| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(and notice how the loudest complainers all appear unable to cite even a single concrete mechanic they like about the Wizard)
- I like the idea of prepared casting, even though I find it less efficient than spontaneous.
- I like the idea of an INT-based caster (as an aside, I wish religion and nature were also INT-skills, and I wish the wizard had some feats to help with recall knowledge when a Thaumaturge can just wave his hands and get the full monster stat block).- I like the idea of spell blending and spell substitution. I wrote a (bad) guide about it when other guides advised to take improved familiar.
- I like the idea of specializing into a school of magic.
There are lots of ideas I like, but the way it's implemented is indeed lacking IMO.
I like the idea of a feat the wizard can take mid level to improve their thesis or dip into a second.
- Spell Blending is interesting because it allows a wizard to customize their spell slot allocation. So a benefit of a later thesis feat could look like reducing the cost in a limited way like the first trade of slots for a higher one nets 2(two for one only happens once per preparation), allowing a higher slot for the trade than normal(again for one trade of slots per preparation). This would be at least level 8 to be balanced right?
Staff nexus should allow for more customizable staves. The feat benefit could allow a wizard to add another spell to a staff they craft(maybe highest rank -1 or -2) in addition to the rank 1 spell they got at level 1. They could add to the new staff any spell in their spellbook with the above limitation or have a scroll present same limitation while crafting by succeeding at a learn spell check( this also adds the spell to their spellbook.)
Improved Familiar Attunement - spellcasting assistant - while your familiar is within 5ft of you and you give up an action to give them 2 actions they can use one of those actions to begin the casting of a spell from a wand or scroll in their possession. You must then use an action to complete the casting of the spell. The spell treats the familiars square as the origin. With same basic rules as the familiar spellcasting ability for spell attack and spell dc and spell drawbacks.
Spell Substitution - Once per day you can use spell substitution as a 3 action activity as you pull out your spellbook and realign a spell slot to a new spell. This can be done with a split spell slot as well.
Experimental Spellshaping - Choose one slot for each spell rank 1 below your highest rank. You prepare those slots as though they include a spellshape you know as part of the their normal action cost.
Bond Conservation, Explosive Arrival, Advanced School Spell, Forcible Energy and the Counterspell feat lines are basically the only exceptions to this that I really think have any worth before level 14, and the first two of these feats aren't even that good.
Most of these feats are not great. Bond Conservation being the best one with a Universalist caster.
Why do you think Counterspell is a good feat? How many wizard players are taking counterspell given the 50/50 success rate and requirement of the exact spell to counter it at the right level? Are you really making that roll and are you really expending a high level resource to counter a spell that may fail rather than using the spell as an effect?
Or is this just remembering how good counterspell was in PF1? In PF1 dispel magic could be used to counterspell with a roll while using the actual spell against the actual spell was an automatic success. That mechanic doesn't exist in PF2.
To Counterspell in PF2, you need to have the exact spell at the right level and then make a 50/50 success roll to counter a substantial from a dangerous caster.
So not sure why we have people bringing up counterspell in PF2 as I would love to hear who is taking this feat and using this with any kind of consistent success. I'm not talking about the occasional anecdote of "this one time it worked and was amazing." I'm talking consistently using it with the resource expenditure and preparation required for it to be effective where it is worth slotting the feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The wizard is such a powerful archetype in fantasy books, movies, and games that loads of players are drawn to it, but everyone has a different idea of what it should be. If you got 10 PF2E role players in a room and asked them to list their core, most important, class-defining things a wizard should have/be/do, you're going to get 11 different lists.
I think most people would agree that, at least in the context of TTRPGs, a wizard is the equivalent of a magical scientist. Wizards delve into magical formulas and theories to investigates how to further deepen their own magical knowledge, as well as discover new spells or how to create them. They also are one of the few casters that require education, likely involving some kind of school or academia, so its clear magic is seen as science in this world.
So maybe a different approach is to say: let's start with Paizo's take on the wizard. Not mine, not yours. It's there in the book. That's their vision of what the wizard is, in their game. Keeping as much of that Golarion, Pathfinder wizard vision intact as possible, what sort of minimal, minor tweaks can we suggest to Paizo which doesn't change it's essential character but brings it "up to snuff" with other full casters in the Remaster?
That's a great point, actually.
From Paizo's very own description, You provide a well of knowledge about arcane matters and solve arguments with logic.
It also says that When enemies pull out tricks like invisibility or flight, you answer with spells like glitterdust or earth bind, leveling the field for your allies.
So, if we go by flavor alone, a wizard should be two main things:
1) He should be really smart and use his intelligence to help the group
2) He should always have the right spell on hand when needed.
As for 1), the wizard is a bit lacking. His main attribute is INT, but he doesn't get any feat or feature to help him identify monsters, decipher texts or solve puzzles.
An investigator can be way better at INT skills thanks to double the skill increases, while a thaumaturge is just better at identifying monster.
Also, YMMV but depending on the APs, a lot of opponents, especially high levels, are fiends and that falls on religion, which is a WIS skill. So until you get unified theory, you're pretty hosed.
So I think something that would help the fantasy of an all-knowing wizard without being too much of a buff would be to help him a bit on this front. Maybe give him something like unified theory earlier on, or give him automatic progression in Arcana.
As for 2), I find the wizard lacking as well. It's true that spell substitution might help when you know what's coming and you have a 10mn break, but it certainly doesn't help when you're in the middle of a situation and you suddenly need to "help your group with earthbind or glitterdust". Actually, since a spontaneous caster has more possibilities for each slot, he has more chance to have the right one on call at the right time than the wizard, and that doesn't sit right with me.
So we could maybe work something out with Infinite Possibilities. It's a level 18 feat that says:
You can prepare a spell slot that exists in your mind as many different possibilities at once. Once during your daily preparations, you can use a spell slot to hold that infinite potential, rather than using it to prepare a spell. You can use this spell slot to cast any spell from your spellbook that’s at least 2 ranks lower than the slot you designate; the spell acts in all ways as a spell of 2 ranks lower. You don’t have any particular spell prepared in that slot until you cast it.
That's actually great, and helps the wizard to always have a solution at his fingertips. Problem is, it's a lvl 18 feat so most wizards won't ever use it and those who do are at the end of an AP.
How about, instead of what I wanted first (all theories given for free), this could be given for free at level 5 (when it starts being useful). Would it totally unbalance the game ? It's a ONE TIME PER DAY thing, and you sacrifice a slot to get a spell TWO LEVELS lower, so I don't think it's that powerful (it's basically a scroll that you don't have to use) - but it certainly fits the wizard fantasy and would be convenient. And now you're actually the problem solver that, at least once a day, gets the perfect solution at the perfect time.
Reading the wizard description, I think those are the direction Paizo wanted for their character, and I believe this would help give him a better identity. It would still be weaker than other casters, but at least it would have purpose.
The wizard player in my fists of the Ruby Phoenix campaign has the counter spell feat chain, and it is effectly “shut down an enemy caster.” You don’t need the exact spell at higher levels, even though having it is fairly common if it is a spell you really want to counter, and the fact a spell of one rank lower can counter a higher rank spell with no penalty makes it pretty efficient. It took a while for it to be good, but by level 14 it is great. Counterspelling is what she primarily uses hero points on as well, since wizards can be pretty good at not needing to use them on much else.
My general sentiment towards wizards is pretty well documented so I have been staying out of this conversation, but sorcerers are definitely the fighters of spell casting in PF2, and that is not the role I would ever want to see wizards fill.
I totally see Infinite Possibilities as a good solution to make wizards more versatile.
I think would probably like a wizard that looked kinda like this:
* Spell Substitution becomes a baseline feature (1st level).
* Improved Familiar Attunement and Staff Nexus are merged into Arcane Bond (similar to how it used to be in PF1e, wizards would have the choice between a familiar and a bonded item. If you chose a bonded item, it would be function like Staff Nexus and you'll require to have your staff to use Drain Bonded Item, while if you chose a familiar, it would work like Improved Familiar Attunement and Drain Bonded Item would become an action for your familiar instead).
* Experimental Spellshaping becomes a baseline feature (7th or 9th level, plus an extra spellshape feat at 13th or 15th level like Combat Flexibility).
* Infinite Possibilities becomes a baseline feature (9th or 11th level, likely an upgrade to Spell Substitution).
I guess it would also be possible for both Spell Blending and Spell Substitution to be the only two arcane theses (kinda like the cleric's doctrines) though in that case Spell Blending would need a similar upgrade to Infinite Possibilities at that same level. If not, I would either make Spell Blending a baseline feature too (though it would probably feel a little bloat-y if wizards gain so much stuff at 1st level) or make it a feat. Spell Combination could fit as an upgrade for Spell Bleding though.
In regards to the wizards's knowledge part, I would prefer if wizards didn't have a RK feature like thaumaturges or (playtest) commanders because even if it would kinda fit, I think would also be a bit out of place too. However, I could see it as a feat. Spellbook prodigy isn't a bad feat per se, but it isn't fantastic either. Probably change it so, on top of its current effect, it could have an effect similar to Dubious Knowledge but without the erroneous answer part. Like if the player asks for a weaknesses and if the target has two you only mention one of them, or if it has one you mention the weakness but not its amount. I'm mostly spit balling at this point.
The wizard player in my fists of the Ruby Phoenix campaign has the counter spell feat chain, and it is effectly “shut down an enemy caster.” You don’t need the exact spell at higher levels, even though having it is fairly common if it is a spell you really want to counter, and the fact a spell of one rank lower can counter a higher rank spell with no penalty makes it pretty efficient. It took a while for it to be good, but by level 14 it is great. Counterspelling is what she primarily uses hero points on as well, since wizards can be pretty good at not needing to use them on much else.
My general sentiment towards wizards is pretty well documented so I have been staying out of this conversation, but sorcerers are definitely the fighters of spell casting in PF2, and that is not the role I would ever want to see wizards fill.
What does great mean to you? What is the success rate of great? How often is that used for you to dedicate feats to Counterspell and Clever Counterspell and maybe Reflect Spell?
Is it specific to the campaign because Fists of the Ruby Phoenix isn't sending you again casters with a high DC to roll against?
You have been promoting wizards for a while now, first time I've heard even you promote the counterspell feat.
Why do you think Counterspell is a good feat? How many wizard players are taking counterspell given the 50/50 success rate and requirement of the exact spell to counter it at the right level? Are you really making that roll and are you really expending a high level resource to counter a spell that may fail rather than using the spell as an effect?
Don't get me wrong, the Counterspell feat itself is not very good at all - at least not until you can get Clever Counterspell to improve it, which is quite good.
There are a lot of creatures that can cast spells in PF2E, and not all of them are going to be bosses that have hugely high DCs for you to roll against and barely ever succeed. Being able to use spell slots that just share traits with what your enemy is casting makes it quite common to identify a spell with Quick Recognition or Oddity Identification, and then find that you have a lower rank slot to try and counter with.
Honestly though, it's one of those things that I would retrain into at a higher level if given the opportunity, or take on a wizard starting at a higher level. Having Counterspell for so long and barely getting to use it because of the strict requirements would feel quite bad in a campaign that started at level 1.
If you have a group of creatures casting something like Sunburst which I've encountered that are lower level compared to your level, is it really better for you to counterspell one of them rather than nuke them?
I have not seen this to be the case. And Shadow Siphon is a better counter for energy damage than having to counter using a spell 1 level lower for a decent chance of success.
I liked and used counterspell a lot in PF1. PF2 analysis makes it better to use the spell that would be used to counterspell to cast on the target casting the spell with rare exception.
In game design terms, spontaneous casting is intended to be a drawback, and prepared casting is intended to be an advantage.
What do you mean in terms of game design terms?
Like I don't see anything to support this assertion. There are clear trade offs between the two and if anything people have made a compelling argument that the stability spontaneous casting allows for is highly advantageous in a lot of situations.
I'm not even sure this is historically true: d20 designers felt the need to nerf spontaneous casters with a delayed spellcasting progression over prepared ones, which if anything implies they were worried it would be too strong if all other things were kept equal.
but I can't grasp the mindset of those who vehemently defend the class as it is. Are they afraid that the wizard will revert to its state in Pathfinder 1? That seems very unlikely, considering the effort its taking to even get the developers to acknowledge that there is anything wrong with the class. There is no way they will make it broken again, so you people can relax.
I feel like you're overthinking it by a lot. Some people think the class is fine and doesn't need improvements and... that's it.
Not everything is a conspiracy.
An investigator can be way better at INT skills thanks to double the skill increases
I mean we got to let the investigator have something.
If you have a group of creatures casting something like Sunburst which I've encountered that are lower level compared to your level, is it really better for you to counterspell one of them rather than nuke them?
In your scenario, no it wouldn't be better to Counterspell one Sunburst cast by one of a group of monsters than it would be to hit them with an AOE spell, and it wouldn't be better than casting Shadow Siphon either.
But there are other scenarios where Counterspell is good to have, like counteracting buff spells cast by minions on a bigger threat, or counteracting debuffs that could cripple you or an ally. So it has a niche, and it's something other spellcasters legitimately can't do as well as a wizard can.
Unfortunately it's not common enough a situation that it is worth the investment in every campaign, but the same can be said for pretty much all wizard exclusive feats except a scant few. I like it as it is, but like most wizard things it could use some improvements.
The wizard is the only one that gets Clever Counterspell. I guess if that niche is needed, it would bein the wizard's favor. Though I've never heard of many wizards taking it since its use case is so rare.
The wizard player in my fists of the Ruby Phoenix campaign has the counter spell feat chain, and it is effectly “shut down an enemy caster.” You don’t need the exact spell at higher levels, even though having it is fairly common if it is a spell you really want to counter, and the fact a spell of one rank lower can counter a higher rank spell with no penalty makes it pretty efficient. It took a while for it to be good, but by level 14 it is great. Counterspelling is what she primarily uses hero points on as well, since wizards can be pretty good at not needing to use them on much else.
My general sentiment towards wizards is pretty well documented so I have been staying out of this conversation, but sorcerers are definitely the fighters of spell casting in PF2, and that is not the role I would ever want to see wizards fill.
I would mostly agree with this. The sorcerer is the better battle caster and they got even better at it in the Remaster. They are the fighter equivalent of the battle hammer caster. Then again the sorcerer has a great Charisma and can really do well with social skills. Charisma is a very powerful stat in PF2.
If we are comparing martials, the wizard is more somewhere between the investigator and rogue as a martial comparative with stronger out of combat utility with enough prep time and a well built spellbook with weaker combat ability, but not quite as bad as the investigator or quite as good as the rogue.
And I'm not that sure staff nexus + spell blending is too much power for a wizard.
I've yet to see a use to Staff Nexus unless your GM is incredibly lenient and lets you get staves of way higher level than advised.
All offensive staves are garbage since their spell level is so low, so the only useful ones are those with utility spells - and really, how many times do you need to cast those in a given day ?
Any caster gets Spell level charges for free and can double down on those charges if needed, and that's already plenty.
The thesis would be more useful if it allowed you to prepare two different staves (or even fuse them), but as written it's pretty awful.
Staves in general are much more there for utility than damage, I'd say -- thanks to how staff charges work, lower-rank spells are really cheap to cast, and as a Wizard you can give yourself even more of those if you want to. Staff Nexus in this respect gives you a mini-Sorcerer in a stick: you have a tiny repertoire, but get to cast spells from it tons of times, which can be useful depending on the spells your staff has. At higher levels, it can also be really good for combat if you have crowd control and utility spells on it like laughing fit, which don't need to be heightened to be amazing (and you can get that particular spell from a Staff of Control).
With all of that said, though, I'd definitely like to see every arcane thesis improved, provided there's enough room in the power budget for it. Being able to prepare additional spells into your staff that you could use the staff to cast until your next daily preparations could add a lot more flexibility to the thesis, for instance, and allowing the addition of a spell of the highest rank you can cast, as opposed to the staff generally being limited to one rank below your maximum, would give a taste of the benefits of spontaneous casting too by having a reliable fallback option in combat.
And I'm not that sure staff nexus + spell blending is too much power for a wizard.
I've yet to see a use to Staff Nexus unless your GM is incredibly lenient and lets you get staves of way higher level than advised.
All offensive staves are garbage since their spell level is so low, so the only useful ones are those with utility spells - and really, how many times do you need to cast those in a given day ?
Any caster gets Spell level charges for free and can double down on those charges if needed, and that's already plenty.
The thesis would be more useful if it allowed you to prepare two different staves (or even fuse them), but as written it's pretty awful.
They really did ruin staves in PF2. They had made them real cool in PF1, then turned them into one or two extra castings a day in PF2.
One of the few good uses of Staff Nexus I've read on these forums is with a high level staff loading it with a bunch of charges to break it. Though that would be cool to do once, it's not a strategy to pursue often.
With the new sure strike limitation, even the staff of divination is much weaker.
I have one player that took Staff Thesis just because he liked the classic wizard staff look and enjoying being able to transfer an extra spell and cantrip to a staff. It did next to nothing for him.
I do miss quality staves. I miss quality magic items for the most party. One thing my players really complain about is the lack of cool magic items like they used to find way back in early D&D.
They pick up their striking weapons as the necessary time, their armor, and feel like caster items are really lackluster and boring. They barely remember they have them. Even when they do remember, they often don't want to waste the action to draw or use them.
And I'm not that sure staff nexus + spell blending is too much power for a wizard.
I've yet to see a use to Staff Nexus unless your GM is incredibly lenient and lets you get staves of way higher level than advised.
All offensive staves are garbage since their spell level is so low, so the only useful ones are those with utility spells - and really, how many times do you need to cast those in a given day ?
Any caster gets Spell level charges for free and can double down on those charges if needed, and that's already plenty.
The thesis would be more useful if it allowed you to prepare two different staves (or even fuse them), but as written it's pretty awful.
It used to have a pretty specific usecase for a true strike+spell attacks build, but that was significantly nerfed with errata. Spamming true strike>hand of the apprentice for funsies is no longer okay...
I think Staff Nexus is valuable at low level, regardless. Tacking a cantrip and level 1 spell of your choice onto -any- staff makes every staff significantly more usable, and lets you put a good evergreen spell like fear onto staves that are otherwise pretty one-note. Heck, you can even use it to make a partially out-of-tradition staff (like the Animal Staff) more worth taking. Those are both great.
However, you stop being able to make otherwise iffy staves more palatable very quickly, since a level 1 spell doesn't really do a lot when you're level 9 unless it's something exceptionally meaningful like true strike. The ability to put more charges into the staff isn't awful, but it does make you feel like you're just casting multiple lower level spells as a focus spell substitute... at which point we're back to asking why we aren't playing a sorc or something else with good focus spells instead, since those won't run out.
Honestly, the real issue with staff nexus is the staves. Ideally, you'd use them to cast those ~max rank -2 spells you'd feel stuck slotting multiple times, and free up room in your spell prep. But instead, you just end up looking for alright staves for the purpose, and find very little other than the Staff of Control unless you really enjoy elemental blasting. For some reason, occult casters actually have much better staves for this purpose—and incomprehensibly, bard actually has exclusive access to some of the most desirable staves in the game (like Drums of War).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As per Michael Sayre's own words, it is strawmanning him to think that the game is balanced around Wizard's having perfect preparation.
It's funny because the description Mickael Sayre does of the Arcanist (that I didn't know, I'm not much of a PF1 player) is exactly the one I do of the Kineticist: The class is easy to play but weak. And clearly, I see less complaints about the Kineticist than there are about the Wizard when the Wizard is definitely superior to the Kineticist from my point of view.
Anyway, complexity is an unsolvable issue: It leads to massive difference in player experience but not all classes can be as straightforward as the Fighter.
As per Michael Sayre's own words, it is strawmanning him to think that the game is balanced around Wizard's having perfect preparation.It's funny because the description Mickael Sayre does of the Arcanist (that I didn't know, I'm not much of a PF1 player) is exactly the one I do of the Kineticist: The class is easy to play but weak. And clearly, I see less complaints about the Kineticist than there are about the Wizard when the Wizard is definitely superior to the Kineticist from my point of view.
Anyway, complexity is an unsolvable issue: It leads to massive difference in player experience but not all classes can be as straightforward as the Fighter.
Absolutely, pound for pound kineticist is weaker, but compared to a wizard it's actions have little to no opportunity cost. 70-80 percent of the power without the quibbles of wasting limited resources is an easy trade for a lot of people. For me at least, most of the impact without the possibility of wasting (bc I can always do it again) equals MORE impact. Accessibility is definitely a form of power in itself. Maybe more as a *fictional* power, as it relates to perception and enjoyment.
Kineticist gets to play the same game as the martials (the game of opportunity cost) AND be a limited caster.
As per Michael Sayre's own words, it is strawmanning him to think that the game is balanced around Wizard's having perfect preparation.It's funny because the description Mickael Sayre does of the Arcanist (that I didn't know, I'm not much of a PF1 player) is exactly the one I do of the Kineticist: The class is easy to play but weak. And clearly, I see less complaints about the Kineticist than there are about the Wizard when the Wizard is definitely superior to the Kineticist from my point of view.
Anyway, complexity is an unsolvable issue: It leads to massive difference in player experience but not all classes can be as straightforward as the Fighter.
For me, the real trade on kineticist is less one of lower ceiling for higher floor, and more one of lower ceiling for way more survivability and flexibility in positioning. Kin is a sack of HP with better saves and armor proficiency than a caster, and you can really feel that difference—melee is perfectly comfortable on a kineticist, while I'm not exactly rushing to deliver touch spells or be a flanking buddy on a wizard. They are caster-y in flavor, but really, I think they're more like a supportive martial class that can do AoE damage than a caster.
|
And I'm not that sure staff nexus + spell blending is too much power for a wizard.
I've yet to see a use to Staff Nexus unless your GM is incredibly lenient and lets you get staves of way higher level than advised.
All offensive staves are garbage since their spell level is so low, so the only useful ones are those with utility spells - and really, how many times do you need to cast those in a given day ?
Any caster gets Spell level charges for free and can double down on those charges if needed, and that's already plenty.
The thesis would be more useful if it allowed you to prepare two different staves (or even fuse them), but as written it's pretty awful.
I really like the Accursed Staff because it has 2 different spells with a Reaction cast on it -- Blood Vendetta and Blinding Fury. Those spells being on a staff mean you can cast them multiple times so it actually serves as a deterrent to being attacked. Plus the staff's temp hp ability is nice. And it has Remove Curse at multiple levels if you need that.
EDIT: Eh, a number of these spells aren't on the Arcane list, including Blinding Fury, so that totally undercuts my point of how well it works with Staff Nexus. Still one of my favorite staves, and if you care to Trick Magic Item you can get some use out of the utility spells in addition to Blood Vendetta + temp hp.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For me, the real trade on kineticist is less one of lower ceiling for higher floor, and more one of lower ceiling for way more survivability and flexibility in positioning. Kin is a sack of HP with better saves and armor proficiency than a caster, and you can really feel that difference—melee is perfectly comfortable on a kineticist, while I'm not exactly rushing to deliver touch spells or be a flanking buddy on a wizard. They are caster-y in flavor, but really, I think they're more like a supportive martial class that can do AoE damage than a caster.
I agree that the class is not exactly an "unlimited Wizard", far from it actually. I also consider it more of a martial. It was just to bounce on Mickael Sayre's comment.
For me, the real alternative for the Kineticist is the Inventor. And it also has the same phenomenom: Higher ceiling but lower floor leading to lots of people having issues with the Inventor but not with the Kineticist.
I don't exactly agree the kineticist is weaker. Yeah, if you look at a particular turn when a caster goes nova using their best spell slots then yeah, but the thing is that a kineticist can go nova every turn or at least every other turn while a caster can't more than a few times per day. Not to mention there's particular kineticist builds like a fire kineticist that, without having the exact number myself, likely does more DPR than a caster too.
I will continue saying that giving all wizards a second thesis at 5th level is simple, cost minimal space, and largely increases horizontal rather than vertical power, because most of the thesis are targeting different aspects, except for staff nexus and spell blending. And I'm not that sure staff nexus + spell blending is too much power for a wizard.
(They should still get feats that let them add another school, which both solves their 2 native focus spell issue and make the school slot feel less dead)
I honestly think that, if Paizo went in this direction, they could easily give a thesis every few levels if they wanted and it wouldn't hurt much. Probably like a thesis at 1st, 9th, and 15th level or something like that.
The level you are matters when deciding if blasting spells on a staff are worth having.
Its terrible when your level 5 and the difference is cast a rank 3 lightning bolt from a slot for 4d12 or kinda waste actions with a rank 1 thunderstrike for 1d12+1d4 from a staff. That staff is only maybe useful for clean up at that point.
But when your level 11 and you have chain lighting slotted you will still find situations where a rank 4 or 5 lighting bolt is a good idea to use from a staff. Not every encounter is going to justify to throw out a chain lighting for 8d12 and contributing a 4d12 lighting bolt from a greater tempest staff can be enough. With staff nexus youll have charges of 6+maybe a second rank slot to get a second cast of it for the day.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just want to add two more observations:
1) I would mostly agree that the main issue with Staff Nexus is more around how underwhelming the arcane staves are. Staff Nexus can work decently well for a wizard using a personal staff; although the narrowness of requiring all the spells to have the same trait is a bit of an issue. With the schools in remaster having been narrowed so drastically, I would probably allow a personal staff created around the curriculum spells as a GM.
2) I also want to add support for allowing multiple theses or maybe partial access to multiple schools. It seems a bit odd that the wizard, supposedly the caster most focused on learning, can't learn "new tricks" after 1st level. Personally, I would prefer a class feat/feat chain for the wizard like Multifarious Muse for the bard, Order Explorer for the druid, Parallel Breakthrough for the psychic, or Crossblooded Evolution for the sorcerer; if it's a thesis, they get benefits at level -2 (or the bonus slot for Spell Blending can't be greater than one less than the wizard's maximum spell rank); if it's for a school, they only add one curriculum spell to their spellbook for each rank (along with possibly a second feat for the initial school spell and a third feat to gain the advanced school spell; assuming the school spells would be worth taking).
Or maybe remastered alchemist. Having impulses is a bit like having quick vials.
When I'm comparing it to the Inventor, I'm speaking of the Kineticist role, not the Kineticist functioning. Both classes are martials with strong AoE abilities, something extremely rare among martials.
Even the Bomber can hardly be considered an AoE damage dealer, the AoEs being small and the damage being very low on anything but the primary target.
I don't exactly agree the kineticist is weaker. Yeah, if you look at a particular turn when a caster goes nova using their best spell slots then yeah, but the thing is that a kineticist can go nova every turn or at least every other turn while a caster can't more than a few times per day. Not to mention there's particular kineticist builds like a fire kineticist that, without having the exact number myself, likely does more DPR than a caster too.
Kineticists are very impressive at low levels, when casters don’t have many spells and slots, but they lose steam quickly (pun intended)
If we're talking about pure blasting:
A lvl 5 kineticist with all the right feats, gates and impulses can use blazing wave for 4d8 damage in a cone then reactivate aura while elemental blasting one target for 2d8. If they are in his aura, they’ll also get vulnerability 2 to his damage. If he took the time to activate Thermal Nimbus, they'll also take 2+2 fire damage at the start of their turn. So, assuming every target is n his aura (which usually isn't the case at this low level), he'll deal an average of 24 AOE damage + 11 single target damage.
Please note the results are a bit off because vulnerability is not cut by half on a reflex success, nor multiplied on a critical fail.
A lvl 5 metal sorcerer with no dedication can use elemental toss for 3d8+3 and lightning bolt for 4d12+3 (+3 on a single target). That's 29 average AOE damage, and 19,5 single target damage. It's debatable whether a line is better than a cone but I think the sorcerer comes ahead - but barely, and he used a top slot AND a focus point, so he made a big dent into his resources. Also, the kineticist is a bit more precise with his blast due to gate attenuator.
So at lvl 5, the kineticist can almost match an elemental sorcerer going all out, while spending no resource himself - that's pretty impressive.
But things look bleaker down the road.
Now the kineticist is level 11. His most damaging move is still blazing wave (or solar detonation against undead but that would cost him his whole round) that now deals 7d8 damage, while his elemental blast got upgraded to 3d8. Both his vulnerability and his fire aura are set at 5. Thanks to aura shaping, he now has a good chance that most opponents will get hurt. If everything goes well, he now deals 10 damage to everyone in his aura, and 7d8+5 damage in a cone (average 36,5) plus 3d8+5 on one target (18,5 average). Let's say it amounts to 46,5 AOE + 18,5 on a chosen enemy.
Meanwhile, our sorcerer now has chain lightning and can deal 8d12+6 damage in a friendly burst (as long as nobody crits) for an average of 58 AOE + 6 on single target. His elemental toss now deals 6d8+6, average 33 on a chosen enemy (but is still less precise). So the sorcerer is pulling ahead, AND...
...he hasn't been optimized at all. Now let's see what happens if we get playful and take oracle dedication for foretell harm, and the anoint ally/explosion of power combo.
Now the sorcerer deals 8d12+18 to every target with his chain lightning, and makes his trusty fighter explode as a free action for an extra 6d6 in a 5-foot burst. Then he uses elemental toss for 6d8 + another 6d6 explosion.
Even if there is only one target in the explosion, the damage is now 70 to everybody and 69 single target.
Of course, the sorcerer once again had to use resources to get this result, but that's basically twice the damage output of the kineticist in AOE, and four times more on one target (and I was being conservative, saying there's only one opponent in the burst).
So the kineticist can fight all day long, but there's little doubt that a well-built blaster will outshine him hard - and that's as should be since the sorcerer sacrificed a top slot, a focus point AND a cursebound feat for that result.
But the numbers are so far away that the sorcerer could have used a level 5 slot and still come out ahead.