, which is a big change from PF1, but still has some decent functionality. There are only two "pain points" I have with the class:

1) As mentioned above, the focus spells need upgrading. Perhaps the new schools in Rival Academies will help with this.

2) The wizard should be the Int-based version of a "lore" class. Give them an "Arcane Lore" (or a feat option) similar to Bardic Lore or Loremaster Lore and add the Loremaster archetype feats as wizard class feats. Why you are forced to either be a Cha-based class (bard, thaumaturge) or take the Loremaster archetype to fulfill the "lore/sage" role is beyond me; I get the history behind the bardic knowledge thing, but the PF2 bard has been one of the "strongest" classes since the Core Rulebook so they don't need the "niche protection" on the "lore" role.

[Finoan]

Blue_frog wrote:

What do you think ?

I think this should be moved to homebrew subforum so that it doesn't get constantly attacked by people saying that it is unnecessary and will instead get people giving help and advice to refine and improve the idea.

[Squiggit]

Dragonchess Player wrote:

IMO, the wizard is "OK but nothing special" as a primary caster in PF2, which is a big change from PF1

I half disagree. A lot of the core things people notice with the PF2 wizard were part of the PF1 wizard too.

Like the PF1 Wizard gets ... three school abilities and four bonus feats and that's literally it... and that was a huge improvement over the 3.5 Wizard which didn't get the school abilities.

It's just the PF1 wizard got to somewhat paper over how bland it is somewhat through sheer spell power.

It's less that the fundamentals changed and more that people started to notice being overpowered was literally all it had going for it.

[Dragonchess Player]

Squiggit wrote:

Dragonchess Player wrote:

IMO, the wizard is "OK but nothing special" as a primary caster in PF2, which is a big change from PF1

I half disagree. A lot of the core things people notice with the PF2 wizard were part of the PF1 wizard too.

Like the PF1 Wizard gets ... three school abilities and four bonus feats and that's literally it... and that was a huge improvement over the 3.5 Wizard which didn't get the school abilities.

It's just the PF1 wizard got to somewhat paper over how bland it is somewhat through sheer spell power.

It's less that the fundamentals changed and more that people started to notice being overpowered was literally all it had going for it.

The biggest change with the PF2 wizard from the PF1 version was the move away from "class spell lists" to the arcane, divine, occult, and primal spell lists. Much of the "sheer spell power" available to the PF1 wizard was because the PF1 sorcerer/wizard spell list basically had almost all of the best spells (apart from healing and a handful of "niche protection" examples) for a wizard to (potentially) learn and prepare as needed.

The pre-Remaster witch was considered to be in an even worse spot than the wizard because the familiar and hex focus spells didn't really compensate for the reduced number of spell slots (as witches don't get the bonus spell slots for school spells that a wizard gets).

[moosher12]

In my case, I just implemented Flexible Spellcasting as a default rule. Though that went out to all prepared casters, not just the Wizard. Kept the spell repertoire limited, but I buffed the spell slots back to vanilla. Haven't had any complaints about the wizard yet in my home games with these rules. And it vibes well with my players, who are D&D fans.

Nothing really changed with the math with this approach, the players just don't get punished nearly as much for preparing a spell that they are less likely to use. As a player does not feel like they have to do extensive theory craft to calculate whether they should prepare 2, 3, or 4 casts of fireball today. It also just saves a lot of time because my players don't have to deliberate on their exact concoction of spell ratios every in-game day, nor feel rushed to decide on what to pick

[Gortle]

Blue_frog wrote:

Hello,

Reading the many threads here, I think most - if not all - are in agreement that after the remaster, the wizard ended up being mechanically weaker while other casters like the sorcerer or the oracle thrived.

(Short break to summarize)

When you compare a wizard of any build to an imperial sorcerer, the difference is painful. Sorcerer gets more flexibility, more damage, much better feats, spontaneous casting AND on top of that, better focus spells that allow to raise your DC by up to 3/add 3 to your spell attack roll.

Wizards are stuck with an outdated version of preparing spells, which was actually a good thing when spontaneous casters were stuck with a handful or spells, but is now an incredible drawback in PF2E where scrolls are cheap and arcane sorcerers can get the equivalent of a spellbook with a feat. There is simply no situation that comes to mind (or that happened in my many years of campaing) where preparing spells would be better than spontaneous since you can cover 95% of your needs with your actual selection and the 5% left with scrolls or your grimoire.

I'm 100% with you up to this point

Blue_frog wrote:

Only two wizard thesis have some merit (Spell Blending and Spell Substitution) and even then, they just patch weaknesses instead of giving the wizard some much needed oomph. The remaster added insult to injury with schools of dubious interest, where most of them aren't even considered apart from RP reasons, and where even the most battle-oriented one has glaring problems in its spell selection.

They all have some merit. But I do agree that they aren't all that strong.

Blue_frog wrote:

TLDR: Wizards are god-awful and need a huge buff.

That is a bit strong for me to agree with. Wizards need a clean up even after the remaster. But really the problem is Vancian casting is too restrictive and becomes a burden somewhere around spell rank 4 or 5.

[Deriven Firelion]

My opinion has changed somewhat in terms of power, but I have altered the wizard in ways I think they need.

1. Make Spell Substitution a core part of the class like the sorcerer now has Potent Sorcery as part of the class. Not something they have to pick as a thesis. Wizard is the versatile spell guy. Make it a core part of the class.

2. Give them four slots. Don't limit them by school. Just give them four slots each. With the oracle now having four slots and sorcerers, just give the wizard their four slots.

3. Make the curriculums more about fun interesting focus or innate abilities. No need to limit curriculums or tie them to slots. Use the model you already have and let them provide a free skill and some thematic, useful focus spells that really stand out so each curriculum has something really cool.

4. The feats aren't interesting, but some are very useful. Much like the fighter. If the wizard is the fighter of casters, then bland feats you can take archetype feats with is fine.

Wizard doesn't need much to be good. Just get rid of some of the legacy unnecessary bottlenecks that are holdovers from PF1 and lean into the "versatile master of spells" theme that is their thing.

[Deriven Firelion]

And quality of life for all would be to improve summoning spells for use at higher level. They are nearly useless past the mid levels and utterly useless at the high levels.

[Old_Man_Robot]

It’s certainly a potential approach, perhaps not what I would chose, but it has it’s appeal.

One of the Omni-problems with the Wizard is that the class is mechanically boring, with uninteresting feats. Trading interesting design for vertical power would certainly at least help serve as an offset for the dullness.

I would personally love a class with a greater depth of interesting design and flavourful choices, but, if for some reason that isn’t an option, then yeah, vertical power at least gives the class some merit.

[Gortle]

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

One of the Omni-problems with the Wizard is that the class is mechanically boring, with uninteresting feats. Trading interesting design for vertical power would certainly at least help serve as an offset for the dullness.

I would personally love a class with a greater depth of interesting design and flavourful choices, but, if for some reason that isn’t an option, then yeah, vertical power at least gives the class some merit.

The other problem is the negative synergy:

1) They should be theoreticaly good at Recall Knowledge and Lore but no they aren't. There is very in their base class so they need to archetype out for what shoukd be a core class feature. No Unified Theory at Level 15 doesn't count. As it is not part of the class, it is easily the weakest of similar abilities, and level 15 is just too late for most games.

2) Some of their better feats are things like Conceal Spell and Convincing Illusion which would sit so much better with a Charisma based class as they are much stronger with Deception support.

[Teridax]

I completely agree with the criticism in the OP, though while I find the solution interesting (being stronger with certain spells would definitely introduce a feeling of specialization), I also feel there's room for more varied forms of power on the Wizard. I also feel that the implementation of this increased proficiency may be difficult to describe in rules terms, because the classic OGL schools like evocation no longer exist, and stuff like "you benefit from increased proficiency on spells that deal damage" risks bleeding over into other effects when those damage spells also apply debuffs or crowd control, which can happen just as much with classic evocation spells as with mental spells.

For quite some time, I've been working on a homebrewed Wizard rework that I might post on the subreddit next week, and it starts from the same point of criticism as the OP, with a different focus on the changes:

The base class loses the extra spell slot from their school, and in exchange their school gives them Additional Lore in a Lore skill related to their school, plus a unique spellshape action that's tailored to modify spells that would normally fit in that school. For instance, Battle Magic's unique spellshape lets you create a ward out of your damaging spell that grants temporary hit points, and while the THPs last the beneficiary also gains resistance to one of the spell's damage types.

All of the rest of the class's unique power goes into their arcane thesis, which gets supercharged to let you mess with the rules of magic and spellcasters to a greater degree than any other class. One thesis gives you Knowledge is Power and lets you use it to apply up to a -3 penalty to the target's AC or saves, so you can get that improved accuracy, whereas Experimental Spellshaping lets you use spellshapes as free actions from level 1, and Spell Blending lets you break down and create any number of spell slots.

In addition to the extra Lore you get, the brew adds a lot of Wizard feats, several of which let you focus on Lore and Recalling Knowledge better if you want. One feat gives you up to five Additional Lores based on your proficiency rank in Arcana, another gives you a circumstance bonus to damage rolls when you exploit a known weakness, such as one you've identified with RK, and one of the thesis-specific feats you can get is True Hypercognition, the one that lets you make five RK actions in one go.

So for me, my response to the OP is less of a "no", and more of a "yes and". Yes, better accuracy is definitely something the Wizard could access, as is the ability to specialize, and the Wizard could also be allowed to choose different ways to become really powerful too, as there are many ways of messing with the rules of magic and spellcasting that would feel very wizardly in nature.

[QuidEst]

I tend to find the "fix Wizard" stuff a little much for me. It's a 6-HP four-slot caster, so the basis for comparison is Sorcerer.
- You've got the same slots, but with a restriction on one like Sorcerer has a restriction on one of their spells known. I'd call that about even.
- Sorcerer has bonus damage/healing on slot-cast spells equal to the rank. I'd call the Wizard's thesis at least better than that.
- Sorcerer has a blood magic effect on their bloodline's spells. I'd call the Wizard's extra top-rank slot at least as good in most cases.
- Sorcerer has more and better focus spells.

... Like, I get that people aren't satisfied with Wizard, but I just can't see the power difference being anywhere near "Wizard should scale to Mythic proficiency in some spells". Give them a free action recall knowledge using Arcana against a creature they hit with a spell or that fails a save against their spell, or something thematic like that.

[Errenor]

QuidEst wrote:

- You've got the same slots, but with a restriction on one like Sorcerer has a restriction on one of their spells known. I'd call that about even.

No. No way in hell. Even not talking about everything else, this is just rubbish. Firstly, dead slot alone is worse then one useless known spell as you can use all slots on 3 remaining useful spells. And then it's the basic spontaneous against prepared where spontaneous is almost always way better.

[Teridax]

QuidEst wrote:

- You've got the same slots, but with a restriction on one like Sorcerer has a restriction on one of their spells known. I'd call that about even.

The restrictions in practice I think are nowhere near on the same scale. The Sorcerer's restriction is simply that part of your extremely large repertoire must include a subset of spells, and often this is to the Sorcerer's benefit by giving them spells that may not necessarily be on their spell list. Your ability to use all of your spell slots remains entirely freeform. By contrast, the Wizard's fourth slot must be used for school spells, meaning you can only use your fourth slot to cast up to a dozen spells at most. Often, this means that as you level up, your lower-rank fourth slots will become increasingly obsolete, as you're forced to prepare spells into those slots that need to be heightened to stay relevant.

QuidEst wrote:

- Sorcerer has bonus damage/healing on slot-cast spells equal to the rank. I'd call the Wizard's thesis at least better than that.

I would not be so sure. The most direct match is Spell Blending, and while that thesis provides more power by way of a higher-rank slot, that power is limited to only a subset of your spell slots, as opposed to literally every spell you cast.

QuidEst wrote:

- Sorcerer has a blood magic effect on their bloodline's spells. I'd call the Wizard's extra top-rank slot at least as good in most cases.

I would also not be so sure. Being able to use blood magic on as many slot spells as you want in addition to your focus spells means you're constantly getting more bang for your buck in addition to the push from sorcerous potency, allowing Sorcerers to do things like blast with far less effort than a Wizard, as well as use their lower-rank slots at a power level comparable to that of a higher-rank slot.

QuidEst wrote:

- Sorcerer has more and better focus spells.

I will also add that on top of the above, the Wizard's versatility is restricted by their spellbook, a limitation the Sorcerer has never had to deal with. This was perhaps a meaningful limitation back when the arcane list was by far the most powerful and versatile, and when their fourth slot could be used to prepare dozens of spells using the OGL spell schools, but now that the primal and especially the divine spell lists received substantial additions, I think that gap has shortened significantly.

I also think that another issue that hasn't really been brought up yet is one of accessibility: the Sorcerer is an extremely accessible class by virtue of using a simpler spell retention method, reducing choice paralysis by making you take a minimum number of synergistic options for your subclass, and having most of its power come in the form of letting you do more of the same, and getting more mileage out of it too. The Wizard, by contrast, is arguably one of the least accessible casters in the game, not simply because the class has many more moving parts, but because you're expected to leverage all of those parts to the fullest in order to make the most of your spell list's versatility. It's very easy to feel weak or ineffective when not running a Wizard at a very high level of mastery, and the worst part is that often players don't know why their character feels so underwhelming. Even without raising the Wizard's power level, there's things that could be done to make them a lot easier to pick up, like making Spell Substitution default to the class instead of their arcane bond feature.

[QuidEst]

Errenor wrote:

QuidEst wrote:

- You've got the same slots, but with a restriction on one like Sorcerer has a restriction on one of their spells known. I'd call that about even.

No. No way in hell. Even not talking about everything else, this is just rubbish. Firstly, dead slot alone is worse then one useless known spell as you can use all slots on 3 remaining useful spells. And then it's the basic spontaneous against prepared where spontaneous is almost always way better.

Hmm, fair enough. It's not something I ran into, but I'm always going in with one or two thematic substitutions per the rules, so I'm never stuck with anything useless. That's not exactly apples to apples, though.

Maybe a more fair/less unfair comparison is saying spellcasting is close enough once you include the flexible bonded casting for an extra top- level slot, and (by my very rough ballpark estimates) Wizard is short a full feature equivalent to blood magic.

But, I'm also more okay with Wizard than a lot of folks, so my desired improvements are much more mild. I do think it's fair to say that getting pseudo-Mythic proficiency would make Wizard too strong in comparison to other casters, though.

[Squark]

QuidEst wrote:

Errenor wrote:

QuidEst wrote:

- You've got the same slots, but with a restriction on one like Sorcerer has a restriction on one of their spells known. I'd call that about even.

No. No way in hell. Even not talking about everything else, this is just rubbish. Firstly, dead slot alone is worse then one useless known spell as you can use all slots on 3 remaining useful spells. And then it's the basic spontaneous against prepared where spontaneous is almost always way better.

Hmm, fair enough. It's not something I ran into, but I'm always going in with one or two thematic substitutions per the rules, so I'm never stuck with anything useless. That's not exactly apples to apples, though.

Unfortunately, thematic substitutions require way too much GM oversight for PFS to implement, so it's off the table for a significant number of players. "Fix it yourself" is also not something I want to see, frankly.

[NorrKnekten]

I was gonna say, The restriction on spells in School Slots really arent that horrible as its made out to be here. Most schools have good spells that are good at all ranks available from 1 or 2.

Not Boundrary though, Yikes. Only undead or vision related stuff... great if you are a caster with darkvision I guess but plenty of campaigns feature enemies with darkvision.

[exequiel759]

Teridax wrote:

For quite some time, I've been working on a homebrewed Wizard rework that I might post on the subreddit next week

I haven't read the whole thing but so far I really like this version of the wizard much better. It also proves the wizard doesn't really need that much changes but rather a few small changes here and there.

[Bluemagetim]

exequiel759 wrote:

Teridax wrote:

For quite some time, I've been working on a homebrewed Wizard rework that I might post on the subreddit next week

I haven't read the whole thing but so far I really like this version of the wizard much better. It also proves the wizard doesn't really need that much changes but rather a few small changes here and there.

Lol I kind of take offense to this homebrew. There are several elemental schools listed, Fire twice if you include the goblin one, and no lighting specific school.

[benwilsher18]

Wizard is my favourite class in pretty much any RPG where it exists, including in PF2E. Despite having a few flaws, they aren't as weak as people think - and they are definitely not lower than the middle of the pack in terms of balance, because arcane spells are powerful and they can learn and cast the most of them.

Another class beating them at their own game in many areas does not make them weak in a vacuum, it just means there is a superior choice if you are optimising.

In my opinion, the only changes that wizard would need to make it as good as Imperial Sorcerers are similar to the below:

1. Better focus spells, and some kind of passive effect, action compression or bonus/penalty that occurs when casting them (like Blood Magic). Just some suggestions; casting their focus spells could be linked to "wizardly" things like Recall Knowledge, Counterspell, Drain Bonded Item, sustaining spells, spellshapes, etc. depending on the school of focus spell.

2. Spell Substitution should really just be a part of the base class rather than a thesis as many people have already said, and you should be able to Refocus at the same time as substituting spells (most GMs would allow this anyway as things are now, but you might as well write it into the rules officially).

3. Experimental Spellshaping is so weak that it isn't worth taking. I think that wizards with this thesis should be able to apply one action spellshapes to cantrips as a free action, and they should be able to expend lower level spell slots instead of actions to apply spellshapes to their levelled spells. The capstone should also come with the option to use two spellshapes at once.

4. General slight improvements to their class feats would be nice. Wizards have many weak or overly situational feats across their entire level range that I personally couldn't ever see myself taking.

The Counterspell feat chain is a notable example of what I mean by this, as Counterspell is a classic wizardry trope in many games; but in PF2E it takes too much investment and too many levels to become usable.

[Errenor]

QuidEst wrote:

But, I'm also more okay with Wizard than a lot of folks, so my desired improvements are much more mild. I do think it's fair to say that getting pseudo-Mythic proficiency would make Wizard too strong in comparison to other casters, though.

Well, I also don't see the state of wizard as absolutely dramatic, and school-less one definitely should be playable. And maybe even some schools could be ok. But it's lacking and it stings a bit.

[Teridax]

Bluemagetim wrote:

Lol I kind of take offense to this homebrew. There are several elemental schools listed, Fire twice if you include the goblin one, and no lighting specific school.

You might like the Tempest-Sun Mages school! Their spellshape is made to work with electricity spells, and with a specific arcane thesis you could even prepare nothing but electricity spells in your spell slots.

[exequiel759]

benwilsher18 wrote:

Wizard is my favourite class in pretty much any RPG where it exists, including in PF2E. Despite having a few flaws, they aren't as weak as people think - and they are definitely not lower than the middle of the pack in terms of balance, because arcane spells are powerful and they can learn and cast the most of them.

I honestly find "this thing isn't as weak as people seem to think" type of comments a little hyperbolic in this kind of posts. Nobody here is arguing or implying the wizard is unplayable even the comments may look like they mean that. Due to how PF2e works its quite difficult (if not impossible) to have a class that doesn't work at all. Which PF2e has is, luckily few, examples of classes that don't deliver on their promise. IMO the classes that are like that would be investigator (yes, even with the PC2 buffs), the inventor, and wizard. I could probably mention a couple more but I think these three are the ones I find don't deliver on their promise at all.

Why? Because I feel there's other classes that fill similar niches or have similar mechanics that are way better than them. If you want to be a craftsman you can play literally any class and it won't be much of a difference, and if you want to play something mechanically similar to an inventor a barbarian is effectively the same and much better. An investigator is like one step away from being a rogue in both mechanics and flavor but rogues just perform much better so most of the time why bother? I even find a rogue with the investigator archetype to be a much better investigator than a pure investigator itself. In the case of the wizard their only real shtick is being Int-based and not being forced into having a familiar if you don't want it because otherwise any arcane caster can do what a wizard does and they still have other things to do. Witches have their hex spells, sorcerers have blood magic, bloodline spells, and cool feats. Even the psychic that I don't like that much has a very unique chassis and it seems its becoming the norm for casters to be have stuff other than spells since the animist and the (currently playtest) necromancer have interesting mechanics too. The wizard doesn't doesn't have a single thing unique about it and that's boring.

[Bluemagetim]

Counterspell is pretty strong when the wizard knew ahead of time to prepare right for the situation.
Its a reaction and a spell slot to nullify 2 actions and a spell slot from an opponent. maybe one stronger than the party. Its just very specific prep to know what spell they will cast and have one slotted for that encounter.

If a player picks up a feat like this and then never finds an opportunity to actually use it that will feel like a wasted feat.

[Witch of Miracles]

To the OP:

Giving wiz a +2 on school-related spells isn't a good idea. The fighter gets away with +2 accuracy because its class features and feats understand that +2 to hit is also a damage boost via crits. Wizard's spells are shared with all other arcane casters and are balanced on the assumption they are used with the same DC progression as a normal full caster or worse. The spells with increased DCs will overperform, and they will overperform in a fairly swingy manner. (The spells without the increased DC will behave as they always did.)

I understand wanting to make wizard feel better to play, but I don't think the class is going to be fixable short of a full overhaul and a system buff to INT as a stat. Prepared casting just isn't very beneficial in 2E on the whole, unless your table is extremely accommodating of it (as has been discussed multiple times), and prepared casting is about the only thing the wizard really has. It just needs more valuable non-spellslot features. Things like Resentment Witch are good in spite of the prepared casting paradigm, not because of it. They are good because they have good class features. Spellcasting is good, but every spellcaster can spend slots. What matters is the other stuff they do, and wizard does basically nothing else.

I would reiterate a thought experiment I made a while ago: I am not even sure that giving wizard an unlimited use 1A spellsub would make its powerlevel equivalent to or better than an arcane sorcerer, simply because spell breadth is not as valuable or actionable in practice as in older editions and a sorcerer could spend that third action on useful things like Ancestral Memories or Bon Mot.

EDIT: I would also always be wary of arguing about a Sorc's versatility via bought spells and scrolls, and I'd also honestly be wary of thinking that a wizard will get a lot of versatility by default. Gold and time are always limiting factors, and the amount of extra gold a sorc and a wizard have are fairly similar. Some campaigns may have additional limits, such as merchant availability. (I personally was just in a 1E campaign where my witch couldn't buy spells for an entire level, because we were literally stuck in a town under siege with no appropriate caster or merchant.)

The wizard fantasy of a huge spellbook is often... not very realistic. Most players will have what their class gives them and maybe five more spells, IME. On-level spells are also, frankly, pretty expensive. If you're trying to learn a lot of spells, you're likely to end up with a lot of heightenable low-level spells as opposed to on-level spells, as it's a more efficient use of gold.

[benwilsher18]

exequiel759 wrote:

Which PF2e has is, luckily few, examples of classes that don't deliver on their promise. IMO the classes that are like that would be investigator (yes, even with the PC2 buffs), the inventor, and wizard. I could probably mention a couple more but I think these three are the ones I find don't deliver on their promise at all.

...In the case of the wizard their only real shtick is being Int-based and not being forced into having a familiar if you don't want it because otherwise any arcane caster can do what a wizard does and they still have other things to do. Witches have their hex spells, sorcerers have blood magic, bloodline spells, and cool feats. Even the psychic that I don't like that much has a very unique chassis and...

Drain Bonded Item, Spell Substitution and Spell Blending may not be super interesting, but they are all very powerful features - especially at higher levels.

No other casters (besides cleric with their fonts) can cast as many max rank spells in a day as a wizard can; and the higher level you get, the more valuable it is to have more casts of these high rank spells than everyone else does as spells continue to rise on power throughout the game.

Imperial Sorcerer is stronger than wizard because wizards having 1-2 more max rank spells is not equal to the sorcerer's spontaneous casting, powerful focus spell, blood magic, and better class feats.

However arcane Witch has got 2-3 less max rank spells than a wizard instead of just 1-2 like sorcerer, they have class feats that are barely any better than wizard, the arcane familiar ability and hex spells are really not that good, and being a prepared spellcaster without wizard thesis features makes witches even less flexible than wizards are. I think wizards are actually significantly better at level 5+.

[Witch of Miracles]

benwilsher18 wrote:

Drain Bonded Item, Spell Substitution and Spell Blending may not be super interesting, but they are all very powerful features - especially at higher levels.

No other casters (besides cleric with their fonts) can cast as many max rank spells in a day as a wizard can; and the higher level you get, the more valuable it is to have more casts of these high rank spells than everyone else does as spells continue to rise on power throughout the game.

Imperial Sorcerer is stronger than wizard because wizards having 1-2 more max rank spells is not equal to the sorcerer's spontaneous casting, powerful focus spell, blood magic, and better class feats.

However arcane Witch has got 2-3 less max rank spells than a wizard instead of just 1-2 like sorcerer, they have class feats that are barely any better than wizard, the arcane familiar ability and hex spells are really not that good, and being a prepared spellcaster without wizard thesis features makes witches even less flexible than wizards are. I think wizards are actually significantly better at level 5+.

We've discussed spell blending at length in the old threads, and it's honestly pretty divisive. Personally, I've come to agree with the people who are a bit down on spell blending. A top level slot is not always worth two lower level slots—especially if those lower level slots contain important evergreen spells, like Slow or Laughing Fit. In many cases, spell blending can actually decrease your staying power, not increase it.

===

Spellsub sounds powerful. But in actuality, it requires significant investment into learning spells, and enabling concessions from both party and GM. Most class features need neither. Worse, spellsub usually won't buy you that much of an advantage over a Sorcerer's selection of on-level+signature spells. PF2E casting is combat-focused and tends to lack narrative power, so you're not getting value in that way. And at most tables, it's rare to run into situations where

1) you wanted a spell that isn't good enough to take on an arcane Sorc
2) the spell could truly have turned a fight around compared to a more evergreen choice
3) you had the time and opportunity to scout ahead
4) you had 10 minutes to spellsub
5) you bought the spell before entering the dungeon.

More often, spellsub is just "let me take 10 minutes to get something targeting the right save"—something a Sorc can do on the fly in combat.

===

DBI is fine, but I honestly feel like DBI is more like compensation for being stuck with prepared casting than an actual advantage—more "I'm not screwed if I used this spell earlier" than "yay, an additional slot."

==

In general, I also think 3 slot with good features is "better" (read: more reliable in practice, despite having a worse performance ceiling in theory) than 4 slot with weak features, and wizard is more like 3.5 or 3.75 slots plus DBI unless you took a school with a good evergreen filler spell (like Battle Magic and Force Barrage) with nonexistent features. The advantage of additional top level slots is additional longevity or burst, at your discretion—and more importantly for prepared casters, more shots at having a good spell for what you'll run into that day. But the 3 slot classes have features (usually pretty evergreen features) that grant them longevity. So is it really that different?

===

Speaking of that, I feel like prepared casters have a very hard time balancing the following competing desires in PF2E:

-You want to take advantage of being a prepared caster. So you want to prepare less evergreen, uniquely useful spells. But...
-You don't want to waste slots. So you want to prepare evergreen spells, to avoid wasting slots—but this means you're not taking advantage of being a prepared caster and are just a worse sorcerer.

And wizard is in the absolute worst position of the prepared casters, here, because it lacks any strong fallback routine from its class features if it prepares bad spells.

[Ryangwy]

I agree that giving the wizard +2 does nothing to address the issues with wizards, which is largely down to being more hoops to jump through than other casters resulting in feeling less powerful when you fail to perform up to the expected mark, and the lack of a learning feel from the subclasses.

All prepared casters get something to give them flex or a fallback option when they inevitably botch and half their spellslots are useless. Druids get good focus spells and flex martialness. Clerics get font and (again) flelx martialness. Witches get hex cantrips, hex spells and familiar abilities. Wizards get arcane thesis... except only some of them do that, and they work on markedly opposite principles from each other, so wizards with different thesis have very different needs that the class doesn't really address. I think they could really benefit from having, like, a second thesis at higher levels? Make it much less likely to brickwall yourself into having no backup options and making some of the late blooming but important options not feel like 1HP wizard all over again.

Schools are also super inflexible now, you get a very straightjacketed list of spells. Except, given the note of letting your GM sub spells out, it's also clear they're budgeted like you can easily get the exact spells you want! Except not again, if you're playing PFS or you and your GM have different vision. Just let people add or sub school spells in a mechanically enforceable way that isn't talking to your GM. Witch Lessons are a great way to do it. Or make 'replace a school spell' an activity like scribing spells or making a custom staff. As it stands the wizard as written and the wizard as probably intended has a giant leap between.

[benwilsher18]

Witch of Miracles wrote:

We've discussed spell blending at length in the old threads, and it's honestly pretty divisive. Personally, I've come to agree with the people who are a bit down on spell blending. A top level slot is not always worth two lower level slots—especially if those lower level slots contain important evergreen spells, like Slow or Laughing Fit. In many cases, spell blending can actually decrease your staying power, not increase it.

===

Spellsub sounds powerful. But in actuality, it requires significant investment into learning spells, and enabling concessions from both party and GM. Most class features need neither. Worse, spellsub usually won't buy you that much of an advantage over a Sorcerer's selection of on-level+signature spells.

You're right that a top level slot is not always worth 2 lower level slots - until you realise that you still get 3 of that "evergreen" spell rank anyway if you want, because of spell blending.

If you have rank 5 spells, you have the ability to blend away two rank 1 spell slots to gain an additional 3rd rank slot, and then blend away two rank 3 spell slots to gain an additional rank 5 slot. This leaves you down only one rank 3 slot compared to if you hadn't used it. Trading two rank -4 slots and one rank -2 slot for an additional max rank spell is almost always worth it.

You can also choose to blend away your school slots if the spell options at those ranks wouldn't often be worth casting.

Spell Substitution on the other hand is less powerful when viewed through the lens of combat, and more powerful when you consider how it can be used to solve problems outside of combat. Spell Substitution gives you a cheap way to convert your lower rank slots into absolutely huge array of utility options, and it can help you overcome the limitation of having no signature spells by letting you swap in heightened spells like Dispel Magic, Invisibility or Fly when you need them to deal with non-combat or pre-combat encounters as well.

[Teridax]

Witch of Miracles wrote:

Spellsub sounds powerful. But in actuality, it requires significant investment into learning spells, and enabling concessions from both party and GM. Most class features need neither. Worse, spellsub usually won't buy you that much of an advantage over a Sorcerer's selection of on-level+signature spells. PF2E casting is combat-focused and tends to lack narrative power, so you're not getting value in that way. And at most tables, it's rare to run into situations where

1) you wanted a spell that isn't good enough to take on an arcane Sorc
2) the spell could truly have turned a fight around compared to a more evergreen choice
3) you had the time and opportunity to scout ahead
4) you had 10 minutes to spellsub
5) you bought the spell before entering the dungeon.

More often, spellsub is just "let me take 10 minutes to get something targeting the right save"—something a Sorc can do on the fly in combat.

I'm normally all for critiquing the Wizard and asking for better, but this to me is a very blinkered way of viewing Spell Substitution. PF2e's casting has a tremendous range of applications out of combat, especially with arcane spells, and Spell Substitution means you can easily come up with the optimal solution to a problem that crops up in exploration. Does the party wind up in a flooded area they have to swim through? No problem, just sub out a spell slot to water breathing. Find an ancient text in a language nobody can understand? Sub to translate and you'll be covered. Bottomless chasm too large to jump across? Airlift. Spell Substitution means you can prepare nothing but safe choices if you want and sub out to more niche spells when the situation crops up out of combat, and when you know you're going to be fighting more of the same enemy (say, in a location that turns out to be infested with undead), then 10 minutes to sub out to at least one more appropriate spell before the next encounter is not a big ask for that kind of benefit, even if it would be even nicer if you could Refocus at the same time. This is in my opinion meaningfully different from the Sorcerer's fixed repertoire, which cannot be adjusted on the fly in the same manner even if their choice of which spells to cast in the moment is entirely flexible.

[R3st8]

The phoenix wizard thread rises from its ashes once again, But jokes aside, they really made it worse in the remaster. It would be great to see a wizard unchained or at least some patch notes acknowledging the concerns. However, based on what I've seen so far, I'm not very optimistic about that happening."

[TiMuSW]

Teridax wrote:

Witch of Miracles wrote:

Spellsub sounds powerful. But in actuality, it requires significant investment into learning spells, and enabling concessions from both party and GM. Most class features need neither. Worse, spellsub usually won't buy you that much of an advantage over a Sorcerer's selection of on-level+signature spells. PF2E casting is combat-focused and tends to lack narrative power, so you're not getting value in that way. And at most tables, it's rare to run into situations where

1) you wanted a spell that isn't good enough to take on an arcane Sorc
2) the spell could truly have turned a fight around compared to a more evergreen choice
3) you had the time and opportunity to scout ahead
4) you had 10 minutes to spellsub
5) you bought the spell before entering the dungeon.

More often, spellsub is just "let me take 10 minutes to get something targeting the right save"—something a Sorc can do on the fly in combat.

I'm normally all for critiquing the Wizard and asking for better, but this to me is a very blinkered way of viewing Spell Substitution. PF2e's casting has a tremendous range of applications out of combat, especially with arcane spells, and Spell Substitution means you can easily come up with the optimal solution to a problem that crops up in exploration. Does the party wind up in a flooded area they have to swim through? No problem, just sub out a spell slot to water breathing. Find an ancient text in a language nobody can understand? Sub to translate and you'll be covered. Bottomless chasm too large to jump across? Airlift. Spell Substitution means you can prepare nothing but safe choices if you want and sub out to more niche spells when the situation crops up out of combat, and when you know you're going to be fighting more of the same enemy (say, in a location that turns out to be infested with undead), then 10 minutes to sub out to at least one more appropriate spell before the next encounter is not a big ask for that kind of benefit, even if...

While I really like Spell Substitution and have almost always picked it for my wizards (and I've played quite a few wizards in 2e), I do see why it feels it's not worth an arcane thesis in many scenarios/compaigns.

All the use cases you made are valid, but to do all that you will first need to LEARN those spells, and unless you play a PFS game or campaigns like SotT that happens in a magic school, learning those spells require you to purchase scrolls and then spend a fee that's a quarter to half the cost of scroll depending on if you spend another feat to boost spell learning. Sure you can have your GM drop loots of spellbooks that happens to contain the specific spells you want, but once again that means the usefulness of this thesis is vareis greatly depending on both your GM AND your campaign, unlike Improve Familiar Attunement or Spell Blending.

If you need to buy a scroll of Water Breathing any way, why not just use that scroll when the niche situation comes up? Scrolls two or three ranks below your highest rank starts to feel dirt cheap, so the biggest value of spell substitution is when the nich situation keep coming up repetitively (but honestly you can still have enough scrolls for them or find an alternative solution, Paizo loves their skill checks. Skill checks don't cost you precious gold or spell slots, and there shouldn't be an issue unsolvable without a specific spell. If the same need keeps coming up for a month you would be preparing that spell everyday anyway), or when your need to change your highest rank spells because for whatever reason you succeed the super high DC RK on an unique boss before meeting them and asked just the right question --- Point is, you really don't learn info about upcoming fights that would justify you changing your highest rank spells, and have 10 minutes but not a day to prepare without interruption all that often.

Also remember it takes 10 minutes to switch, and for many niche spells, when you need them you really need them IMMEDIATELY. What if it isn't an ancient text you need to translate but a conversation that's happening right now? For things like Helpful Steps and Create Water, you often end up buying multiple scrolls anyway, since when you need to distinguish a fire or create a ladder in combat, you don't have those 10 minutes.

Not to mention it does feel interruptive you as the group wizard have to keep asking people to take a 10 minutes break, and the fact that your spell slots are limited, using them for utility now is always risking not having the right combat spell later. I love Spell Substitution and tried to make most of it, but I do see its issues.

[Teridax]

TiMuSW wrote:

All the use cases you made are valid, but to do all that you will first need to LEARN those spells, and unless you play a PFS game or campaigns like SotT that happens in a magic school, learning those spells require you to purchase scrolls and then spend a fee that's a quarter to half the cost of scroll depending on if you spend another feat to boost spell learning. Sure you can have your GM drop loots of spellbooks that happens to contain the specific spells you want, but once again that means the usefulness of this thesis is vareis greatly depending on both your GM AND your campaign, unlike Improve Familiar Attunement or Spell Blending.

This isn't really true either, given how you automatically add spells to your spellbook every level. Even if you never learn a single spell throughout your entire adventuring career, your spellbook will have 43 spells, 33 of which are entirely up to you, as opposed to the Sorcerer's maximum base repertoire of 38 spells, 29 of which are freeform. Even if a Sorcerer added only one of each spell to their repertoire, which is inadvisable, they would still know fewer spells than a Wizard would have in their spellbook. This is also ignoring the major benefit of preparing spells, which is the ability to automatically heighten the same spell by preparing it into a higher-rank slot. You don't need to learn jump 1 and jump 3 when all you need is jump in your spellbook, for example. Thus, there is plenty of room to pick up some more niche spells as a Wizard, despite the limitations of using a spellbook.

[Old_Man_Robot]

benwilsher18 wrote:

No other casters (besides cleric with their fonts) can cast as many max rank spells in a day as a wizard can;

This is no longer true. Oracles can have 6 9th rank spell slots, just like Wizards.

The remaster removed, or at least heavily diminished the Wizard’s 2 unique selling points.

1) Highest number of too rank spells is now shared with the Oracle and technically the cleric.

2) Highest amount of prepared spell variety was drastically curtailed by the school changes. These days they have the same prepared versatility a 3 slot caster with up to 18 additional options added in. So while still true, it’s not exactly like it was before.