snipI agree with this. I would also add (in support of your points) that making all of your spells have the same DC (instead of having all your spells scale with CL to a cap dependent on slot level) drastically increases the power of unscaling debuff spells like slow, laughing fit, or roaring applause, since they bypass the issues scaling spells like Dispel Magic have and can be cast out of lower slots. (The same also goes for unscaling or only mildly scaling buffs, like see the unseen, sure strike, fly, and so on, but that's not really a change from before.)
Agree. This aspect of the system is beneficial to both spontaneous and prepared casters, though it is still more beneficial for spontaneous casters making all their slots mostly useful even at lower level and with upcasting in higher level slots like using a 5th level slot for slow.
This basically makes all non-heightened spells like a single target slow signature spells for spontaneous casters by default while making prepared casting even more locked in and lacking on demand versatility.
Then couple this with having to use max level slots to both prepare and cast counteract and damage effects that are drastically affected by heightening and you really stacked the deck in favor of spontaneous casting making it both more versatile and more powerful at the same time.
This was never the case in PF1 where prepared casting maintained power with lower level slots due to a combination of automatic level based increases and the large spread between high save and low saves on top of the ability to really stack your save DCs really high with a high statistic and feats to boost the spell DC.
The magic systems are very different in many ways. It really made spontaneous casting great in PF2.
Fortunately, it's an easy fix by making everyone a spontaneous caster for balance. The sorc and other caster classes have enough on their chassis to offset any gain a wizard or witch gets from also having spontaneous casting with the ability to change out spells.
See the thing is right now the arcane spell list has a small number of spells you want you can actually get all of with a single sorcerer so there is no reason to play a wizard if you can fit it all into a repertoire.
If the arcane list is expanded with more spells you would equally want without making any of the current spells obsolete then a single sorcerer will be unable to get everything you would want to have and that is when the current set up of a wizard with prepared casting starts to look like a decent option.
There are already more spells you could theoretically want than a sorcerer can take, even ignoring the spellbook feat. The problem is moreso that a Sorcerer can cover all the bases they will practically need, and no amount of new spells can fix that. It's just baked into too many facets of the game design.
Practically need to accomplish what? or to fill what role?
If you continue the sentence youll see where I was going with all of this.
Once a sorcerer has answered those questions and chosen spells they are done. they can get all the spells to do those things they set out to do. A sorcerer can set up to accomplish a number of things to a degree that the spells they chose allow, its great cause they always have those answers ready.
And thats the difference. A wizard isnt done when they answer those questions. And the more options allowed by existing spells the more answers to accomplish what and fill what role that single wizard can attempt to answer. But in order to have the choice of ability to accomplish different things to different degrees than any one set up would allow they cant do it all at once.
Where more spells come in is this. If the spells that exist don't allow a wizard to effectively do this then adding more spells to allow it would expand how well any wizard can tune their ability to accomplish things and to what degree.
To accomplish what's needed throughout a campaign. I'm not giving caveats. A well-built sorc has enough.
There are very few one-solution problems in PF2E. Even if casting were to hold the best solution to a problem for your party, there are typically magical or nonmagical consumables available instead if it's a one-off use.
There is a theoretical situation where you might be able to learn a spell in advance, but not buy a scroll, wand, potion, or alchemical item; in that situation, wizard would have an advantage over a sorcerer without the spellbook feat. But with the spellbook feat, there's significantly less daylight between the two in such a situation.
Prepared casting mainly shines in this weird in-between zone, where you want to cast a spell more than once or twice... but not so many times you'd be justified in swapping the spell into your repertoire at levelup or taking it at levelup with the intent to swap it out later. That's pretty uncommon. We're talking situations where you have a sudden shift to an aquatic campaign for a few days, and never see water again afterwards—that kind of thing. Those are (thankfully) quite rare, mostly because they're obnoxious for everyone to deal with.
EDIT: To be extra clear, "what's needed" is largely a function of what the rest of your party can't do, or isn't good at doing. You're not out to do everything, just everything the rest of your party won't or can't cover.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why do people always come from this like the wizard is somehow alone in this ability to accomplish something?
Within the party framework, the wizard's versatility is fungible in its ability to overcome obstacles.
If you like the class fantasy of solving problems with magic, then sure, the wizard with Spell Substitution can be great. I've seen this with my own eyes how being able to change out spells per day with a prepared caster can lead to some fun Mission Impossible problem solving with the wizard that makes a player feel great.
What I've also seen is when the wizard player isn't there or a group is working together, I've seen druids and sorcs and rogues and investigators and rangers and groups do exactly the same thing. Sorcs can easily afford to fill some slots with useful utility spells while having on demand combat effectiveness. Sorcs can also max out Diplomacy, Deception, or Intimidation with charisma as a max level stat and accomplish a great deal of problem solving with social skills.
Groups solve problems. Groups that let Mr. Wizard solve every problem have more to do with the group than the lack of ability of the group to accomplish the same results in other ways.
As far as combat goes, the spontaneous casters far outshine the prepare casters. Their ability to cast the needed spell in the needed slot as many times as necessary to destroy your enemy while heightening and dropping an AoE slow or something similar in far exceeds what a prepared caster can do throughout a day in combat.
So you have this fungible out of combat spell versatility that exists in somewhat reasonable time frames if you take a single thesis for the wizard that can be easily replaced by a group pulling their resources, if not doing it better than the wizard due to better stats for the task, being argued as the selling point of the class.
I really feel the wizard needs a more defined roll that expresses itself in the mechanics to support the role.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why do people always come from this like the wizard is somehow alone in this ability to accomplish something?Do witch, alchemist, and other class threads also experience this sort of denial? also adding to that, a sorcerer who has the spell will be able to respond more quickly than a wizard, who has to wait 10 minutes. Therefore, the only time a wizard is superior is when it comes to situational spells a sorcerer won't have(if the wizard chose to was gold on situational spells). Most of the time, situations can be resolved with a skill check, which doesn’t cost spell slots. As a result, instances where a wizard is the best choice are even more situational.
No. And they ended up with substantial fixes while the wizard ended up getting worse in the Remaster. The only class that received minor tweaks every other caster already had like access to simple weapons with no substantial feat or class feature improvements on top of curriculums that became even more limited.
I can't prove it, but my feeling is the wizard has some kind of mandate at Paizo to make sure it doesn't become what it was in PF1 to the point almost no quality improvements and complete class changes occur to make it better for PF2 to the point it is on par with other caster classes, especially all the 8 hit point casters who received quality feats and class features.
I did some playing around with anoint ally and explosion of power for the sorcerer and it's a nutty increase in damage using even focus spells. The Anoint Ally feat let's you put the source on an armored martial with 10 hit points allowed you to explosion of power from two points: around you or around the ally. Focus spells are always equal to your level, so you can add an up to 10d6 explosion on top of a focus spell really charging them up.
Closest thing the wizard has is Explosive Detonation Array which goes off the following round.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
People are often saying the wizard is a high ceiling class that requires a lot of system mastery to be efficient.
If it were true, it would be ok.
But that’s not true. You do need to know how spells work - but that’s a given for any class, maybe even more so for spontaneous casters who don’t have the luxury to change their selection zvery day.
And you don’t have a high ceiling. The best wizard player with the best spell selection will still underperform next to an impérial sorcerer who will have more flexibility, deal more damage and more dangerous debuffs.
Also, printing more spells won’t help since they’ll also be available to spontaneous casters. You don’t need a deep list but an efficient one.
As an all-around caster, you need:
- AOE spells, ideally targeting 2 different saves (howling blizzard and blister for instance
- Party friendly AOE spells (blazing bolt for instance)
- Single target damage (vision of death, force barrage…)
- Debuff spells (fear, befuddle, slow…)
- Control spells (wall of stone)
- Buff spells (haste, blazing armement, invisibility…)
- Réaction Spells (interposing earth, wooden double…)
- Utility spells (fly, see invisible, tongues…)
You can basically cover all your needs with your regular spell list and get a staff, a wand or scrolls for more niche uses.
Once all these bases are covered, new spells aren’t a problem for a spontaneous spellcaster. Either it’s stronger than a spell already existing - and you switch. Or it’s not and you don’t. There is no point to memorizing 14 AOE spells and 17 debuff spells.
People are often saying the wizard is a high ceiling class that requires a lot of system mastery to be efficient.
If it were true, it would be ok.
But that’s not true. You do need to know how spells work - but that’s a given for any class, maybe even more so for spontaneous casters who don’t have the luxury to change their selection zvery day.
And you don’t have a high ceiling. The best wizard player with the best spell selection will still underperform next to an impérial sorcerer who will have more flexibility, deal more damage and more dangerous debuffs.
Also, printing more spells won’t help since they’ll also be available to spontaneous casters. You don’t need a deep list but an efficient one.
As an all-around caster, you need:
- AOE spells, ideally targeting 2 different saves (howling blizzard and blister for instance
- Party friendly AOE spells (blazing bolt for instance)
- Single target damage (vision of death, force barrage…)
- Debuff spells (fear, befuddle, slow…)
- Control spells (wall of stone)
- Buff spells (haste, blazing armement, invisibility…)
- Réaction Spells (interposing earth, wooden double…)
- Utility spells (fly, see invisible, tongues…)You can basically cover all your needs with your regular spell list and get a staff, a wand or scrolls for more niche uses.
Once all these bases are covered, new spells aren’t a problem for a spontaneous spellcaster. Either it’s stronger than a spell already existing - and you switch. Or it’s not and you don’t. There is no point to memorizing 14 AOE spells and 17 debuff spells.
I agree. Total myth about the wizard being high ceiling. Any caster player must have an understanding of spells to play well and how to value them. That's why in my group half the group chooses martials because they don't like sifting spells to maximize spell power. They would rather use a weapon and attack.
All casters are high ceiling compared to martials. You have to learn how to combine all the abilities to be effective and the wizard has some tricks for spell power, but they are clunky and still limited by actions per round.
This is something that doesn't get often discussed. Being able to cast more doesn't matter whatsoever if you're doing one or two encounters a day for 3 or 4 rounds. You'll cast the same number of spells as the wizard has no unique method to cast their spells faster or more effectively.
The extra slots amount to little more than one extra battle per day which focus spells more than make up for.
you cannot pick up a wizard and hope to be as good at spellcasting as a sorcerer with the same spells that same sorcerer picked. Sorcerer outperforms with the same spells.
Got to fix spells in place or there is nothing to actually compare. I'll just pick these ones for the example.
Level 6 Sorcerer
3rd Fireball ☆, Slow, Wooden Double, Haste (4 slots); 2nd Revealing Light, Laughing Fit, Invisibility, Dispel Magic ☆ (4 slots); 1st Fear ☆, Mystic Armor, Thunderstrike, Force Barrage (4 slots); Cantrips Electric Arc, Light, Shield, Frostbite, Detect Magic
Level 6 Wizard
3rd Haste, Slow, Wooden Double, Fireball; 2nd Laughing Fit, Invisibility, Revealing Light, Mist; 1st Thunderstrike, Fear, Runic Weapon, Force Barrage; Cantrips Electric Arc, Detect Magic, Warp Step, Frostbite, Light, Shield
You have to fix the spells chosen to compare them. In a vacuum the sorcerer is stronger, in a specific situation with the same spell set up a sorcerer is stronger. The wizards only benefit is not having to be the list above every day for a one time cost of scrolls where the sorcerer is that list every day with minor variation with arcane evolution literally only one spell added to the rep that can be swapped daily for known spells invested in with scrolls.
How about someone suggest how many additional spells a wizard at level 6 would reasonably buy? What would you pick thats not on the above list to vary up your abilities daily? How would being able to change up your spells to those other ones help your party in ways the sorcerer above isnt going to with the spells in their rep?
If your in the camp that the wizard has nothing they can do better than a sorcerer take the challenge yourself to see if you can pick additional spells that the above level 6 sorcerer doesn't have to benefit your party.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
2. Give them four slots. Don't limit them by school. Just give them four slots each. With the oracle now having four slots and sorcerers, just give the wizard their four slots.
I'm still puzzled this did not happen. I personally would have done this, and turned spell schools into "spells you can prepare without needing them in your spellbook, they're spells you just know." It's mostly flavor still, but would lean into the idea that these spells and the theories behind them were so thoroughly studied that even ones you can't yet cast are indelibly entered into your mind.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And you don’t have a high ceiling. The best wizard player with the best spell selection will still underperform next to an impérial sorcerer who will have more flexibility, deal more damage and more dangerous debuffs.
I agree. But for the counter argument from Mathfinder watch this video.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm still puzzled this did not happen. I personally would have done this, and turned spell schools into "spells you can prepare without needing them in your spellbook, they're spells you just know." It's mostly flavor still, but would lean into the idea that these spells and the theories behind them were so thoroughly studied that even ones you can't yet cast are indelibly entered into your mind.2. Give them four slots. Don't limit them by school. Just give them four slots each. With the oracle now having four slots and sorcerers, just give the wizard their four slots.
I don't know.
Something is going on behind the scenes that's a weird combination of hanging on to sacred cows keeping the wizard a certain way combined with a mandate to keep the wizard from being a monster class again.
It would be nice if someone got rid of the sacred cow and just design a good PF2 wizard getting even farther away from the PF1/D&D style of wizard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And you don’t have a high ceiling. The best wizard player with the best spell selection will still underperform next to an impérial sorcerer who will have more flexibility, deal more damage and more dangerous debuffs.I agree. But for the counter argument from Mathfinder watch this video.
I do respect his work a lot, but this video in particular feels like "here's all the stuff you already knew about how to play a prepared caster from older systems! Do that and they're fine!" I've been playing prepared casters for over a decade at this point. I'm already doing this stuff...
I think the divine/primal prepared casters have a bit more leeway on this, and his arguments have more mileage there, given their better features and ability to just prepare any common spell on their lists. But wizard really isn't benefitting in the same way. A lot of the benefits of prepared that Mathfinder is touting—particularly the ability to adapt well to your party in a more west marches or PFS kind of game, which is genuinely relevant to a lot of people—aren't very well realized on spellbook casters in the way they are for clerics or druids.
If it were true, it would be ok.
I mean it is decidedly ok. It's just kind of lame.
I do think there are meaningful differences in knowing how to make use of a spell list still. The divine list does have silver bullets in the sense that the sanctified trait is specifically made to trigger certain specific weaknesses, but since the remaster, it's also one of the best lists for general-purpose blasting, because spirit damage very rarely gets resisted, let alone avoided entirely. Previously, if a creature wasn't good or evil, your good or evil damage just did nothing, whereas now you'll always be able to damage a creature unless they're a construct or the like. This I think is one of the major ways the divine list became a lot stronger, because its blasting is now much more consistent. By contrast, you can't pile on just one damage type as an arcane caster, because you will encounter resistances and immunities.
I'm also starting to find the comparisons to the Sorcerer a bit tiresome. It's not just that arcane Sorcerers still have to vary their damage types and saves like everyone else, the entire class is deliberately built to be as simple a caster as possible, which is why it uses spontaneous spellcasting, why it makes some of the player's spell choices for them, and why it focuses all of its budget on raw spell output and spell power. You don't need to think very hard about adding half your level or double that to your damage spell: it just works, and that's the point. I get that there's not really an aim for a solution here (and, let's be honest, this thread has mostly devolved into aimless, repetitive complaining at this point), but it feels like at least a handful of people here would be better-served by just playing a Sorcerer, instead of waiting for the Wizard to somehow be turned into the Sorcerer v2.0.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do think there are meaningful differences in knowing how to make use of a spell list still. The divine list does have silver bullets in the sense that the sanctified trait is specifically made to trigger certain specific weaknesses, but since the remaster, it's also one of the best lists for general-purpose blasting, because spirit damage very rarely gets resisted, let alone avoided entirely. Previously, if a creature wasn't good or evil, your good or evil damage just did nothing, whereas now you'll always be able to damage a creature unless they're a construct or the like. This I think is one of the major ways the divine list became a lot stronger, because its blasting is now much more consistent. By contrast, you can't pile on just one damage type as an arcane caster, because you will encounter resistances and immunities.
I'm also starting to find the comparisons to the Sorcerer a bit tiresome. It's not just that arcane Sorcerers still have to vary their damage types and saves like everyone else, the entire class is deliberately built to be as simple a caster as possible, which is why it uses spontaneous spellcasting, why it makes some of the player's spell choices for them, and why it focuses all of its budget on raw spell output and spell power. You don't need to think very hard about adding half your level or double that to your damage spell: it just works, and that's the point. I get that there's not really an aim for a solution here (and, let's be honest, this thread has mostly devolved into aimless, repetitive complaining at this point), but it feels like at least a handful of people here would be better-served by just playing a Sorcerer, instead of waiting for the Wizard to somehow be turned into the Sorcerer v2.0.
Who is waiting for the wizard to get better? I stopped playing wizards years ago. It wasn't worth it to have so little.
You're just wrong about the sorcerer. The sorc is not built to be easy. That is a statement of a player that doesn't build many sorcerers and doesn't really understand how versatile and powerful they are due to quality feats and class features superior to the wizard.
If you're good at playing a wizard, you'll be even better playing a sorcerer.
The sorerer can be built to do more class roles as well, which requires understanding how to build a sorcerer to be a healer, blaster, utility, and the variety of caster roles they fill.
You also want to build skills to support your spell strategy. If you're using charms and infiltration, then you want to build deception and diplomacy. If you're setting up blasting, you likely want strong intimidate.
Then it's some as simple as understanding tags so when you take something like Occult Evolution, you know to avoid slotting spells with the mental tag you will rarely use because you can access them on demand with 1 minute of prep time once per day. About as often as you would need it.
You want to do the same as an arcane sorcerer with your spellbook from Arcane Evolution.
You also want to pick the best focus spells to support your spell strategy. And after the Remaster, you want to learn how to best leverage blood magic since they added quite a few useful blood magic feats to enhance your blood magic.
The sorcerer is as simple as the wizard if all you want to do is load in attack spells and blast things. If you want a very powerful sorcerer and you want to use the class for something other than Mr. Combat Caster, then you need to know how to build a spell list to enhance a party and fulfill your role.
That's the whole point: the wizard is supposed to be more complex, but it isn't because it lacks feat options and class abilities that allow for complex, interesting builds.
That's the part the pro-wizard crowd who never plays any other casters doesn't seem to realize or accept. As someone that has played every caster in this game, I know it is true. The wizard feats and class features are severely lacking compared to other caster classes.
The ability to change spells in any reasonable time frame is tied to one thesis, which prevents you from taking another interesting thesis just to leverage the wizard's most unique ability in a reasonable time frame.
On top of that, skills can often accomplish the same goal as the wizard using a spell.
And the never mentioned at all for some reason action cost of using spells.
I bring this up again and again and again and again...wizards use the same number of actions to cast spells. This acts as natural bottleneck on all casting. That means a wizard having extra spell slots is only meaningful if you fight a number of encounters that really taxes the other casters combined spell slots and focus abilities.
And other casters like the bard have far superior one action abilities than the wizard (any caster for that matter). Which means they can cast, then do a really useful one action ability.
It all adds up to the detriment of the wizard in real play who pretty much casts spells exactly like everyone else in combat for the same action cost for the same DC with fewer powerful and interesting class feats and features.
But for some reason, all of us pointing this out are just wrong because Paizo's numbers tell them people love the wizard.
Doesn't matter that I too love the wizard, but can still see The Emperor Has No Clothes as in the wizard has very lackluster design which makes one of the most iconic classes in the history of D&D/PF1 uninteresting until someone at Paizo finally looks closely at the feats and sacred cow class abilities and goes, "We really need to get this class up to speed for PF2. This class is really feeling lackluster and could use a glow up ."
It is mind boggling to me that sorcerer and cleric were improved, but the wizard was made worse with the limited curriculums. It really is. I just can't see how the designers think the more limited curriculums and still lackluster focus spells made for a better class.
I don't even think anyone was even asking for sorcerer and cleric improvements.
The main classes everyone wanted improved were the investigator, swashbuckler, witch, alchemist, the wizard.
They did a bang up job for the swashbuckler. My swashbuckler player loves it now. He was ecstatic at how much they improved the swashbuckler.
The investigator is surprisingly much improved, but that may have table variance. The Pursue a Lead is much more wide open now to the point where a DM can reasonably give the investigator a free action Devise a Strategy for a whole section of a module or a dungeon. It's much looser and open to interpretation.
Alchemist I'm not sure about yet. The Master in bombs and weapons is something we all wanted. The 10 minute refocus bottles I'm not sure work very well.
The witch is much better as far as feats go. Familiars are somewhat useful now. Hexes are about the same. The feats were majorly improved on the witch.
But the wizard? Simple weapons was a long time coming. The curriculums are demonstrably worse and more limited. The focus spells received so little redesign other than a rename that they are basically the same low quality focus spells as prior. The feats are about the same with the addition of a few clunky ones that look ok on paper, but aren't the best to use.
The wizard feels like a class getting completely ignored for a quality redesign. I have mostly given up on them, but I'm mot going to stop pointing out the truth of the difference in caster classes given I play them all to high level and have seen them all in action and built nearly every caster class in the game to know their feats and abilities very well.
It's why I know that though most of the wizard feats are pretty bad, the level 20 feats are amazing. Whoever designed the level 20 wizard feats, we'd like more of that quality at lower levels.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Who is waiting for the wizard to get better? I stopped playing wizards years ago. It wasn't worth it to have so little.
I'm sorry, but if you genuinely have no hope or desire for the Wizard to improve... why are you even here?
You're just wrong about the sorcerer. The sorc is not built to be easy. That is a statement of a player that doesn't build many sorcerers and doesn't really understand how versatile and powerful they are due to quality feats and class features superior to the wizard.
This is an awful lot of bluster for someone whose grasp of the facts appears to be inversely proportionate to their tendency to bloviate. Let's look at the facts, shall we?
So I don't know about you, chief, but it looks to me like the Sorcerer is explictly designed to give lots of power to the player without them needing to think too hard about it. There's for sure a mastery curve, and none of this is a bad thing, but it is otherwise obvious that the Sorcerer is made to be the most accessible spllcaster in the game, and by far. Just to hammer the point home, let's just compare the class to every other caster in Pathfinder:
So yeah, the Sorcerer is the simplest caster around, and so by design. The Wizard is not a simple caster, and although they could stand to be made more accessible, isn't meant to be the simplest caster in the game. Let's then perhaps not complain that they're not like the simplest class in the game when the latter class is right there to be picked.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm also starting to find the comparisons to the Sorcerer a bit tiresome. It's not just that arcane Sorcerers still have to vary their damage types and saves like everyone else, the entire class is deliberately built to be as simple a caster as possible, which is why it uses spontaneous spellcasting, why it makes some of the player's spell choices for them, and why it focuses all of its budget on raw spell output and spell power. You don't need to think very hard about adding half your level or double that to your damage spell: it just works, and that's the point. I get that there's not really an aim for a solution here (and, let's be honest, this thread has mostly devolved into aimless, repetitive complaining at this point), but it feels like at least a handful of people here would be better-served by just playing a Sorcerer, instead of waiting for the Wizard to somehow be turned into the Sorcerer v2.0.
Well, the comparison to the arcane sorcerer is inevitable since they can both do the exact same thing - but the sorcerer is vastly superior in every way.
I understand some people like the fantasy and the RP of a smart wizard over a wiseass sorcerer, and that's a perfectly fine choice - but mechanically, it really is weaker in every way and that shouldn't be.
Let's compare other brands of sorcerers, shall we ?
- The occult sorcerer uses the same list as the bard. They're both arguably good, and they're very different both thematically and mechanically. The bard has less slots but great cantrips, better proficiencies and some great feats. So you can actually choose either one since they both have their strengths and weaknesses.
- The divine sorcerer uses the same list as the oracle or the cloistered cleric. Again, the mechanical choice isn't that clear-cut. Cleric divine font is pretty powerful, some focus spells are great and, although a bit bland, some feats are actually meaningful or enhance a different playstyle. Meanwhile, the remastered oracle now has 4 slots and some great mysteries (some not-so-great) that makes it very competitive. So, depending on what you want to do with your character, you can go with either.
- The primal sorcerer uses the same list as the druid. Well, druid is a bit on the weaker side imo, but it still benefits from very solid feats and focus spells, and you can fully embrace the shapeshifter or animal companion path without locking your archetypes. Primal sorcerer is more powerful overall, but the specificities of the druid give it a fresh perspective and a different experience.
And now comes the imperial sorcerer.
1) The imperial sorcerer is numerically the better blaster, both through sorcerous potency, blood powers and easy access to oracle multiclass. Both casters can throw a fireball, but the sorcerer's will hurt a lot more. And we're not talking about a 5% increase here. Without any investment whatsoever, a lvl 5 sorcerer will deal 6d6+3 (Av 24) to the wizard 6d6 (av 21), which is already a 14% increase. If the sorcerer takes oracle dedication and foretell harm, he now deals 6d6+9 (av 30) to the wizard 21, which is a 42% increase. If the sorcerer uses explosion of power shenanigans, his fireball at level 9 will deal 10d6+15+5d6 (av 67) to the wizard's 35, so almost double the damage. Sure, it's not the same area, but still. And I'm not even talking about blood sovereignty. Meanwhile, the only thing the wizard can do to increase his damage is grab the same oracle dedication, except it costs him more because you need charisma - and still it won't bridge the gap.
2) The imperial sorcerer is numerically the better caster, thanks to ancestral memories. You can cast the exact same slow as the wizard, except you can reduce the opponent's saves from 1 to 3, gaining a leg up that the wizard can only dream of having through Knowledge is Power.
3) Charisma is arguably better than Intelligence. This is no hard fact, mind you, because recall knowledge has its uses, but charisma allows you to get diplomacy, intimidation or deception, which have more uses both in combat and out of combat. Going back to my previous argument, Bon Mot or Intimidation gives you yet another advantage over a wizard when casting a spell - Bon Mot + a will spell makes it so you're way more efficient than any wizard.
4) Focus spells are miles better.
5) Spontaneous is better than prepared. I know you disagree with this, but we've already beat this to death and as far as I'm concerned, it's proven: I can build a spontaneous caster that will 99% of the time be better than your prepared caster, no matter the challenge. And the problem is, the discrepancy is glaring. When the prepared caster can for some reason outperform a spontaneous caster, he'll maybe be 5% more efficient. When the prepared caster gets ambushed with the wrong spell list, he'll be probably 50% less efficient.
So you ask why we compare the wizard to the sorcerer ? Because, except for RP reasons, there's absolutely no reason to play a wizard right now. And I love this class to death, I even wrote a guide about it, so I wish there was a way I could play it without feeling like a weaker version of a sorcerer.
As far as changes/errata that wouldn't really change books much or eat up dev time, I could see them errataing the curriculum spells as mentioned in previous posts to just being extra spells known and wizard becoming a free and clear 4 slot caster. Not an exciting fix, but a functional, minimal impact/effort one.
As far as changes/errata that wouldn't really change books much or eat up dev time, I could see them errataing the curriculum spells as mentioned in previous posts to just being extra spells known and wizard becoming a free and clear 4 slot caster. Not an exciting fix, but a functional, minimal impact/effort one.
I would be very, very, very strongly in favor of this. It doesn't solve everything by a long shot. And there are other fixes I'd prefer over it. But those other fixes are way more complicated, and this is a high impact change with very little associated cost.
Well, the comparison to the arcane sorcerer is inevitable since they can both do the exact same thing - but the sorcerer is vastly superior in every way.
But this is simply not true. Again, the basic fact that the Wizard is a prepared caster and the Sorcerer is spontaneous is a major difference, and their arcane thesis, while not always great, makes them meaningfully different as well. It's one thing to say that these aspects of the Wizard aren't always great and could be improved -- I for one think that's the case -- and another thing to dismiss them entirely.
Well, the comparison to the arcane sorcerer is inevitable since they can both do the exact same thing - but the sorcerer is vastly superior in every way.But this is simply not true. Again, the basic fact that the Wizard is a prepared caster and the Sorcerer is spontaneous is a major difference, and their arcane thesis, while not always great, makes them meaningfully different as well. It's one thing to say that these aspects of the Wizard aren't always great and could be improved -- I for one think that's the case -- and another thing to dismiss them entirely.
Well, like I said, "the basic fact that the wizard is a prepared caster" is a drawback, not an advantage. You might disagree with it but throughout the threads, those who tell you spontaneous is miles better have provided proofs and spell lists, while those who think prepared is better never even provided a single situation where it *could* be better.
Well, like I said, "the basic fact that the wizard is a prepared caster" is a drawback, not an advantage. You might disagree with it but throughout the threads, those who tell you spontaneous is miles better have provided proofs and spell lists, while those who think prepared is better never even provided a single situation where it *could* be better.
So, because an echo chamber of about five people keeps parroting the same opinion over and over, it must be true? Not only is your claim an easily-refuted lie, with several different posts on this thread alone providing simple arguments and examples showing the merits of spell preparation, it's not very difficult to think of situations where being able to prepare spells carries an advantage over a fixed repertoire. In fact, this is something that even a little bit of play experience in a campaign that lasts more than a single adventuring day would be able to showcase, particularly for the Wizard. It is little wonder that with a starting point as flawed as this, you'd want to turn the Wizard into something more like the Fighter, when the two classes are just about as far removed from one another as can be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, because an echo chamber of about five people keeps parroting the same opinion over and over, it must be true? Not only is your claim an easily-refuted lie, with several different posts on this thread alone providing simple arguments and examples showing the merits of spell preparation, it's not very difficult to think of situations where being able to prepare spells carries an advantage over a fixed repertoire. In fact, this is something that even a little bit of play experience in a campaign that lasts more than a single adventuring day would be able to showcase, particularly for the Wizard. It is little wonder that with a starting point as flawed as this, you'd want to turn the Wizard into something more like the Fighter, when the two classes are just about as far removed from one another as can be.
Well, now you're being kind of condescending - and you STILL didn't give me a single example where prepared would be better than a good, tailored spontaneous spell list backed up by a staff and consumables.
I can give you tons of examples where a prepared spell list will fail hard, EVEN IF you're a crafty player AND you took time to do some reconnaissance. I'm still waiting on the opposite.
Lightning bolt springs to mind, for small areas where fireball would cause friendly fire or when you know an enemy is resistant/immune to fire.In general, the ability to switch to a different damage type spell to avoid a resistance/immunity or trigger a weakness is where it's going to help.
That's true, but a good spontaneous caster already has different spells for different situations, and can be more flexible as well.
Through signature spells, any top slot of a spontaneous spellcaster can be used for a big AOE like fireball, a boss killer like Force Barrage, a debuff like Mass slow or a situational spell like dispel magic.
And the higher you get in levels, the more you're flexible. A level 20 sorcerer with Arcane/greater arcane Evolution can indifferently cast no less than 15 different spells with his top slots (5 regular + 10 signature), compared to the wizard's 3 + 1 fixed + 1 DBI. How is that fair ?
So either the wizard fills his top slots with nukes (hence being way less flexible) or he cherry picks a bit of everything, and becomes less effective if there are no packs of mobs or something to dispel.
If my party could only pick one, I'd pick CHA for both it's in-combat and out-of-combat utility. But if my party could pick two, I'd go with 1 CHA and 1 INT, not 2 CHAs. YMMV but character selection and building for me is not...
That's very true, and the reason why I said this was up for debate. Depending on the campaign, Society, Arcana, Occultism and even crafting can be very useful.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, now you're being kind of condescending - and you STILL didn't give me a single example where prepared would be better than a good, tailored spontaneous spell list backed up by a staff and consumables.
I can give you tons of examples where a prepared spell list will fail hard, EVEN IF you're a crafty player AND you took time to do some reconnaissance. I'm still waiting on the opposite.
To be fair, it's not that difficult to come up with combat situations where a wizard can get a slightly better solution than a sorcerer. ("Slightly better" here is stuff like increasing save failure rate by 5-10%, perhaps due to a unique property of the spell like thunderstrike vs armored foes; proccing weakness damage; inflicting a slightly more debilitating status than what you would otherwise have, like stupefied against a caster instead of clumsy or frightened. That sort of thing.) It is more difficult to find a combat situation where you can get a significantly better solution, but they can exist (e.g., casting Dessicate against a plant creature). I think it's really just about if the upsides of prepared casting (especially spellbook casting) outweigh the downsides. To wit:
-How valuable is the slightly better solution? It is obviously better, definitionally. But is it better by an amount that outweighs access to the benefits of spontaneous casting? Does access to slightly better solutions—not a guarantee of being able to use them, mind, just the possibility of doing so with extensive preparation and enough foreknowledge—outweigh the limitations and in-day inflexibility inherent to prepared casting? (If you're spellsub, you mitigate this somewhat, yes. But how does that weigh against not having a familiar, not having the staff nexus benefit to build around, or not having spell blending?)
-How often will a slightly better solution actually be available to you? I.E., how often will you run into a situation where you have the access to the spell needed, the information to know to prepare it, and the time to prepare it? If you're spellsub, how often will you be able to scout ahead and take time to reprepare? Will scouting require you to use resources (like invisibility) or incur risks (like the rogue triggering encounters early) that you wouldn't otherwise?
-How often will you run into a situation where there's a significantly better solution? How often will you have that solution, be able to use it, etc.?
-Finally, the bane of these conversations: how often is it the slightly better (or seriously better) solution something the sorc can't cover with Arcane Evolution? I.E., how often will you need more than one non-evergreen spell to really get things going?
Out of combat situations are somewhat more likely to be a win for a prepared caster, but you're also not required to do things out of combat in the way you are in combat. In combat, no one else can take your actions for you... but out of combat, while you could make a ladder out of thin air (and it could be a really good idea, especially if the wall is extremely difficult to climb for your level), someone else might just be able to climb the wall and drop a rope ladder instead. This is the whole "the wizard and sorcerer can rely on the party to help them solve problems and cover their weaknesses" thing that Deriven is getting at.
EDIT: Because it's kind of weird to quote someone and respond mostly with agreement/expansion on their points, I'd like to be clear that's more what I'm doing. I don't really disagree with you on this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And you're hiding behind denial, petty insults, and wilful ignorance.
I don't think I insulted anyone ever.
I linked you three separate posts which you clearly didn't read. Let's read them together
Sure.
Preparing spells lets you Counterspell more effectively by preparing against a spellcaster. By contrast, if the spell you want to counter isn't in your repertoire, you're not going to have this ability, and taking up a spell in your repertoire on level-up just to Counterspell someone is a big cost.
Well, no, that's actually the opposite.
Like I said, a spontaneous caster has up to 15 different spells for use in his top slots, while the wizard can have a max of 5 different spells. So there's way more chance a sorcerer can counterspell than a wizard.So as a wizard, you get to prepare for instance fireball, slow and haste, and that lets you counteract one of those spells once. Meanwhile, the sorcerer with the same list can counteract more than once, and he can also counterspell any of his signature spells, like force barrage or blazing bolt.
However, the wizard gets Clever Counterspell at level 12 that allows him to counter with any spell in his book. That's an awesome feat actually, one of the few I consider useful in the wizard list, and I agree with you on that - but since it's level 12, it will never be used in any PFS game and only in late APs.
Preparing spells lets you prepare more niche spells for the day that you wouldn't want around all the time. A spontaneous caster isn't going to want to fill their repertoire up with lots of niche spells, though they might certainly take a few.
The annoying thing with this conversation is that I ask you for specific examples and you always answer with generalities. What kind of niche spells will you prepare that:
A) are not on the sorcerer way bigger spell list than yours due to signature spellsB) cannot be reproduced by a staff, a wand or a scroll
C) cannot be reproduced by Arcane Evolution.
Situation A
"I will prepare blazing bolt in my top slots", says the wizard. So now I have an advantage against those pesky trolls.
"Funny that, I already have it as a sig spell, so any of my top slots can do that AND much more. I win", answers the sorcerer.
"Rhaaa, damn cocky sorcerer !"
Situation B
"HA, we're trapped in this underwater corridor. I'm lucky that I prepared Water Breathing !" gloats the wizard.
"Yeah, I always carry a few scrolls of water breathing, they're pretty cheap. Want one ?"
"Rhaaa, damn cocky sorcerer !"
Situation C
"Ha, tomorrow we'll be entering a dungeon with mobs vulnerable to acid ! You don't have any acid spells in your selection now do you ?" the wizard chortles.
"No, I don't", the sorcerer admits.
"See, NOW I can show my superiority. In this 1% scenario, I'll fill my top slots with acid arrow ! HAHAHA I RULE !"
"Hmm, ok. I'll take acid arrow as a new spell thanks to Arcane Evolution, then. So now I have the same top slots as you, except they're way more flexible".
"Rhaa, damn cocky sorcerer".
FWIW, the brew I linked earlier does offer a compromise by letting you become a flexible spellcaster as an arcane thesis. It wouldn't give you a +2 to all of your spells (another thesis does something like that though), but it would at least let you access the best of both worlds at the cost of your fourth spell slot. I do recommend taking a look in general, because there might be quite a few options you'd like. It would certainly beat complaining about how the Wizard isn't more like the Sorcerer or the Fighter, at the very least.
I appreciate this answer, although homebrew is exactly this - homebrew - and as such is table and GM-dependant.
But if you read my post, you noticed that spontaneous spellcasting vs prepared is just one of the many drawbacks of the wizard. It would go some way towards fixing it, but it still would need something to let it have a distinctive feel.
If it were a spontaneous caster, it would still have worse feats, worse damage and worse DC than a sorcerer. So some people suggested fixes, like being able to adapt your spell list on the fly when you DBI.
I, for one, welcome the wizard as the master of intelligence and wizardry (hence the name), so I would welcome a metamagic thesis that would for instance allow you to apply metamagic freely either at will or once per 10 minutes if it's too powerful.
Lightning bolt springs to mind, for small areas where fireball would cause friendly fire or when you know an enemy is resistant/immune to fire.In general, the ability to switch to a different damage type spell to avoid a resistance/immunity or trigger a weakness is where it's going to help.
That's true, but a good spontaneous caster already has different spells for different situations, and can be more flexible as well.
Through signature spells, any top slot of a spontaneous spellcaster can be used for a big AOE like fireball, a boss killer like Force Barrage, a debuff like Mass slow or a situational spell like dispel magic.
And the higher you get in levels, the more you're flexible. A level 20 sorcerer with Arcane/greater arcane Evolution can indifferently cast no less than 15 different spells with his top slots (5 regular + 10 signature), compared to the wizard's 3 + 1 fixed + 1 DBI. How is that fair ?
So either the wizard fills his top slots with nukes (hence being way less flexible) or he cherry picks a bit of everything, and becomes less effective if there are no packs of mobs or something to dispel.
That's very true, and the reason why I said this was up for debate. Depending on the campaign, Society, Arcana, Occultism and even crafting can be very useful.If my party could only pick one, I'd pick CHA for both it's in-combat and out-of-combat utility. But if my party could pick two, I'd go with 1 CHA and 1 INT, not 2 CHAs. YMMV but character selection and building for me is not...
But the point was to fix a list of choices to have a point of comparison. if the specific sorcerer I suggested for comparison had lighting bolt they would have to have given up one of slow, fireball, or wooden double. And since this particular sorcerer didnt choose lightning bolt they would have to have bought the level three scroll and the feat arcane evolution to get that one spell into rep, which is fine but then that is it for that day. So then that wizard is using a feat to get a more limited aspect of prepared casting for the same cost of a prepared caster goldwise to get the scrolls.
But there are more spells to want to have that a wizard can both have and switch to when you know you need them that the sorcerer I chose for example just wouldnt have.
Something like day's weight. This spell is great when you know getting into fear range is a death sentence or even fear range +30ft with reach spell. By the way a sorcerer actually has good feat options such that not every sorcerer is going to even have reach spell. So the wizard knowing they dont want to be anywhere near foes can still debuff them at 120ft away or 150ft with reach spell.
Another spell the sorcerer will never pick up is control water. its actually pretty powerful if your going somewhere where you know you can use it to make the entire 50 by 50 ft area within 500ft 10ft underwater. all it takes is some scouting ahead and picking where you have your battles. Things without the water trait are screwed now having to swim to you, with the water trait then they might get slowed. The party can pick off the things that do get to them, pair it with some rank 2 acid grip spells and rank 4 hydraulic torrent and you can stagger the progress of foes that started with a group to delay their arrival and do some damage once they get within 120 ft or 150 with reach spell or 60/90 respectively. Sorcerers just are not picking up water control and acid grip or hydraulic torrent is not often picked up by them. This is a specific set up that works togather to control distance against land creatures where you can raise the water level, very conditional but effective in the conditions. And for the wizard that days set up can be changed up completely for the next day if the set up is useless that day. A sorcerer is not doing this.
Basically a sorcerer does not have the spell selection breadth to pick up spells that are better in combination with each other in isolated situations if they are going to get all of the ever green spells at each rank. So really that means the rest of the arcane list are not really sorcerer spells they are wizard and witch spells.
Who is waiting for the wizard to get better? I stopped playing wizards years ago. It wasn't worth it to have so little.I'm sorry, but if you genuinely have no hope or desire for the Wizard to improve... why are you even here?
You're just wrong about the sorcerer. The sorc is not built to be easy. That is a statement of a player that doesn't build many sorcerers and doesn't really understand how versatile and powerful they are due to quality feats and class features superior to the wizard.This is an awful lot of bluster for someone whose grasp of the facts appears to be inversely proportionate to their tendency to bloviate. Let's look at the facts, shall we?
Of the two modes of spellcasting, prepared and spontaneous, spontaneous is the simpler mode of spellcasting. This is the mode of spellcasting chosen for the Sorcerer.
Sorcerous potency, one of the features added to the Sorcerer in the remaster (because everyone kept taking Dangerous Sorcery), is a straight-up buff to your damage and healing via spell slots. This is one of the simplest and most class features in the game, particularly for casters, and is a direct buff to much of what you'll do.
Blood magic, your other major class feature, gives you a choice between two simple effects, which often includes further additional damage. Again, this is among the most straightforward features a caster can get.
Your repertoire as a Sorcerer forces you to take bloodline spells, making some of your choices for you.
Finally, as a Sorcerer, you're given four unrestricted spell slots per rank, directly synergizing with the aforementioned features that boost your slot spells' power. So I don't know about you, chief, but it looks to me like the Sorcerer is explictly designed to give lots of power to the player without them needing to think too hard about it. There's for sure a mastery curve, and none of this is a bad thing, but it is otherwise obvious that the...
Once again, you show no knowledge of how to build a sorcerer at all. Your use of sesquipedalian words doesn't change that. Look at that, a big word to sound like I know what I'm talking about.
Spontaneous casting is requires extensive knowledge of spells to build a quality spell list and leverage feats like Arcane and Occult Evolution to maximize their effectiveness. You would know that if you played many sorcerers.
Blood Magic: If your reviewed sorcerers in the Remaster, you would know they added blood magic effects like Explosion of Power and Tap into the Blood to give sorcerers more add on functions for blood sorcery.
Bloodline spells are another choice to make that requires knowledge of the spells. what will you get as a base spell and what spell grouping for bloodline spells give you the best base bloodline spells to build a list.
Do you also know that they Arcane and Occult get a feat at level 16 called Greater Mental Evolution which expands their repertoire to 45 spells known with a flexible mental tag spell with Occult Evolution and a flexible signature spell or added spell with Arcane Evolution?
Let me stop there. Why don't you go give the bard and sorcerer a closer read because it sounds like Teridax doesn't understand how to build a quality sorcerer. Yet he wants to create a list showing that he clearly doesn't know what sorcerers can do.
You want to discuss one of the other classes now and see what you know? I know them all to level 20. Almost every class very well to 20, but especially the casters other than the Animist, which I haven't spent much time on since it is new.
Spell preparation lets you heighten the same spell to different ranks without needing it to take up multiple spaces in your repertoire or even your spellbook, much less use up one of your precious signature spells. This lets a prepared spellcaster allocate their spellslots much more precisely. I and the person I quoted were both wrong on the number of spells a Wizard adds to their spellbook, by the way, and the class gets more.
So to be very clear: there have been plenty of examples of the advantages of spell preparation on this very thread, and it is not difficult to come up with them either. To also be very clear: I am not saying spell preparation is better than spontaneous casting or even as good; I am merely pointing out that it has its own merits, and that if any class in the game was going to be a prepared spellcaster, it would be the Wizard. You can certainly criticize Vancian spellcasting for being overly rigid and unfriendly to newer players, because it is, but to pretend that it has literally no benefits whatsoever is wrong, point blank. If you absolutely cannot abide spell preparation in any manner, then the Wizard is probably not the class for you, and that's okay.
FWIW, the brew I linked earlier does offer a compromise by letting you become a flexible spellcaster as an arcane thesis. It wouldn't give you a +2 to all of your spells (another thesis does something like that though), but it would at least let you access the best of both worlds at the cost of your fourth spell slot. I do recommend taking a look in general, because there might be quite a few options you'd like. It would certainly beat complaining about how the Wizard isn't more like the Sorcerer or the Fighter, at the very least..
How do you post this when this has been clearly refuted?
It doesn't take up multiple spells known. If you take dispel magic or a similar spell as a signature spell, you can use it at different levels for every spell level you have.
Whereas a prepared caster must prepare it at multiple different levels taking up precious slots in their repertoire.
A spontaneous arcane caster with arcane evolution can make any spell in their repertoire a signature spell per day or add a spell known in the highest slot if they're going to need it for a day.
A spontaneous caster gets 9 signature spells plus possible additional signature spells from feats which give them immense flexibility in designing their Spell Repertoire.
How do you not know this while trying to talk down to people with far more knowledge of how these classes work than you seem to have? How do you not have the self-awareness to know when what you post is provably untrue and obviously so if you had even a basic understanding of signature spells and spontaneous casting and feats like Arcane Evolution or the Polymath bard.
Once again, you show no knowledge of how to build a sorcerer at all. Your use of sesquipedalian words doesn't change that. Look at that, a big word to sound like I know what I'm talking about.
If words like "bloviate" are truly that exotic to you, then I don't think I'm to blame. Similarly, you are projecting your own ignorance here: you seem to believe that blood magic feats are core to the class, that bloodline spells that are pre-selected for you are "another choice", and that a level 16 feat will somehow make a class less accessible at level 1. You also continue to bloviate over the complications of spontaneous spellcasting, and in so doing completely miss the point, which I'll be happy to reiterate to you:
Of the two modes of spellcasting, prepared and spontaneous, spontaneous is the simpler mode of spellcasting. This is the mode of spellcasting chosen for the Sorcerer.
I did try to make this as basic a point as I could the first time, but just to make sure you understand: nobody is saying spontaneous spellcasting is the simplest thing ever, only that it is the simpler mode of spell retention over prepared spellcasting. By combining all of the simplest features you could have on a spellcaster, the Sorcerer therefore manages to be the easiest spellcaster to pick up, as shown with the comparisons to every other spellcaster. For all the sound and fury in your posts, you have yet to refute this or even enter the ballpark of relevant discourse. Perhaps if you spent less time bragging about how much better you think yourself than everyone else, and more time doing the barest minimum of research to back up your hilariously empty claims, you'd get to show some knowledge on the matter, rather than simply tell.
It doesn't take up multiple spells known. If you take dispel magic or a similar spell as a signature spell, you can use it at different levels for every spell level you have.
I would encourage you to actually read the post you're trying to "refute":
Also, the Sorcerer very much does not have "way bigger spell list", and their signature spells only cover a fraction of their repertoire. In order to cast the same niche utility spell at different ranks, you will need to have the spell multiple times in your repertoire, which is costly (but still less costly than dedicating an entire signature spell to this purpose).
I find it hard to believe that you've played a Sorcerer to level 20, let alone literally every class, when you also think it's a good idea to make niche utility spells that only heighten at specific ranks your signature spells.
A spontaneous arcane caster with arcane evolution can make any spell in their repertoire a signature spell per day or add a spell known in the highest slot if they're going to need it for a day.
And again, you should perhaps read first to avoid embarrassing yourself:
Last time I checked, Arcane Evolution lets you prepare one (1) spell per day, or make one (1) spell already in your repertoire a signature spell. If you think that's powerful, wait until you hear about the Wizard, who at 4th level can prepare literally quadruple that amount. And it only gets better at higher levels! Oh, and in order to prepare a spell and add it to your repertoire with Arcane Evolution, you need to Learn the Spell first, which as this echo chamber often repeats for the Wizard, isn't a given.
Oh look, it's almost as if this response was meant for you.
How do you not have the self-awareness to know when what you post is provably untrue and obviously so if you had even a basic understanding of signature spells and spontaneous casting and feats like Arcane Evolution or the Polymath bard.
So, just to be clear:
How do you post this when this has been clearly refuted?
Literally every single point you have put forth to "refute" my post was itself directly refuted by the contents of said post, which you either did not read or did not understand. You make wild accusations of lack of understanding, experience, or self-awareness, all while making it crystal clear that these failings are on your part. Your breathless, pointlessly aggressive posts have contributed nothing of value, and this could have all been easily avoided if you had simply stopped to think.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Spell preparation lets you heighten the same spell to different ranks without needing it to take up multiple spaces in your repertoire or even your spellbook, much less use up one of your precious signature spells. This lets a prepared spellcaster allocate their spellslots much more precisely. I and the person I quoted were both wrong on the number of spells a Wizard adds to their spellbook, by the way, and the class gets more.
So to be very clear: there have been plenty of examples of the advantages of spell preparation on this very thread, and it is not difficult to come up with them either. To also be very clear: I am not saying spell preparation is better than spontaneous casting or even as good; I am merely pointing out that it has its own merits, and that if any class in the game was going to be a prepared spellcaster, it would be the Wizard. You can certainly criticize Vancian spellcasting for being overly rigid and unfriendly to newer players, because it is, but to pretend that it has literally no benefits whatsoever is wrong, point blank. If you absolutely cannot abide spell preparation in any manner, then the Wizard is probably not the class for you, and that's okay.
FWIW, the brew I linked earlier does offer a compromise by letting you become a flexible spellcaster as an arcane thesis. It wouldn't give you a +2 to all of your spells (another thesis does something like that though), but it would at least let you access the best of both worlds at the cost of your fourth spell slot. I do recommend taking a look in general, because there might be quite a few options you'd like. It would certainly beat complaining about how the Wizard isn't more like the Sorcerer or the Fighter, at the very least..
How do you post this when this has been clearly refuted?
It doesn't take up multiple spells known. If you take dispel magic or a similar spell as a signature spell, you can use it at different levels for every spell level you have.
Whereas a prepared caster must...
To be fair sig spell selection is limited. you do have to make choices, if its dispel magic it wont be others you might have wanted. That is actually the feature of arcane evolution i think is powerful. getting to pick daily a new sig spell.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I bet L1-10 there's practically no difference in 'party rounds to kill' between sorcerer and wizard. But yeah, it's a bit of a clunkier, more-forward-planning-required road.
Lower levels is where, in my experience, the difference is more pronounced, not less.
Wizard's have to split out their potential combat vs utility options ahead of time and represents an opportunity cost that is recoverable - mostly - only once a day.
A Wizard who preps a utility spell forgoes the use of that spell slot for damage and vice versa.
Since Sorcerers can make this decision more on the fly, and combat is generally the aspect of the game with the most limiting factors, the ability to forgo a utility spell when - in that moment - you really need a fireball, is paramount.
Plus, you know, Sorcerers inherently do more damage these days anyhow.
I bet L1-10 there's practically no difference in 'party rounds to kill' between sorcerer and wizard. But yeah, it's a bit of a clunkier, more-forward-planning-required road.Lower levels is where, in my experience, the difference is more pronounced, not less.
Wizard's have to split out their potential combat vs utility options ahead of time and represents an opportunity cost that is recoverable - mostly - only once a day.
A Wizard who preps a utility spell forgoes the use of that spell slot for damage and vice versa.
Since Sorcerers can make this decision more on the fly, and combat is generally the aspect of the game with the most limiting factors, the ability to forgo a utility spell when - in that moment - you really need a fireball, is paramount.
Plus, you know, Sorcerers inherently do more damage these days anyhow.
But that just means the sorcerer is forgoing the utility spell alltogether because it doesn't make the cut for repertoire selection.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This usually happens when comparing spontaneous vs Prepared.
Spontaneous is treated as though they know the entire tradition's spell list instead of having to make hard choices and forgo the rest.
The rebuttals assume the particular sorcerer chose the spell needed for the rebuttal. But an actual sorcerer made choices and is not going to be able to answer to every situation in the same way.
Prepared gets as much of it as access and GP allows.
|
Well, like I said, "the basic fact that the wizard is a prepared caster" is a drawback, not an advantage. You might disagree with it but throughout the threads, those who tell you spontaneous is miles better have provided proofs and spell lists, while those who think prepared is better never even provided a single situation where it *could* be better.Well, the comparison to the arcane sorcerer is inevitable since they can both do the exact same thing - but the sorcerer is vastly superior in every way.But this is simply not true. Again, the basic fact that the Wizard is a prepared caster and the Sorcerer is spontaneous is a major difference, and their arcane thesis, while not always great, makes them meaningfully different as well. It's one thing to say that these aspects of the Wizard aren't always great and could be improved -- I for one think that's the case -- and another thing to dismiss them entirely.
In game design terms, spontaneous casting is intended to be a drawback, and prepared casting is intended to be an advantage.
Lots of people have made very good arguments in this thread about how many of the supporting structures and rules (like generous amounts of signature spells) change that balance. But that is due to those other elements, not to the underlying prepared vs spontaneous distinction.
In a vacuum, prepared > spontaneous -- or at least is believed to be by the people who designed the game.