| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I started playing a new oracle. It is surprisingly better and very powerful. Having three different ways to cast spells is pretty incredible.
Oracle may be the most caster of casters now. 4 slots per level, feats allowing access to other traditions, divine is good at blasting now with great summons and utility, focus spells, and now curse driven abilities and spells.
If they had allowed oracles to pick their tradition, they would have hands down been the best caster in the game easily.
Main problem they have is some of the curses are real bad. But the new oracle is a great design space for Paizo designers to build on. The oracle feels very powerful and versatile now.
What does that have to do with the wizard? Well, as Old Man Robot stated, oracle is now the able to cast an insane amount of spells with focus spells and cursebound effects and spells that stack. Foretell Harm stacks with Sorcerous Potency and is easier to land than say Secondary Detonation Array. Not sure why the wizard didn't get a feat like Foretell Harm, but I guess it comes down to if your class gets one of the more inspired designers working on it.
Oracle had some real nice design work that made it go from "Some cool abilities and themes" to "damn, this class is powerful."
The number of new spells you learnt at level up equals exactly the number of slots you have, except for the six spells you learnt at level 1. Utlising just the spells you learnt through class progression makes spell substitution even worse --- The only times it feels useful becomes when you pick niche spells when level up then prepare heightened spells for top level slots, or when you need multiple casts of...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.
Spell Substitution works amazing for non-combat encounters where you have lots of time. I like having a wizard with a full spellbook to use spells to overcome non-combat encounters with magic.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Spell Substitution, as it currently exists, is not well suited to being a thesis.
It feels like something that is too close to what-should-be the Wizard’s core identity that is it hard to ignore, while, at the same time, it doesn’t do nearly enough to actually be a thesis.
Say what you will about Spell Blending and Staff Nexus, but they make material differences to how you are going to approach playing the character.
Spell Substitution doesn’t hit like that. It would need to have other aspects to it that elevate it to a thesis option.
In its current form, it should be either a 4th level feat, or a 7th level class feature.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
i would love to see a later level class feature that gives a choice to the wizard to gain either another thesis or some advanced property of the thesis they chose.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The number of new spells you learnt at level up equals exactly the number of slots you have, except for the six spells you learnt at level 1.
And again, this is not true. You learn 2 new spells per level, plus a spell from your school each time you gain spells of a new rank. I have already listed the numbers for this, and shown that you get more spells in your spellbook than a Sorcerer gets spells in their repertoire, even if you never learn a single additional spell. I was in fact severely wrong, and grossly undercounted the number of spells you learn as a Wizard, as you get 43 freeform spells and 10 more from your school, for a total of 53 spells in your spellbook. Out of those, you will have room to get some niche options along the way.
What you said there is partly the benefit of spell learning and prepared casting, not the benefit of Spell Substitution.
It is impossible to discuss the benefits of Spell Substitution without bringing up prepared casting, as the entire point of Spell Substitution is that it leverages the advantages of prepared casting. For starters, it is once again false to claim I am discussing the benefits of learning spells here, as I am discussing the merits of the mechanic on the assumption that you're not adding any more spells to your spellbook besides the bare minimum (which means it also only gets better from there, and you're bound to integrate more low-rank utility spells by way of scrolls once those become cheap enough). Secondly, you are ignoring the fact that spontaneous casters like the Sorcerer will usually have multiple copies of the same spell in their repertoire, because spontaneous spells don't auto-heighten unless they're signature spells (and you really don't want to waste a signature spell choice on utility spells that heighten only at certain ranks). A Wizard will therefore have access to a much larger number of different spells than the Sorcerer, with the benefit of being able to prepare those utility spells at exactly the rank that is needed, even if they won't be able to prepare all of those spells at once and will likely need to prepare multiple copies of the same spell. Spell Substitution lets a Wizard prepare many more safe, combat-focused options, and sub to more niche utility options out of combat as needed, which also brings me to a couple of your previous points:
Also remember it takes 10 minutes to switch, and for many niche spells, when you need them you really need them IMMEDIATELY.
If you're anticipating immediate need for a spell, you can always prepare that spell on that day, and while it is not the purpose of Spell Substitution to let you solve literally every problem on the spot, it certainly gives you more leeway to have a few more specific options in your back pocket. The flipside to Spell Substitution is that if you plan for a specific future outcome that doesn't happen, you can reorganize your prepared spells to something more useful.
Not to mention it does feel interruptive you as the group wizard have to keep asking people to take a 10 minutes break
Unless your party is hurrying through a rapid-fire dungeon crawl with no breaks or exploration, which can certainly happen, you will have time to switch, and in my experience it's not terribly uncouth to ask for breaks when other party casters will want to Refocus, and many party members will also want to stop to heal. Pathfinder doesn't have a strong handle on time management in exploration mode, so unless the GM is constantly hurrying you along, you will have opportunities to sub to a useful spell for a particular situation in exploration.
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'm sorry, but this is a bit silly. It's not just that literally every spellcaster has limited spell slots, it's also that unless you're at a very low level, your utility slots and your combat slots will not be the same. Not only does the Wizard have four spell slots per rank precisely so that they can output more spells in and out of combat, Spell Substitution lets them leverage more out of their spell slots by letting them prepare spells better-suited to a given situation. If it's difficult to spare a 2nd-rank spell slot at 10th level because you think you need that spell to blast, then the problem there doesn't lie with Spell Substitution or the Wizard.
And to be clear, I'm not trying to claim that Spell Substitution is mega-powerful or the solution to all of the Wizard's problems. Rather, the point is that Spell Substitution is useful, and that if we throw out the baby with the bathwater by dismissing every single aspect of the Wizard as weak, useless, and boring, then the end result isn't going to be a measured critique of the Wizard, so much as a gripe fest with no aim or function. In my experience, the arcane thesis doesn't make the Wizard great, and it definitely could do with being combined with the Refocus activity, but it definitely makes the class more flexible by making their Vancian casting less strict. I've found this makes the class a lot more accessible too, as it leaves a lot more room to make mistakes and fix them later. This is why I support making the thesis core to the class instead of arcane bond, among other improvements to the Wizard's features and feats.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do you think Rival Academies will add some interesting options for wizards? or will it just add some new schools, and spells shared between multiple lists
I'm prepared to be disappointed.
Probably the best we can hope for is for the Runelord to just be a better version of the base class. But chances are it will just be a series of custom spell lists for the school slot, some glaive support, and domain spells in place of actually unique focus spell options.
Paizo don't awknowledge that the class isn't in a good place, so it doesn't seem like there is a drive to meaningfully improve it. Hence the remaster being a worse version of an already undertuned class.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
I was thinking about this, and the remaster could have killed three birds with one stone in the remaster.
The School feature should have granted a special Academia lore which worked like the other speical lore skills (Undead, Warfare, Esoterica, etc) and enabled an auto-scaling mono-skill for identifying creatures lowest saves / weaknesses.
That way, Wizard's recoup the missing trained skill as well as have a powerful new feature which makes the losses of slot freedom part of a trade-off instead of just a direct loss.
Suddenly our booklearned Wizard is actually able to, you know, have some mechanical output of their theme.
___
Then, and dare to dream with me folks, imagine if Spell Substitution was a class feat at 4th or a feature at 7th, either or.
Well now you have a character that is able to know about things they are meant to know about, and has a method of adjusting for incorrect preparation with 10 minutes notice, without having to give up their thesis choice!
It's almost - almost, a clear expression of a class fantasy as done through the mechanics of the game! Mind-blowing!
__
Let's go one step further.
If we want to keep the thesis option, what are we keeping it for? Let's dream bigger.
Imagine if, in addition to Spell Blending and Staff Nexus, we redesigned Improved Familiar Attunement. Familiar's are now firmly the Witch's thing, and IFA just - badly - steps on those curly shoed toes.
Think of a version of IFA which let you inhabit your familiar for useful purposes. For up to 10 minutes you could go into a trance, your familiar would lose all their normal actions and features, and instead they become a vessel of your preception.
Transitioning partially into the ethereal, you familiar shares it full senses with you, as it becomes incorporeal & invisible, directed by your thoughts. Able to fly at a speed equal to your movement, it can traverse ahead of your party, as you get to scout the area.
A scouting tool worth a subclass dedication.
__
With these 3 changes you could, if you felt like it, assemble a Wizard who leans into strengths of the concept.
Depth of knowledge and understanding, strange powers, and the ability to weild their arsenal of spells like a scalpel.
Or you don't select any of the 2 optional components and have a Wizard much like today but with better RK options
No the point being prepared casting without Spell Substitution already gives you leverage over multiple adventure days. Therefore the value of Spell Substitution should be evaluated with "out of combat, same day situtation when you have 10 minutes to change your spells" alone, which we have to admit is still a niche case. This has nothing to do with Spontaneous vs. Prepared discussion.
But that’s not a niche case at all, is the point, it’s a common occurrence in all but the most rushed of adventures. Even with only 10 minutes in-between adventures, that is still exactly enough time to substitute a spell when needed. Downplaying the benefits of Spell Substitution by filing those under prepared spellcasting misses the point that Spell Substitution is prepared spellcasting, only you get to do it in the middle of the adventuring day. Its specific function is to let you leverage more benefits out of your prepared spellcasting and lessen its rigidity, so it is impossible to argue the merits of the thesis without bringing up spell preparation.
Also keep in mind that your Spell Slots are limited, even the lower level ones. Lower level slots can be used for reaction spells/Spell Blending that can't be replaced by scrolls.
Using Spell Blending to create higher-rank slots leaves you with even fewer slots, and because you’re locked in for the day, there’s a nonzero chance you’ll be wasting your slot on a suboptimal spell. Relying on scrolls to cover all of your utility needs will leave you very short on gold and with a great deal many spell slots left at the end of each day, so if you want to manage your resources more effectively, just use a few of those scrolls to learn their spells, and then use Spell Substitution to cast them at no base monetary cost and at what quickly becomes a trivial daily resource cost. Better still, if you find yourself needing a high-rank utility spell that you can’t afford the scroll for, guess what, you can sub to that too, instead of hoarding that fifth fireball you may not even end up casting that day.
In addition, when I talk about being "Interruptive" I don't just mean having the in game 10 minutes. I mean you as a Player have to interrupt other players who might like to role-play other activities/charge in because their character IS supposed to be hot-headed, etc. Once again this isn't always a problem, but mechanically it can get annoying depends on your group, same way people can find Investigator annoying in certain situations.
Hold on, so if the impatient player decides to barge into the next encounter without waiting… you’re the one interrupting? Make that make sense.
But also, Spell Substitution isn’t this collective activity. If the rest of the party wants to explore, chat with the locals, or whatever, you can still be there, poring through your spell book as you replace one of your spells. If your GM or party isn’t letting you doing that or is getting annoyed that you’re using your class feature, the problem isn’t with the feature, it’s with your table.
Lastly, I did mention spells such as Helpful Steps/Phantasmal Minion/Create Water/Revealing Light/Translate that at first looks situational and justify having them learnt and Spell Substitute instead of keeping a bunch of scrolls around. But the issue is many of these nich spells when you need them you don't have those 10 minutes. I've came across many social situations where I have a niche spell to solve the issue (Airlift/Translate, etc.) but the group is in the middle of a conversation/being chased therefore cannot affort the time. If I had spend the gold on buying a scroll instead of learning two spells I never used, we would've been much better off.
If you had the presence of mind to realize that these spells could be useful enough to buy the scrolls for them… why didn’t you try preparing them? You’re going to have to explain to me what your typical spell loadout looks like here, because something’s not adding up to me if you consistently don’t have utility options in your spell slots. Similarly, it registers as quite strange to me that you would never have those 10 minutes out of combat to use your thesis, as that has not been my typical experience of exploration as a player or as a GM. It also does not add up to me when you tell me you picked this thesis at a table that consistently does not give you the time to use it, decided to prepare no utility spells despite knowing you wouldn’t have the time to sub to them when the need arose, and then blamed your Wizard’s unpreparedness on their thesis. What do you even use all of your spell slots for, then, if you’re using none of them for utility and are using what few 10-minutes periods you get to presumably Refocus?
I'm not trying to argue Spell Substitution is useless, I'm arguing that it isn't as strong as many people think, when you consider the opportunity cost being not only the gold, but also the alternative Thesis you could've picked.
I feel the point you’ve made is more that the thesis that requires 10 minutes of repreparation isn’t so good when you play at a table that takes few to no breaks in-between encounters and is never not in an urgent situation, which anyone could have guessed, but which from my experience at least is not the average Pathfinder play experience. I would personally like to make the thesis a core class feature and have it work while you Refocus, which would eliminate a couple of opportunity costs, but it sounds to me like the underlying issue is simply that you chose the literal worst thesis for your table.
|
|
Lets be honest, If Paizo turned Spell Substitution into a feat it would've been restricted to Arcane School spells to make it fit the other feats that does the same thing.
If you mean you could only reprepare the school slot, it would kinda suck, but I could live with that.
If you mean you could only change school slot spells for other school spells, then no, that would be bad.
Spell Substitution isn't actually that strong of an ability, it's use is heavily impacted by both foreknowledge and opportunity cost. It honestly could be dropped in as a 4th level feat and it would be fine.
That said, I am also in favour of all primary prepared casters having some form of Spell Substitution at various levels.
I will pick up on the point that none of the current arcane theses feel like real game-changers, and that's arguably the real problem at hand, rather than Spell Substitution being so weak that it could be made a feat (I personally find it one of the more useful theses). Back when the Wizard's spell schools were stronger, I imagine being a four-slot caster with an extra top-rank slot was already considered strong enough that they couldn't be given an uber-powerful second subclass feature on top, so arcane theses sit in this awkward position where they're a bit more than just "nice to have", and so likely shouldn't be made into poachable feats, but are also not so strong that they completely redefine the Wizard's playstyle.
I do personally think the solution ought to be to really, massively buff arcane theses, and I'd personally be willing to trade off the Wizard's bonus spell slot to get that kind of power. If Spell Blending let you not just break down and form a few spell slots, but completely dissolve and reform all of your Wizard spell slots, that'd be a real game-changer, and would really make for a class that'd interact with magic in a way no other spellcaster could achieve. Similarly, if Experimental Spellshaping gave you the benefit of Spell Mastery at 1st level, you'd have a Wizard who, right from the jump, would be constantly looking for ways to modify their spells with every cast. Really, the Wizard's arcane thesis ought to be the thing that lets them break the rules of magic, and I think there's room to shift around the class's power budget a fair bit (and also buff them a touch) so that they can achieve that.
As a general note, I am hesitant to use the "just buy a scroll" argument. I feel like arguing you should "just buy a scroll" tends to abstract away from the realities of spending limited gold, no matter whether it's the wizard or sorc that's buying said scroll. There is also something to be said for not spending money, even small amounts of it. The same also applies to buying spells as a wizard, for the most part. Learning spells costs time and gold.
To be clear, I am not saying you shouldn't buy scrolls. (You should! They're incredible in this system!) I'm more saying that there's this tendency to abstract away the opportunity costs, gold expenditures, and availability concerns involved in learning spells and buying scrolls when we're having these arguments, and I feel it leads us to make very apples to oranges comparisons. It's easy to think, "oh, the wizard can spellsub in this spell for free, while the sorc needs a scroll!" But the wizard paid for that spell if they didn't get it at levelup, and they took it instead of a more evergreen spell if they did. And so on.
===
On another general note, I consider 10 minutes a fairly long time in-game. The most obvious issue with spellsub being 10 minutes is 10 minute buffs, but it can really burn daylight when used frequently and can have fairly severe consequences in an organically run dungeon.
I feel like many tables are pretty loose with the consequences of 10 minute breaks because of the way the game meta has evolved; a minimum of a 10 minute break is standard between encounters, after all. And once you accept that, what's another 10 minutes to spellsub? Surely nothing of consequence, right? ...Depends quite a lot on the table, in my experience. 10 minutes could be nothing, or it could mean getting hosed by patrols chasing you down. Even if there are no consequences, it's also one fewer person taking a useful exploration activity during those 10 minutes.
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.
Down one rank -2 slot is still sometimes painful. Trading out rank -4 spells is... not my favorite, but fine if you're optimizing, since replacing those slots via gold expenditure is significantly cheaper than replacing higher level slots via gold expenditure. Wands of tailwind or pocket library are comparatively trivial purchases past a certain point. It's still gold you wouldn't have spent otherwise, though, or could've used on other low-level wands or items. Gold spent one place is always gold not spent another place, and spells on wands or scrolls are less accessible than slotted spells because they need to be held (or getting them into your hands needs to be bypassed via spending gold on retrieval belts or prisms).
In general, I can't say I really like the whole "lose even more spells to make up for what I'm already losing" thing. Feels like trying to turn up waterflow to compensate for holes in the bottom of a cup.
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.
At bottom, I just don't think spellcasting has much narrative utility in this game. A lot of narrative utility isn't even guaranteed to be accessible, since it's uncommon or rare.
Like, yes, you can get use out of non-combat casting. There are some situations where it's good; I would not like to be seen as arguing that it's totally worthless. Translate is useful. Water breathing is useful. Seashell of Stolen Sound can be useful; the spell that lets you instantly convey ten minutes' worth of information can be useful. Even that spell that just makes things light up and blink three times in perfect sync can be useful. But it is rare for any utility spell to wholly solve problems, and it is much rarer for it to do something someone else could not have done another way without expending resources.
...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.
Swimming is an automatic critical success in calm water, and if the water is turbulent, water breathing isn't going to keep you from needing to make swim checks. Water breathing is moreso useful if you're worried about unexpected underwater combat or need to search underwater for a sustained period.
Translate is only really useful if you need the text translated immediately and without error. If time is no object, you can take the text to an expert outside the dungeon, etc. I consider this a less solid argument, since it's table-dependent, but many DMs are also willing to play ball with you if the text is actually important: they may let you attempt to infer the meaning from context clues, use similar languages you already know to try to reverse engineer the meaning like someone using latin to figure out the meaning of a sentence in a romance language, and so on.
Your airlift scenario is possible, make no mistake, but I consider it pragmatically unlikely to occur. Players are unlikely to have to cross an otherwise impassable chasm in normal play.
I feel like all of these examples have a common issue: if a spell you didn't have prepared would be /necessary/ to bypass an obstacle, that would be poor design. It is fine for spells to grease the wheels a bit, but it is basically never fine for a spell to be the way you expect a party to handle a problem. So you end up with spell substitution being a means of greasing wheels your party could already turn... which just isn't terribly good, and isn't nearly as transformative as people usually imply.
A-a-and that is why this is never* done in written adventures these days. Because for parties without casters or with wrong casters this would make experience miserable or basically auto-fail.
* mostly? but I'm almost sure at least Paizo avoids this like a plague.
... since when? APs to this day absolutely do feature environmental challenges that are made easier by spells, and while playing an all-martial party may not always get you a guaranteed TPK, you will indeed suffer greatly from your lack of spells, which is why those parties are rare and almost inevitably end up with at least one party member taking Trick Magic Item or taking a spellcasting archetype. PFS in particular has featured many combat-light scenarios that reward versatility and clever use of spells. If you don't believe me, believe Paizo, who chronicled the adventures of an all-Gunslinger party through Abomination Vaults that resulted in a TPK. I don't get why we're pretending that the entirety of gameplay in Pathfinder boils down to walking down a straight line from one encounter room to the next, much less that spells make no meaningful contribution to exploration.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will pick up on the point that none of the current arcane theses feel like real game-changers, and that's arguably the real problem at hand, rather than Spell Substitution being so weak that it could be made a feat (I personally find it one of the more useful theses). Back when the Wizard's spell schools were stronger, I imagine being a four-slot caster with an extra top-rank slot was already considered strong enough that they couldn't be given an uber-powerful second subclass feature on top, so arcane theses sit in this awkward position where they're a bit more than just "nice to have", and so likely shouldn't be made into poachable feats, but are also not so strong that they completely redefine the Wizard's playstyle.
I do personally think the solution ought to be to really, massively buff arcane theses, and I'd personally be willing to trade off the Wizard's bonus spell slot to get that kind of power. If Spell Blending let you not just break down and form a few spell slots, but completely dissolve and reform all of your Wizard spell slots, that'd be a real game-changer, and would really make for a class that'd interact with magic in a way no other spellcaster could achieve. Similarly, if Experimental Spellshaping gave you the benefit of Spell Mastery at 1st level, you'd have a Wizard who, right from the jump, would be constantly looking for ways to modify their spells with every cast. Really, the Wizard's arcane thesis ought to be the thing that lets them break the rules of magic, and I think there's room to shift around the class's power budget a fair bit (and also buff them a touch) so that they can achieve that.
If anything, Spell Substitution should be a class feature and a feat line should be wizards being able to substitute a spell per combat as needed building up to maybe a few spells. A focus point to substitute a spell from their spellbook in a combat.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
the opportunity cost of taking less evergreen utility spells at level-up) are usually ignored or handwaved when discussing it.
In fairness, this is a criticism that goes both ways.
Like you've mentioned diminishing the importance of magical solutions to problems and adding punitive mechanics to players taking extended breaks.
Both of these are extra additions to the game that directly make the spellsub wizard worse, which is also a big thing to just kind of gloss over too.
|
|
To reorient this discussion, the focus here is Table Variance —the differences in how groups play the game and how those differences interact with the mechanics of specific classes.
Of all classes, the Wizard is arguably the most impacted by Table Variance in PF2. While all classes experience some degree of Table Variance, the way a class is designed determines its resilience to these differences. The Wizard, in particular, exhibits the lowest resilience to Table Variance, making it uniquely susceptible to the differences of individual tables.
There are numerous factors at play that can unintentionally limit a Wizard's ability to perform at its peak. Both GMs and party dynamics have a significant influence on how effectively a Wizard can engage with the game. This variability explains the wide range of opinions regarding the Wizard's play experience—from highly rewarding at some tables to deeply frustrating at others.
At a table where the GM and players are aligned and mindful of the Wizard's needs, the class can truly shine. This might involve tailoring encounters, leveraging the Wizard's school slot, and creating opportunities for the Wizard to feel impactful. However, when a GM or table lacks this understanding — whether intentionally or not — it can severely hinder the Wizard's ability to thrive. These obstacles might manifest in various ways, from encounter design to adventuring day structure, and often go unnoticed.
When considering changes to the class, my guiding principle is: "How do we enhance the core experience of playing a Wizard while increasing the class's resilience to Table Variance?"
Several key elements are crucial to making the Wizard feel like a satisfying class to play:
- Preparation and Flexibility: Ensuring the Wizard can adequately prepare for a variety of challenges.
- Access to Spells: Providing opportunities to expand their spell book.
- Resource Management: Addressing the gold costs associated with spell acquisition and crafting.
- Encounter Design: Balancing enemy types, densities, and the flow of encounters to align with the Wizard's strengths.
- Adventuring Day: Structuring the adventuring day to give the Wizard opportunities to shine without disproportionately punishing their resource limitations.
The list goes on and on.
Many of these factors are not immediately obvious to players or GMs, and much of the burden falls on the GM to accommodate them.
The solution lies in making the Wizard a more robust and self-reliant class—one that can consistently deliver on its fantasy regardless of the table's particular dynamics. By addressing these systemic vulnerabilities, we can reduce frustration and create a more universally enjoyable experience for Wizard players.
Without these changes, complaints about the Wizard will persist. The root cause of dissatisfaction is not the class itself, but its pronounced sensitivity to Table Variance and its lack of tools to mitigate that weakness.
I love how the Wizard is always the center of endless discussions. It looks like there's no other class with such popularity.
There are other classes that can be considered weaker, why aren't they raising such long discussions?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love how the Wizard is always the center of endless discussions. It looks like there's no other class with such popularity.
There are other classes that can be considered weaker, why aren't they raising such long discussions?
Because the Wizard is bad in so many different ways!
It's easy to look at some other classes and go, "well here is the problem" and Paizo will eventually try to fix it.
With the Wizard there are many moving parts to their badness, and Paizo then went and made them worse on top of it!
It's almost like a predermined breakpoint for Paizo. "Is the feedback from X higher than the constant background complaints about Wizards? If so we better fix it!"
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think this comes back to the whole issue with Wizard. It doesn't have very impactful or engaging mechanics as a whole. Much like the fighter, However unlike the Fighter the Wizard lacks the feats create engagement. and it does not have the focus spells or features to create the same engagement as its fellow prepared casters.
Really thats all that is really different between Wizard and other prepare casters, Good initial focus spells, special access to features that are used during the day instead of the start of it. Even looking at the Druidic orders, they are more thematic and engaging than a wizards curricilum but all they do is unlock feats and focus spells, not that premaster Arcane School was more engaging to begin with.
Paizo could imo,
Release feats that support each thesis, or give the thesis some mid day usage.
Touch up the current focus spells to make them more impactful or interesting.
Give each curricilum something additional outside of just focus spell and spell list. Something to show the training from the academy the wizard graduated from. Even as simple as a skill feat.
Because the Wizard has a lot of different problems, it also means there are a lot of possible approaches to correcting them.
It could be simple additions to give the class actual depth, or it could be a complete redesign, or any point in between.
Historically the community has had trouble agreeing that there is a problem (however much less so after the remaster, writing is kinda on the wall now). That is because Table Variance can swing both ways, and some people can have great experiences when they are correctly catered for. The existence of such a gulf in variance is a problem in and of itself, which also needs correcting.
The first step is for Paizo to admit there is a problem. Their avenues for correcting it are somewhat dwindling with time, however.
Because the Wizard is bad in so many different ways!
It's easy to look at some other classes and go, "well here is the problem" and Paizo will eventually try to fix it.
With the Wizard there are many moving parts to their badness, and Paizo then went and made them worse on top of it!
It's almost like a predermined breakpoint for Paizo. "Is the feedback from X higher than the constant background complaints about Wizards? If so we better fix it!"
Alchemist, Investigator, Swashbuckler, Oracle. There are many classes that were bad in a complex way and that needed more than just a "well here is the problem".
Actually, the Wizard is not "complexely bad". The overall issue can be solved very quickly. Something as simple as adding an extra spell slot or giving unique and impactful feats depending on your school would certainly shift the overall point of view on the class.
|
|
Actually, the Wizard is not "complexely bad". The overall issue can be solved very quickly. Something as simple as adding an extra spell slot or giving unique and impactful feats depending on your school would certainly shift the overall point of view on the class.
That is the vertical power vs mechanical depth debate that I think this thread is angling at.
Is the Wizard better if you slap a +2 bonus of them? They sure would be!
Is that a good or even desirable solution? That's a more nuanced question.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is that a good or even desirable solution? That's a more nuanced question.
I think it's both good and desirable. Now, is it the best possible solution? Certainly not. But perfect can be the enemy of good. It's certainly good enough to stop most of these discussions.
On top of that, there's the powergaming aspect. I expect some players would not be happy unless the wizard class gave them the game dominance early edition D&D wizards had.
The endless discussions exist because there's an issue, on top of all you say. The second the issue's gone, the discussion becomes pointless and the weird demands meet quick answers.
I don't think there'd be endless discussions if there was no issue. There'd be discussions, certainly, but less heated, less interesting and smaller.
Wizards are unique in one respect.
You can be this level 5 mentalist wizard one day.
Arcane Prepared Spells DC 21, attack +11; 3rd Clairaudience, Hypnotize, Mind Reading; 2nd Laughing Fit, Translate, Invisibility, Stupefy; 1st Command, Schadenfreude, Mindlink, Sleep; Cantrips Read Aura, Figment, Light, Detect Magic, Message, Daze
And this level 5 mentalist wizard the next and play completely different. All they did was spend some gold to get 1 rank 3 fireball scroll and 1 rank 2 blazing bolt scroll. So even limited scroll investment can allow a wizard to change up dramatically. The rest is already in the amount of spells they know naturally.
Arcane Prepared Spells DC 21, attack +11; 3rd Fireball, Fear, Sleep; 2nd Laughing Fit, Floating Flame, Blazing Bolt, Sure Strike; 1st Hydraulic Push, Fear, Force Barrage, Sure Strike; Cantrips Electric Arc, Ignition, Shield, Frostbite, Caustic Blast, Daze
And to preempt arguments about the spells selected here you can imagine I selected good spells for both setups and make the same argument with those spells instead.
An imperial sorcerer attempting to be as much of these two set ups as they can look like this everyday. And with arcane evolution get to add in one more spell they learned to this at a rank they choose. So give them two scrolls just like I did for the wizard but the sorcerer adds only one of those at a time.
Arcane Known Spells DC 21, attack +11; 3rd Fireball ☆, Hypnotize, Haste (3 slots); 2nd Blazing Bolt, Laughing Fit, Invisibility, Dispel Magic ☆ (4 slots); 1st Fear ☆, Mindlink, Command, Force Barrage (4 slots); Cantrips Electric Arc, Light, Shield, Message, Detect Magic
What this adds up to is the wizard gets to be seemingly more frivolous in their spell selection. And I say seeming because a sorcerer sees it as frivolous because they cannot afford to be the specialist for a specific day, the spells they select have to apply to more situations because they cannot completely change up to suit a different situation.
Also no access to the uncommon mentalist curriculum spells if those are the flavor the caster was going for.
Now can these two casters be said to handle a number of different situations they can end up in the same way? no. Do they play differently? yes, when the wizard wants to play differently. What does the sorcerer get for the rigidity day to day? quite a bit in terms of more powerful feats, fluidity of casting from the spells they do know, and mostly better focus spells.
So are they equal, no. Do they play different? possibly if you choose to do so. does the wizard still need something? yeah but if their niche is being able to change up completely then further supporting that niche is probably the way to go in terms of improving them.
Actually this might be accomplished in ways completely outside of class mechanics. Adding more useful spells to the arcane list will go partway to doing it.
In class changes would be as simple as more wizard school which I believe is already happening.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do think the point of commonality across all spellbook and spellbook-alike casters is that, aside from being prepared, their class either directly accesses or has the choice of accessing either the arcane or occult tradition. The Wizard and Magus are arcane casters, the Necromancer is an occult caster, and the Witch can choose to be an arcane or an occult caster. Presumably, the underlying assumption is that the arcane and occult lists are so versatile that they need to be reined in with some kind of spellbook mechanic, so that we have no casters able to prepare arcane or occult spells as freely as a Cleric or Druid prepares divine or primal spells respectively.
Personally, and as unpopular as this may sound, I actually think the issue here is less with spellbook mechanics, and more with freeform spell preparation, which I think runs into a few issues: for starters, it really dilutes the flavor of a character when they can essentially become a completely different character from one day to the next, and switch to a radically different spell loadout. Animists and Druids I think are especially susceptible to this. Second, it leads to a lot of subtle power creep, because every new spell added to a tradition's spell list means another option to choose from when preparing spells that could let the caster do even better at a particular situation.
Going back to the Wizard, I think that too is a reason why it feels like they kind of fell behind in the remaster: not only did they get nerfed, their spellbook limitations prevented them from getting power-crept on the same level as, say, the Cleric, who got the full benefit of a new and drastically improved divine spell list all at once. I don't think they necessarily have to have their spellbook limitations removed, but I do think the limitations of their spellbook ought to be used as leverage to afford them more power elsewhere.
What you’ve said out isn’t really unique, it’s just prepared vs spontaneous casting.Wizards are unique in one respect
Revised my last post. Really though does this statement diminish the point?
You can only do a slightly lesser version of the same with a witch at 1 less spell known and 1 less slot at each rank and no drain bonded item. In exchange they get all the witch specific things.
No point in considering anything not using the arcane list though if comparing to a wizard unless you want to expand the points of comparison to comparing not only class features/prepared vs spontaneous but also compare traditions and the spells they offer. Since arcane sorcerer is really the main class compared to the wizard to say its lacking spontaneous vs prepared is an important part of the comparison along with other class features.