I think the focus spells are meh, yeah. I also don't think that's where I want the power budget to go. Other classes already have good focus spells, or are even focused on focus spells(no pun intended). I like that the focus spells at least are mostly 1 action and can be combined with regular spellcasting. If they're to have focus spells, I think they should stay one action. Which does mean they must necessarily be weaker
I agree with the one action cost as wizard focus spells should supplement their casting. I would like them to fit with the spells like Augment Summoning should be a free action that augments the summon spell when it is cast and has some heightening to boost summons.
Power budget has to go into class features and focus spells now because casting is pretty much all the same across the board for every class.
The cost of PF2 balance is this modular design for all martials and casters. You could say even the spell traditions are very balanced against each other with arcane having more blasting and utility and every other list having more healing and condition removal, but really they are all very balanced against each other. Now that divine spirit damage hits almost everything, even divine is good at blasting now at the higher levels on top of the divine casters having feats to add key blasting spells.
It is a long thread, but Otto and I talked about using both the Ars Grammatical focus spells not that long ago. Wizard focus spells, at their best are one action spells that assume you will also be casting a spell from a spell slot or supliment casting a spell from a spell slot.
The imperial sorcerer’s first focus spell does feel like it should have been a wizard focus spell and the imperial sorcerer could have picked any one wizard focus spell, since that is kinda more on theme with the bloodline.
That ancestral memories went from a pretty cool utility spell to this incredible spell boosting spell. Yeah, does seem like something the wizard would have.
I was surprised the imperial sorcerer received an upgrade to ancestral memories as I liked the spell as it was, but this is obviously much better.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I cannot help but think this is one of the things PF2E messed up while DD5 got it right.
Don't get me wrong, to me PF2E is the vastly superior system and is better in almost everything. But in DD5, casters are all meaningfully different, both in flavor and mechanics.
- The sorcerer has a very narrow spell list (a typical lvl 20 sorcerer knows around 15 spells TOTAL) but has unique metamagic powers to make those few spells more powerful than anyone else's.
- Bards are very strong but their spell list has little to no blasts and is heavily geared towards buffing and debuffing. Lore bards can give hefty penalties to saves IIRC.
- Warlocks have a lot of edgelord flavor and get their slots back on a short rest. Depending on table variance, they have the biggest number of high level slots, but they're even more specialized than the sorcerer.
- The wizard has the biggest spell list, can use rituals to keep his slots, can regain slots once on a short rest, and can specialize in a magic school to get unique bonuses. A diviner can manipulate dice rolls, an evoker deals more damage, an abjurer is great at protecting his party... Also, the vancian system has been highly revamped to make them much better.
(Disclaimer: It's been a veeeery long time since I played DD5 so I might have gotten some things wrong).
So, yeah, when someone wants to play a caster, they have a meaningful choice to make, both in flavor and mechanics. Some classes are better than others, but they're still different enough that it doesn't really matter.
I wish there were the same differences in PF2E, so that a sorcerer is not a spontaneous wizard or the wizard a prepared sorcerer.
Also, if there were real differences, all this talk (that I'm totally guilty of) of comparing the raw power of the classes wouldn't need to happen. I strongly believe, like a lot of posters, that the sorcerer is straight up better than the wizard in a fighting situation - but that's because they have almost the same mechanics and so it's easy to do a side-by-side comparison and find the wizard lacking. If the differences were bigger, there would be no need for such a picture. For instance, the witch familiar mechanics are specific enough that they can allow for fun builds despite a weak chassis.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's kind of a general awkwardness with PF2 that classes get very few unique features baseline. Outside chassis stuff most classes, especially old classes, get like one or two things.
Like if you pull away everything that's not chassis scaling and spellcasting and just look at features, the wizard has an arcane thesis and bond, the witch has a familiar ability and a unique cantrip, the druid has a bonus feat, the sorcerer has potency and a blood magic ability. That's pretty much the entirety of your baseline class. It's really hard to make something that feels unique out the gate like that.
Obviously it's unfair to completely ignore chassis, because wizards get more spell slots than witches and druids have better defenses, but I still think it's worth highlighting how little else there is.
I remember during the first playtest they tried giving the Witch four slots, but it ended up being literally identical to the wizard except that it traded arcane bond for a better fourth slot. There was just nothing there.
Martials feel a bit more diverse because they don't have identical mechanics, but even then most martials are some kind of damage enhancing gimmick + maybe an extra neat thing and not much else.
Everything else is just feats, which means the Wizard is kind of double tapped because it has such anemic flavor in its feat choices. Instead the class gets often labeled with the backhanded compliment "Good at archetyping"
... More specifically, imo it was a mistake not to add some actual real class features to spell schools to make it feel like your specialty conferred some strength. Instead it's mostly about defining the restrictions on your fourth slot. Obviously that does matter, but it doesn't really feel empowering.
Yeah, I've hated how barren PF2E classes feel from the start. A lot of abilities that would've been nice gimmes without a lot of mechanical impact most of the time—like Woodland Stride—just got stripped off the chassis and put into feats, making you feel doubletapped on features. (Would Monk really get much power if, for example, every Monk just got Water Step for existing?) You get so little just for being a wizard, or being a psychic, or being a fighter, etc., that just being able to archetype and take class feats risks letting people filch your class identity and feel.
The system is very low on meaningful and flavorful class USPs in general. I think the strongest one is probably something like rogue's "get a skill increase every level." More of them are like Divine Font (which is good, if unexciting in the way it's good) or just having Reactive Strike earlier than other classes will pick it up.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The idea behind the rework of the concept of Schools is amazing; The execution not so much. The focus spells are the same as before (somewhat weak), and the choice of bonus spells is just weak. With the old schools, the list per spell rank consisted of tens of spells; Now only 2 (beyond rank 1), with usually 1 good or medium spell and one situational spell. In my opinion this is the main issue that needs to be addressed: Expand the spell lists for each school.
What bothers me most about the class though, is that the wizard is (traditonally at least) the "learned" caster; The guy who spends his time reading books. In my opinion this is not something that is properly reflected in the class chassis: Give the wizard some additional skill increases (and/or skill feats) exclusively to be spent on Intelligence and Wisdom related skills. This would give the wizard the edge on mental skills that he needs without causing any balance issues.
|
What bothers me most about the class though, is that the wizard is (traditonally at least) the "learned" caster; The guy who spends his time reading books. In my opinion this is not something that is properly reflected in the class chassis: Give the wizard some additional skill increases (and/or skill feats) exclusively to be spent on Intelligence and Wisdom related skills. This would give the wizard the edge on mental skills that he needs without causing any balance issues.
Something like the Investigators Skillful Lessons feature, but narrowed down so that it pushes the Wizard to keep taking additional lore, or something like that.
It appears a fragment of the community here has gone full circle, and this conversation has reached the point where we're advocating the return of the D&D 5e Wizard. I didn't think this would have to be explained, but as someone who still plays D&D 5e alongside PF2e, I think it's worth starting with a few clarifications:
And to be clear: it is valid to criticize PF2e casters having bare-bones features relative to other Pathfinder classes, because it is true that spellcasting in Pathfinder tends to cost classes a lot in other class features as they level up. Pining for 5e-style caster design in PF2e as a would-be solution to the Wizard's issues, however, is one of those arguments on this thread that to me shows how grossly disconnected conversation here gets from reality, and just how little basis it often has in fact. I encourage those advocating for 5e's Wizard to actually play a 5e campaign and see how they fare, because from personal experience, I can tell you that you're not going to have nearly as many options at your disposal.
In fact, I'd go even further and state that 5e's Wizard would not solve most players' issues here, because most players' issues are rooted in low-level play, where 5e's Wizard fares even worse. We talk about how overpowered 5e's casters get, but that specifically only starts to happen at level 11 and beyond, once casters access 6th-level spells. At that level range, the PF2e Wizard's problems of limited spells, weak-feeling spell output, and inflexibility within the day are largely gone too. Moreover, most of the power of 5e's spellcasters come from their spells, and this is no more true than with 5e's Wizard, whose entire schtick is having access to the most powerful spell list. The reason why the class feels powerful isn't because of an amazing subclass or other mechanical features besides spellcasting, it's because your spells are so broken that you can single-handedly win certain encounters with combos like Forcecage + Sickening Radiance, a combo the Warlock can pull off as well. The issues with PF2e's Wizard don't come from their differences with 5e's Wizard, they come from being too similar: PF2e's Wizard is also meant to shine through their spells and spell list at the expense of most other things, and that seems to be one of their major pain points now. Of all the directions to take Pathfinder's Wizard, making them more like their 5e counterpart is, bar none and by far, the absolute worst take in my opinion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Me and a friend were chatting about this thread and about wizards in general in this system, and he offhandedly said:
"If a level 19 wizard had every single wizard class feat and every single arcane spell that exists in their spellbook, they would barely be any stronger than a wizard who took no feats at all and had the normal number of spells"
I argued against it at first, but the more I thought about it the more true it seemed. That's pretty sad
It's part of PF2 design: The bulk of your progression comes from your class and not from options you choose.
For me, it's not sad, it's an asset of PF2: I don't have to build a Wizard this way or this way for it to work. I can build it the way I want and the difference with the optimized characters will be marginal.
For me, PF2E class designs can feel barebones compared to later PF1E designs—e.g., PF1E occult classes, or vigilante. (Feeling barebones compared to vigilante is a bit odd, since that class almost feels like a PF2E blueprint. But the social talents feel more bespoke than skill feats.) 5e classes are absolutely barebones, no argument there.
I'd say my experiences with a 5e caster at low levels weren't that I felt weak, really—Color Spray felt absurd, for example. I ran out of gas quickly, but I usually made an outsized contribution when spending slots. I do feel pretty limited when I play 5E, but I more feel limited because 5e is a limiting system (imo) unless you're willing to calvinball a bit. That's not really my thing most of the time.
Stock reply that dnd5 sorcs are abysmal, punished with pitiful number of spells for absolutely nothing, metamagic doesn't nearly compensate for all that and awfully limited, and wizard is crazily better at everything. Which is understandable when spellcasting is the same for prepared and spontaneous, only spontaneous can change every day, so wizards prepare more spells everyday than sorcs know at all. And this hasn't changed in their remaster as far as I saw.
It was one of the largest reasons why I switched to pf2. Even though I dislike prepared spellcasting in pf2 too with all the things designers invented to sweeten the pill for wizards (like bonded item). Still better.
Is the sorcerer that bad ? Like I said, I'm not knowledgeable about DD5 but in my memory the sorcerer had a few tricks up his sleeve (like being the only caster able to double haste, or double fly, and being able to deal the most damage through twin disintegrate or quickened spell). It was nowhere near as flexible as a wizard but was good at what it was doing.
But I'll take your word for it since I didn't play much.
Anyway, I'm not advocating for the PF2E wizard to be the same as the DD5 one (although I like the way they prep their spell, I already suggested it earlier in the thread and most people were against it, so there). But there certainly is a bigger difference between a sorcerer and a wizard in DD5 that there is in PF2E (multiclassing notwithstanding like Teridax said) - and the schools actually ENHANCE the way you play instead of just restricting what kind of spells you get in your 4th slot.
Maybe the Runelord will be the answer to my prayers, since it'll probably be hyperfocused on some type of spells in exchange for some kind of boon - but then if it's good, it'll feel mandatory and that's a bad thing in itself as well.
Me and a friend were chatting about this thread and about wizards in general in this system, and he offhandedly said:
"If a level 19 wizard had every single wizard class feat and every single arcane spell that exists in their spellbook, they would barely be any stronger than a wizard who took no feats at all and had the normal number of spells"
I argued against it at first, but the more I thought about it the more true it seemed. That's pretty sad
There ARE some great wizard feats, they're just few and far between.
Convincing Illusion, Bond conservation (for universalist utility), Clever Counterspell, Second Detonation Array, Scroll Adept... are all good choices and would make your first wizard much stronger than the second one.
But yeah, apart from the hyperbole, wizard feats need to be totally revamped ^^
That's not strictly true though is it? Most classes get feats at certain level thresholds that can change the way they play their class entirely.
I think we will have to agree to disagree on that. I can see builds that need specific feat combos to function and as such will change at specific levels (mostly because before that level they are not functioning) but I don't see anything similar for classes in general. A Druid with or without feat plays roughly the same, feats are mostly icing on the cake.
Also, from my experience, when people consider that a class plays "very differently" when they get a specific feat, it's often because they are focusing on a small part of the class and missing the big picture.
Definitely, your 2 Druid examples play exactly the same to me. The differences are minor.
Is the sorcerer that bad ? Like I said, I'm not knowledgeable about DD5 but in my memory the sorcerer had a few tricks up his sleeve (like being the only caster able to double haste, or double fly, and being able to deal the most damage through twin disintegrate or quickened spell). It was nowhere near as flexible as a wizard but was good at what it was doing.
In comparison to 5e martials, no, but in comparison to the 5e Wizard, yes. The problem here is that 5e is infamously bad at niche protection, and most class features worth picking are incredibly easy to poach with a multiclass dip of one to three levels. 5e's Sorcerer is probably the most heavily-poached class in the game, such that anyone who wants their metamagic can just take three levels in Sorcerer and get just that. The problem here too is that you can't actually double-cast slot spells on the same turn with an action and a bonus action, because 5e has an obscure rule that says if you use a BA to cast a spell, you can only use your action to cast a cantrip, rather than another slot spell.
In general, I think D&D 5e is a cautionary tale of how easy it can be for one class to eat another class's lunch, or even everyone else's, if you're not careful with your balancing. 5e's Wizard has a better spell list than the Sorcerer's, often the same moment-to-moment flexibility as the Sorcerer on top of better day-to-day flexibility, more spell output than the Sorcerer, and can access the Sorcerer's niche much more easily than the reverse, which among other factors makes the Sorcerer more attractive for multiclassing than as a full class (a bit like the Psychic right now in PF2e, incidentally). Whatever direction gets chosen to improve the Wizard in PF2e, it needs to make sure that other classes still outshine the Wizard on their own respective specialties, even if the Wizard would in turn get to outshine them on their intended strengths.
In general, I think D&D 5e is a cautionary tale of how easy it can be for one class to eat another class's lunch, or even everyone else's, if you're not careful with your balancing. 5e's Wizard has a better spell list than the Sorcerer's, often the same moment-to-moment flexibility as the Sorcerer on top of better day-to-day flexibility, more spell output than the Sorcerer, and can access the Sorcerer's niche much more easily than the reverse, which among other factors makes the Sorcerer more attractive for multiclassing than as a full class (a bit like the Psychic right now in PF2e, incidentally). Whatever direction gets chosen to improve the Wizard in PF2e, it needs to make sure that other classes still outshine the Wizard on their own respective specialties, even if the Wizard would in turn get to outshine them on their intended strengths.
That's very interesting.
Even in PF2E, some classes have easily poachable features: the oracle arguably gets his best cursebound feats at level 1, which means that anyone can get Foretell Harm, Whispers of Weakness or Oracular Warning (or even Nudge the Scale) and use it as well as an oracle until much higher level. And even then, getting over cursebound 2 isn't something you'll do every fight.
It's a bit of the same with kineticist - although you don't get free elemental blast progression and all gates goodies, you can still grasp a good level 1 impulse (say, Timber sentinel, Four Winds, Armor in Earth, Ocean's Balm).
It's even worse with psychic, like you said.
So, whatever the wizard gets, it shouldn't be poachable. Incidentally, when you skim through the advice/optimization forum, very few people advise to take wizard as a multiclass, even with free archetype. Apart from roleplaying needs, even INT classes will be better served by a witch multiclass. This in itself speaks volumes about how the wizard might need a little buff.
I think the focus spells are meh, yeah. I also don't think that's where I want the power budget to go. Other classes already have good focus spells, or are even focused on focus spells(no pun intended). I like that the focus spells at least are mostly 1 action and can be combined with regular spellcasting. If they're to have focus spells, I think they should stay one action. Which does mean they must necessarily be weakerI agree with the one action cost as wizard focus spells should supplement their casting. I would like them to fit with the spells like Augment Summoning should be a free action that augments the summon spell when it is cast and has some heightening to boost summons.
Power budget has to go into class features and focus spells now because casting is pretty much all the same across the board for every class.
The cost of PF2 balance is this modular design for all martials and casters. You could say even the spell traditions are very balanced against each other with arcane having more blasting and utility and every other list having more healing and condition removal, but really they are all very balanced against each other. Now that divine spirit damage hits almost everything, even divine is good at blasting now at the higher levels on top of the divine casters having feats to add key blasting spells.
If I could I would give wizards OG metamagic where you apply it when you prepare a spell and I would make this a unique set of feats to them and only them. That's one place I would give them niche protection. Particularly I think it would help accentuate their theme and role
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I liked the idea of more interaction with weakest save and weaknesses.
If playing that game is what a wizard is expected to do maybe they should get a bit more of a reward when they get it right?
Stock reply that dnd5 sorcs are abysmal, punished with pitiful number of spells for absolutely nothing, metamagic doesn't nearly compensate for all that and awfully limited, and wizard is crazily better at everything. Which is understandable when spellcasting is the same for prepared and spontaneous, only spontaneous can change every day, so wizards prepare more spells everyday than sorcs know at all. And this hasn't changed in their remaster as far as I saw.
It was one of the largest reasons why I switched to pf2. Even though I dislike prepared spellcasting in pf2 too with all the things designers invented to sweeten the pill for wizards (like bonded item). Still better.Is the sorcerer that bad ? Like I said, I'm not knowledgeable about DD5 but in my memory the sorcerer had a few tricks up his sleeve (like being the only caster able to double haste, or double fly, and being able to deal the most damage through twin disintegrate or quickened spell). It was nowhere near as flexible as a wizard but was good at what it was doing.
But I'll take your word for it since I didn't play much.
Anyway, I'm not advocating for the PF2E wizard to be the same as the DD5 one (although I like the way they prep their spell, I already suggested it earlier in the thread and most people were against it, so there). But there certainly is a bigger difference between a sorcerer and a wizard in DD5 that there is in PF2E (multiclassing notwithstanding like Teridax said) - and the schools actually ENHANCE the way you play instead of just restricting what kind of spells you get in your 4th slot.
Maybe the Runelord will be the answer to my prayers, since it'll probably be hyperfocused on some type of spells in exchange for some kind of boon - but then if it's good, it'll feel mandatory and that's a bad thing in itself as well.
5E sorc is not terrible, but the wizard is clearly better. 5E sorc is the metamagic class. Wizard doesn't even do metamagic in 5E anymore. It's a class feature of the sorc now.
Very few spells for sorc. No feats to change or build spells. Very simple, streamlined class. I don't even think they have bloodlines, not memorable bloodlines.
Wizard is king in 5E. Warlock is another class people like for Eldtrich Blast. They are the caster class that has unlimited, hard hitting cantrip. Most comparable to the psychic.
5E sorc is a very limited caster.
PF2 sorc is way, way, way better than 5E sorc. PF2 designers did way better with the majority of casters than 5E did.
Me and a friend were chatting about this thread and about wizards in general in this system, and he offhandedly said:
"If a level 19 wizard had every single wizard class feat and every single arcane spell that exists in their spellbook, they would barely be any stronger than a wizard who took no feats at all and had the normal number of spells"
I argued against it at first, but the more I thought about it the more true it seemed. That's pretty sad
There ARE some great wizard feats, they're just few and far between.
Convincing Illusion, Bond conservation (for universalist utility), Clever Counterspell, Second Detonation Array, Scroll Adept... are all good choices and would make your first wizard much stronger than the second one.
But yeah, apart from the hyperbole, wizard feats need to be totally revamped ^^
Their level 20 feats are great too, but how many people get there.
You use Secondary Detonation Array much? I don't know many with much experience with it. Does it work well in play?
That's not strictly true though is it? Most classes get feats at certain level thresholds that can change the way they play their class entirely.I think we will have to agree to disagree on that. I can see builds that need specific feat combos to function and as such will change at specific levels (mostly because before that level they are not functioning) but I don't see anything similar for classes in general. A Druid with or without feat plays roughly the same, feats are mostly icing on the cake.
Also, from my experience, when people consider that a class plays "very differently" when they get a specific feat, it's often because they are focusing on a small part of the class and missing the big picture.
Definitely, your 2 Druid examples play exactly the same to me. The differences are minor.
Druid with feats night and day difference in play in my experience. Untamed Shift is their best feat line with a lot of versatile uses that make life super easy and allow you to solve a lot of problems.
Storm line is very good blasting and flight utility.
Having an animal companion is also very good for a lot of levels.
Druid has high impact feats that allow you to build and define the class.
|
This thread really blew up. I've never played Wizard but it does seem like the idea is for it to be "the" prepared caster so much of its identity has to do with interacting with that system. It's just not very flashy.
Of course, if you go with the familiar, spellshape, or universalist subclass, you don't get to do much with that aside from a few feats at later levels. At its core, there's not much going on. Maybe it suffers from needing to be an entry to spellcasting and the standard so it has to be simple.
I'd like the subclasses to be a bit tuned up personally. Like maybe the spellshape subclass can activate a spellshape for a free action once an hour or something
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread really blew up. I've never played Wizard but it does seem like the idea is for it to be "the" prepared caster so much of its identity has to do with interacting with that system. It's just not very flashy.
It’s a standard 3 slot prepared caster, like a Druid or Cleric.
It has a 4th, limited slot, which allows for a selection of under 20 spells in edition to the standard 3.
It has some thesis options which allow you to play with slots a bit, but it’s no more complicated than a clerics font.
The simple truth of the Wizard is that they are not actually “the” anything. The best they can claim is some marginal gains over some other casters.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing that is probably too late to do much about, but could still be implemented going forward is that there are way too many common spells of every tradition. New books having common spells was a mistake in my opinion because the just gave it all away to druids and clerics when more uncommon spells would have had every class interact more with the learning spells mechanic.
Another too little to late observation is that the recall knowledge, identify magic, learn a spell, and maybe just every thing about religion and nature should be INT based. Nothing about “ Wisdom measures your character’s common sense, awareness, and intuition.” Makes sense for knowledge skills. It was like they were just worried clerics and Druids would just be too bad at their magic tradition skill, but CHA caster classes were already in this boat and it just makes wisdom the much better attribute to build a caster around. Having those skills be INT based, and then having many more uncommon spells that casters want to learn would have very naturally given wizards a meaningful edge on being the “learn new spells class.” Without those two things, it makes wizard (and witch) spell learning a hassle instead of the benefit it could have been.
One tweak that might still be possible for the wizard schools though would be to let wizards choose one of the two free spells they know when gaining a new rank of spells be added to their school list instead of just their spellbook. I think this would be well received, and allow every PC wizard to feel like they are really at the forefront of their school’s academic research /philosophy.
One thing that is probably too late to do much about, but could still be implemented going forward is that there are way too many common spells of every tradition. New books having common spells was a mistake in my opinion because the just gave it all away to druids and clerics when more uncommon spells would have had every class interact more with the learning spells mechanic.
I feel this is solid grounds for imposing a spellbook mechanic on all prepared casters. I don’t think rarity tags should be used just to make spells less accessible (rarity usually indicates the spell isn’t appropriate for every campaign), but I do very much agree that prepared casters like the Cleric and Druid have benefited from a huge amount of option creep, one of many kinds of power creep. Although 2e won’t last literally forever, every common spell it adds to the divine and primal lists gives those classes more tools and 2e-caliber silver bullets, so at this rate those traditions will inevitably equal the versatility of the on-release arcane tradition, if it hasn’t happened already. Not only that, but unrestricted spell preparation erases a lot of the differentiation among those classes when they can switch to each other’s spell loadouts overnight, which is why so many Druids in particular feel like they play the same. Limiting all spell prep to a a subset of spells in the tradition’s list would level the playing field, cap option creep, enable more differentiation, and make spell learning more universally valuable. It wouldn’t directly benefit the Wizard, necessarily, but they’d feel less limited by comparison, and this could be one more opportunity to let them shine by letting them do much more with their own spellbook than other prepared casters with their respective spell repositories.
One thing that is probably too late to do much about, but could still be implemented going forward is that there are way too many common spells of every tradition. New books having common spells was a mistake in my opinion because the just gave it all away to druids and clerics when more uncommon spells would have had every class interact more with the learning spells mechanic.I feel this is solid grounds for imposing a spellbook mechanic on all prepared casters. I don’t think rarity tags should be used just to make spells less accessible (rarity usually indicates the spell isn’t appropriate for every campaign), but I do very much agree that prepared casters like the Cleric and Druid have benefited from a huge amount of option creep, one of many kinds of power creep. Although 2e won’t last literally forever, every common spell it adds to the divine and primal lists gives those classes more tools and 2e-caliber silver bullets, so at this rate those traditions will inevitably equal the versatility of the on-release arcane tradition, if it hasn’t happened already. Not only that, but unrestricted spell preparation erases a lot of the differentiation among those classes when they can switch to each other’s spell loadouts overnight, which is why so many Druids in particular feel like they play the same. Limiting all spell prep to a a subset of spells in the tradition’s list would level the playing field, cap option creep, enable more differentiation, and make spell learning more universally valuable. It wouldn’t directly benefit the Wizard, necessarily, but they’d feel less limited by comparison, and this could be one more opportunity to let them shine by letting them do much more with their own spellbook than other prepared casters with their respective spell repositories.
I would argue that clerics and druid perhaps shouldn't be prepared at all. Thematically I'm not sure it makes sense
I think the rarity system would work fine this way because it already applies to all focus spells to indicate that they require specific access, and because, in world, even in fairly magical places, most spells really would be uncommon, certainly less common than a long sword or a dagger. So a small set of common spells would be fine for clerics and druids to have general access, but having access to most other spells, especially non-core spells require regional access would be fine. GMs barring all uncommon options ever from their games, just because they are uncommon is already not the way the game is intended to be played, and it would make finding scrolls and spells require regional books useful to want more classes. I don’t really think it makes sense to have clerics and Druids utilize spell books for casting basic spells. A cleric really shouldn’t loose access to casting heal just because they lost their spellbook.
I feel this is solid grounds for imposing a spellbook mechanic on all prepared casters. I don’t think rarity tags should be used just to make spells less accessible (rarity usually indicates the spell isn’t appropriate for every campaign), but I do very much agree that prepared casters like the Cleric and Druid have benefited from a huge amount of option creep, one of many kinds of power creep. Although 2e won’t last literally forever, every common spell it adds to the divine and primal lists gives those classes more tools and 2e-caliber silver bullets, so at this rate those traditions will inevitably equal the versatility of the on-release arcane tradition, if it hasn’t happened already. Not only that, but unrestricted spell preparation erases a lot of the differentiation among those classes when they can switch to each other’s spell loadouts overnight, which is why so many Druids in particular feel like they play the same. Limiting all spell prep to a a subset of spells in the tradition’s list would level the playing field, cap option creep, enable more differentiation, and make spell learning more universally valuable. It wouldn’t directly benefit the Wizard, necessarily, but they’d feel less limited by comparison, and this could be one more opportunity to let them shine by letting them do much more with their own spellbook than other prepared casters with their respective spell repositories.
I understand the logic, but it's such a miserable reduction in fun that I could never support it. Taxing everyone else like wizard is taxed may drag other prepared casters closer to wizard, but that's a move in the wrong direction on so many levels. That would certainly make spontaneous classes guaranteed to be better for every tradition—as opposed to now, where spontaneous is obviously better for arcane, better for occult outside of perhaps an optimized resentment witch, probably better for primal, and not obviously better for divine.
The classes without spellbook casting (especially warpriest cleric) are designed to distribute their wealth in a fairly different manner from a wizard, which makes me leery of taxing them with spell costs. They would, at minimum, need guaranteed free access to spells like Heal and Cleanse Affliction before I'd consider it.
The divine spell list also functions pretty differently. As has been pointed out, Cleric mostly blasts acceptably because it has situationally good choices or does spirit damage; it especially has weak flexibility in save targeting without its situational options. If Cleric becomes a spellbook caster, it'll have to buy a good amount of these situationally better spells. Cleric actually has more silver bullet-y spell choices available (e.g., compare the usecases of Divine Wrath and Holy Cascade) despite its overall weaker blasting profile, and losing cost-free access to them would be serious blow—especially when the several oracles get access to more generic blasting options.
I think the rarity system would work fine this way because it already applies to all focus spells to indicate that they require specific access
That’s not how focus spells work. You don’t gain focus spells with the Learn a Spell activity, you gain them through feats or class features.
and because, in world, even in fairly magical places, most spells really would be uncommon, certainly less common than a long sword or a dagger.
Magic is common in most parts of Golarion; one if the reasons why there are so many wizarding schools.
A cleric really shouldn’t loose access to casting heal just because they lost their spellbook.
I agree; I don’t think all of these classes necessarily have to have a physical spellbook. You could have it be like the Necromancer’s dirge instead.
I’m curious, though: does this situation happen with your Wizard? I know it happened sometimes in 1e or D&D 3.5e, when it was considered one of the Wizard’s few weaknesses, but in my experience I’ve never seen a GM try to steal or destroy a Wizard’s spellbook, nor have I even considered doing that to my players.
Maybe a better fix would be when a divine spellcaster like cleric or druid can prepare a different load out.
Keep their access the same but they can only prepare in places that allow them communion with their deity for clerics (and perhaps create a talisman like magic item that is a one use effect allowing communion outside of such a location) and for druid places sacred to the type of order they chose.
Maybe a better fix would be when a divine spellcaster like cleric or druid can prepare a different load out.
Keep their access the same but they can only prepare in places that allow them communion with their deity for clerics (and perhaps create a talisman like magic item that is a one use effect allowing communion outside of such a location) and for druid places sacred to the type of order they chose.
Table variance makes this an annoying issue.
As someone who played a kami medium in 1E at one point, I was /very/ glad my DM granted a substantive allowance: carrying around a shrub with a fukujin so I could always change back to channeling it.
I like these kinds of location-based mechanics from a flavor perspective, but they can be incredibly difficult to play around in some campaigns and not all GMs will recognize how it affects your ability to play your character.
I’m curious, though: does this situation happen with your Wizard? I know it happened sometimes in 1e or D&D 3.5e, when it was considered one of the Wizard’s few weaknesses, but in my experience I’ve never seen a GM try to steal or destroy a Wizard’s spellbook, nor have I even considered doing that to my players.
FWIW, I never saw anyone do this either, even in 1E—it seems like a particularly vindictive thing to do, on par with purposefully killing a non-combat familiar. I'm sure it happened to someone, because it's exactly the kind of thing a GM that can't handle social issues on the social layer would do—but I am fortunate to have never witnessed it.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What bothers me most about the class though, is that the wizard is (traditonally at least) the "learned" caster; The guy who spends his time reading books. In my opinion this is not something that is properly reflected in the class chassis: Give the wizard some additional skill increases (and/or skill feats) exclusively to be spent on Intelligence and Wisdom related skills. This would give the wizard the edge on mental skills that he needs without causing any balance issues.
IMHO this a weakness of the Intellgence attritbute - there should be higher-level versions of Skill Training that require high INT.
Although wizards are disadvantaged by prepared casting + spellbook, bad focus spells and weaker class features.
I think the rarity system would work fine this way because it already applies to all focus spells to indicate that they require specific accessThat’s not how focus spells work. You don’t gain focus spells with the Learn a Spell activity, you gain them through feats or class features.
I am sorry I didn't state that well. Focus spells just jumped out as the largest example of spells that use uncommon rarity tag without game balance concerns, but there are tons of others too. Many of them come from APs and adventures, and limiting players from picking things that might come up in their own campaigns is part of that, but some are from Lost Omen's line books as well, and those ones are primarily about making those spells feel particularly situated in a specific part of Golarion Lore. There are even some from Rules books like Dark Archive. I get maybe making most of the player core 1 spells common, but beyond that I think the vast majority of additional spells released in the game could have been made uncommon (and really still could be with errata that is not likely to change much page count, since the trait tags often have space for more in their row) and it would have given all casters more incentive to use the learn a spell activity (and made the ability to do that more useful/powerful) without changing almost anything else about the game.
I think the smallest changes possible to accomplish goals are generally preferable at this point in the game's cycle.
Magic is common in most parts of Golarion; one if the reasons why there are so many wizarding schools.
Golarion is a relatively magic filled world, but the vast majority of it is not a high magic setting, and even where magic is much more common, there are probably still not many more than 200 spells that probably get cast all that often, at least enough to really qualify as common. Like most of the spells in Rage of Elements can't really known by many more people in world than would be trying to learn Clairvoyance or teleport.
Having a much smaller list of common, vanilla spells on each list, and the general expectation that casters are going to have to seek out the flavorful spells that will fill in their lists and give them a reason to be excited about spells as loot would still go a long way to improve wizards (especially as new schools can keep giving away uncommon spells as ways to make those schools feel more unique and special).
I am sorry I didn't state that well. Focus spells just jumped out as the largest example of spells that use uncommon rarity tag without game balance concerns, but there are tons of others too. Many of them come from APs and adventures, and limiting players from picking things that might come up in their own campaigns is part of that, but some are from Lost Omen's line books as well, and those ones are primarily about making those spells feel particularly situated in a specific part of Golarion Lore. There are even some from Rules books like Dark Archive. I get maybe making most of the player core 1 spells common, but beyond that I think the vast majority of additional spells released in the game could have been made uncommon (and really still could be with errata that is not likely to change much page count, since the trait tags often have space for more in their row) and it would have given all casters more incentive to use the learn a spell activity (and made the ability to do that more useful/powerful) without changing almost anything else about the game.
I think the smallest changes possible to accomplish goals are generally preferable at this point in the game's cycle.
I think we're on the same page here, as I don't think rarity is about balance either, but I also can't think of common spells that would be inappropriate for most settings in Golarion, certainly not the Inner Sea regions where most APs take place. I agree that it should be important to minimize work as well, which is why I don't think combing over literal hundreds of spells just to decide which ones stay common and which one don't is the better idea here. Generalizing the spellbook mechanic to prepared casters and determining that some don't need a physical book, by contrast, would be a lot simpler, and in fact could simplify rules overall by making all prepared casters work the same way.
Golarion is a relatively magic filled world, but the vast majority of it is not a high magic setting, and even where magic is much more common, there are probably still not many more than 200 spells that probably get cast all that often, at least enough to really qualify as common. Like most of the spells in Rage of Elements can't really known by many more people in world than would be trying to learn Clairvoyance or teleport.
Is this stated anywhere? My understanding was that Golarion is a high-magic setting by default, with only a handful of notable exceptions, and that in addition to all the different Wizard academies, there's plenty of Clerics going around, Druidic orders reliably in most wild locations, and Bards going around showing their performances. Many NPCs use magic and a party with more than one caster is itself not uncommon at all.
All I said is that it would be possible to do this errata later. The change into making new spells uncommon could happen sooner.
All I said is that it would be possible to do this errata later. The change into making new spells uncommon could happen sooner.
Wouldn’t the simpler implementation just be to say that you need to learn any spell that’s not in the Player Core books? You could even easily playtest that as a variant rule first without messing with rarity, let alone editing hundreds of spells.
I wonder why its so hard to get this one class right but others are relatively ok some even great, what is so special about the wizard?
It's the most iconic class in D&D and fantasy.
In D&D, Bigby, Mordenkainen, Elminster, The Blackstaff, The Simbul, Acererak, Szass Tam, Laeral Silverhand, Alassra Silverand, Vecna, Karsus.
In PF1, The Runelords.
In fantasy, Merlin, Gandalf, Raistlin, Saruman, Morgana Le Fay, Bayaz, Circe, and the list of fantasy wizards could go on.
They make great heroes, villains, and everything in-between.
Wizards build worlds, destroy worlds, and practice the most powerful force in fantasy worlds: magic.
Wizards are supposed to be the gold standard caster in fantasy games like this.
It feels wrong when they are not done really, really well. It's like sensing something off in The Force. Magic isn't quite right when wizards are not one of the premiere casters in the game.
I wonder why its so hard to get this one class right but others are relatively ok some even great, what is so special about the wizard?In fantasy, Merlin, Gandalf, Raistlin, Saruman, Morgana Le Fay, Bayaz, Circe, and the list of fantasy wizards could go on.
Gandalf, Saruman, and the Istari from LotR are really more Clerics than Wizards in d20 terms, and aren't the best example, in fairness.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gandalf, Saruman, and the Istari from LotR are really more Clerics than Wizards in d20 terms, and aren't the best example, in fairness.I wonder why its so hard to get this one class right but others are relatively ok some even great, what is so special about the wizard?In fantasy, Merlin, Gandalf, Raistlin, Saruman, Morgana Le Fay, Bayaz, Circe, and the list of fantasy wizards could go on.
I've seen this contested. Frankly they still count. If they're not wizards, then they are angels or something equivalent. They're certainly not clerics
But I disagree with the thrust of Deriven's point. "wizard" is a catch all, even in fantasy, and has no discernable difference between itself and sorcerer, warlock, mage, whatever. The game could easily lose the wizard class and lose nothing
But I disagree with the thrust of Deriven's point. "wizard" is a catch all, even in fantasy, and has no discernable difference between itself and sorcerer, warlock, mage, whatever. The game could easily lose the wizard class and lose nothing
I'm not sure. "Wizard" is the word most associated with the archetypal mentor figure of the English fantasy tradition. I think you lose something important if your fantasy TTRPG can't speak directly to that trope.
Gandalf, Saruman, and the Istari from LotR are really more Clerics than Wizards in d20 terms, and aren't the best example, in fairness.I wonder why its so hard to get this one class right but others are relatively ok some even great, what is so special about the wizard?In fantasy, Merlin, Gandalf, Raistlin, Saruman, Morgana Le Fay, Bayaz, Circe, and the list of fantasy wizards could go on.
Not really. They don't do a whole lot of healing or any of that. They are skilled at different types of magic. Gandalf and Saruman being more wizard-like. Radagast you could probably make a druid since he could talk to animals.
They were definitely known as wizards and practiced magic as a wizard learning spells like when Gandalf was searching his mind for opening spells.
Obviously, they were also likely Maia sent from up on high and that learned magic over their long lives.
Gandalf, Saruman, and the Istari from LotR are really more Clerics than Wizards in d20 terms, and aren't the best example, in fairness.I wonder why its so hard to get this one class right but others are relatively ok some even great, what is so special about the wizard?In fantasy, Merlin, Gandalf, Raistlin, Saruman, Morgana Le Fay, Bayaz, Circe, and the list of fantasy wizards could go on.I've seen this contested. Frankly they still count. If they're not wizards, then they are angels or something equivalent. They're certainly not clerics
But I disagree with the thrust of Deriven's point. "wizard" is a catch all, even in fantasy, and has no discernable difference between itself and sorcerer, warlock, mage, whatever. The game could easily lose the wizard class and lose nothing
Wizard has a strong tradition in fantasy and D&D and PF specifically.
Sure, the other caster types are based on fantasy tradition archetypes. The wizard is a specific archetype that is usually one of the most powerful in a given world by virtue of learning how to wield magic versus having it as an innate power like a sorcerer or from a deity.
Though Elric of Melnibone might be more of a cleric or ritualist since he called upon the Lords of Chaos to make deals or the Elemental Lords. Though even that is a particular type of learned magic.