To be clear, If we look at dpr averaged over first 9 or 12 or 15 rounds per day instead of best single round per day I fully expect the sorc still comes out on top. But it should also be obvious - with no math needed at all - that the more rounds there are per day, the more the sorc's average dpr drops (in "4 round steps" because she's got 4 slots per rank. It also drops in longer combats once focus points run out). The kins never drops. Agreed?
While its true on paper, it never really happens in practice. I've played with a Witch, not exactly the biggest number of spell slots out there, with no Focus Spell but Patron's Puppet and never reached the case where the Kineticists were catching up. You need just too many rounds for that.
Also, no one really cares how you kill the last surviving enemy. There are mostly a couple of important rounds per combat and if the caster DPR drops at some point it doesn't impact the result of the fight.Having said that, I have no issue with yours or Witch's or Super's characterization of the kin as not a best-in-show damage dealer. It's more half-utility half-damage mix
I don't find the Kineticist to be really high on utility. One clear selling point is tanking, the average Kineticist tanks like any martial and there are many Impulses increasing tanking ability (even if I don't think you can reach Barbarian, Champion or Monk durability, but you can get rather close).
So good tanking, low damage (we are speaking of PF2 were "low" damage is 75% of what the top damage dealers do) and a sprinkle of utility. But the class has a lot of room for optimization. It's actually how I see the Kineticist: Without massive optimization, it's maybe the weakest class in the game. But there are many potential optimizations due to all the different effects Impulses produce. With good optimization, on the other hand, it's fine. It's a class for build-stage optimizers.
I still love the wizard as my favorite class in PF2, but being the full time childcare provider for an infant turned toddler, who doesn't let me sleep, or play in games with even 50% of my old ability to focus has illuminated some aspects of the class for me.
Haha, I know that feeling ^^
1. It should have traded places with the sorcerer so people don't think of the wizard as the basic "entry" caster, like the cleric or the bard are. This is because especially at the mid to high level, the wizard is class that requires a lot of mental bandwidth, organization and game knowledge to play well. There is a logic to that that I personally like, but what other class puts as much burden on the player to be good at the things that make the class function effectively? Minimally this should remove the wizard from the "basic caster" conversation.
It has been said a lot and a lot of people think that somehow, a wizard is hard to play but that its mastery is worth it because of a higher ceiling.
I don't think it's the case in comparison to other casters. You might think being a prepared caster is harder because you have to know all spells by heart and you have a lot of bookkeeping. I agree about the bookkeeping, but someone playing a spontaneous caster has to have the same system mastery to choose their list. In order to tailor their small spell repertoire and get the best bang for their bucks, they HAVE to know every spell as well, and have to make tough choices. Is Cave Fangs better than Fireball considering I have a lot of ranged friends ? Is rousing applause better than slow since my martials all have AOOs ? Is fear worth it even if our bard uses dirge of doom ? What should I take for scouting purpose, scouting eye or spy's mark ?
So the spontaneous caster and the prepared caster actually need the same level of system mastery to operate at full steam, and a sorcerer who doesn't know the spells very well and takes only the staple will probably suffer and find himself short for options. The fact that the prepared caster can change his spell selection daily adds a layer of complexity to the process, but not to the thinking involved.
A wizard who wants to be at peak efficiency has to know what every spell does - but then so does a sorcerer.
I still love the wizard as my favorite class in PF2, but being the full time childcare provider for an infant turned toddler, who doesn't let me sleep, or play in games with even 50% of my old ability to focus has illuminated some aspects of the class for me.Haha, I know that feeling ^^
1. It should have traded places with the sorcerer so people don't think of the wizard as the basic "entry" caster, like the cleric or the bard are. This is because especially at the mid to high level, the wizard is class that requires a lot of mental bandwidth, organization and game knowledge to play well. There is a logic to that that I personally like, but what other class puts as much burden on the player to be good at the things that make the class function effectively? Minimally this should remove the wizard from the "basic caster" conversation.It has been said a lot and a lot of people think that somehow, a wizard is hard to play but that its mastery is worth it because of a higher ceiling.
I don't think it's the case in comparison to other casters. You might think being a prepared caster is harder because you have to know all spells by heart and you have a lot of bookkeeping. I agree about the bookkeeping, but someone playing a spontaneous caster has to have the same system mastery to choose their list. In order to tailor their small spell repertoire and get the best bang for their bucks, they HAVE to know every spell as well, and have to make tough choices. Is Cave Fangs better than Fireball considering I have a lot of ranged friends ? Is rousing applause better than slow since my martials all have AOOs ? Is fear worth it even if our bard uses dirge of doom ? What should I take for scouting purpose, scouting eye or spy's mark ?
So the spontaneous caster and the prepared caster actually need the same level of system mastery to operate at full steam, and a sorcerer who doesn't know the spells very well and takes only the staple will probably suffer and find...
No they don't have to have anywhere near as much knowledge of spells. A sorcerer player can easily go on a forum and ask what spells should I get to be a good sorcerer. People will give them a list and thats all they need to know. it will work.
No they don't have to have anywhere near as much knowledge of spells. A sorcerer player can easily go on a forum and ask what spells should I get to be a good sorcerer. People will give them a list and thats all they need to know. it will work.
They'll certainly work, but they won't be as effective as someone who actually knows what he's doing.
The issue is that a sorcerer with average spells will come out ahead of the non-spell substitution wizard with average spells at the end of the day because as resources dwindle, the wizard becomes really restricted in what they can do and no high rank sorcerer spell slot is useless in an encounter, while a depleted wizard might very well be out of good options with those top slots. And this is a situation fairly common in the hardest part of APs, where a severe or extreme encounter might be sitting after a string of 3 or 4 moderate or less encounters, so it really feels noticeable at the moment where it matters the most. Even the spell substitution wizard can end up in a bind, even if they generally know what kind of threat is ahead but don’t have 10 minutes between finding out at triggering the encounter. That is why I think some feat/feature or focus spell that let wizards switch a spell slot with something in their book would really be the best way to solve the general malaise players seem to have around the Wizard having to have perfect preparation to play effectively. You’d still have to know what spells are in your book, but if it was fairly limited (by day, by action cost, by focus point/etc) then it would prevent the “I have absolutely no spell to help in this encounter.” Which I think is the experience that can be most detracting for Wizard players.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So the spontaneous caster and the prepared caster actually need the same level of system mastery to operate at full steam
Sort of disagree. The limited, fixed repertoire definitely adds a layer of decision making to the sorcerer, but an important thing is that you're only making those decisions at level up, and you can choose to lean on more evergreen options in order to reduce overhead and remain broadly useful.
The prepared caster on the other hand is making that judgement call every single day, and not just in terms of which spells but in quantity as well. That adds a lot of extra work to any given adventuring day, and a sorcerer never has to worry about having too few or too many fireballs like a wizard does.
It's problematic enough that some less experienced players I've had eventually just give up and play their wizards like s$%!ty sorcerers and just stop changing their loadout, especially if a daily transition happens mid session and they're worried about making everyone wait.
The issue is that a sorcerer with average spells will come out ahead of the non-spell substitution wizard with average spells at the end of the day because as resources dwindle, the wizard becomes really restricted in what they can do and no high rank sorcerer spell slot is useless in an encounter, while a depleted wizard might very well be out of good options with those top slots. And this is a situation fairly common in the hardest part of APs, where a severe or extreme encounter might be sitting after a string of 3 or 4 moderate or less encounters, so it really feels noticeable at the moment where it matters the most. Even the spell substitution wizard can end up in a bind, even if they generally know what kind of threat is ahead but don’t have 10 minutes between finding out at triggering the encounter. That is why I think some feat/feature or focus spell that let wizards switch a spell slot with something in their book would really be the best way to solve the general malaise players seem to have around the Wizard having to have perfect preparation to play effectively. You’d still have to know what spells are in your book, but if it was fairly limited (by day, by action cost, by focus point/etc) then it would prevent the “I have absolutely no spell to help in this encounter.” Which I think is the experience that can be most detracting for Wizard players.
I totally agree.
The problem is that a wizard is very bad at reacting to the unexpected, when it should be the opposite. If you slotted combat spells and suddenly find yourself in an infiltration situation because the opposition is too dangerous, or if you expected trolls and took fire spells but suddenly meet a Brimorak, you'll find some slots become dead weight.
So either you try to slot as many different spells as possible in your daily list, but then you don't have the same firepower as a spontaneous caster - or you use the prepared spellcaster strength and tailor the list everyday to specialize in some action - but then you're SoL when things don't go as planned. And even with some recall knowledge checks, even with scouting eye, even with careful planning, things will inevitably go south one day.
Which is why I'd love for the wizard to have some kind of easy "on the fly" adjustment to his playlist, like the lvl 18 feat I was talking about.
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...That's a great round! You get four of those per day, at most.
But you have to blast for 9-12, maybe 9-16 rounds per day, not just one. Rounds 5+ will have lower damage, yes?
To be clear, If we look at dpr averaged over first 9 or 12 or 15 rounds per day instead of best single round per day I fully expect the sorc still comes out on top. But it should also be obvious - with no math needed at all - that the more rounds there are per day, the more the sorc's average dpr drops (in "4 round steps" because she's got 4 slots per rank. It also drops in longer combats once focus points run out). The kins never drops. Agreed?
Having said that, I have no issue with yours or Witch's or Super's characterization of the kin as not a best-in-show damage dealer. It's more half-utility half-damage mix, with one of it's biggest selling points being player experience rather than power - i.e. it gives players who hate resource tracking and running out of spells the experience of being a blaster with no resource tracking or worries about running out. Go ahead and cast that 60-hp protector tree or solar detonation in the very first round of the very first combat of the day. While the sorc player is thinking "what slot is this enemy worth the use of? Geez chain lightning is so cool and I have so much fun when I cast it and maybe it can end the encounter in two rounds, but...what if the next fight I regret using it here? Do I really want to use it for this?", you get to use your favorite toys every time.
Depends on their focus spells and magic items. Focus spells won't hit as hard as a cast spell, but they can still hit very hard. So you open with a big boy blaster, then finish things off with focus spells to maintain DPS while preserving slots for big blasting.
Then stack on scrolls, staves, and wands, you have additional blasting power per day.
So the spontaneous caster and the prepared caster actually need the same level of system mastery to operate at full steamSort of disagree. The limited, fixed repertoire definitely adds a layer of decision making to the sorcerer, but an important thing is that you're only making those decisions at level up, and you can choose to lean on more evergreen options in order to reduce overhead and remain broadly useful.
The prepared caster on the other hand is making that judgement call every single day, and not just in terms of which spells but in quantity as well. That adds a lot of extra work to any given adventuring day, and a sorcerer never has to worry about having too few or too many fireballs like a wizard does.
It's problematic enough that some less experienced players I've had eventually just give up and play their wizards like s@!!ty sorcerers and just stop changing their loadout, especially if a daily transition happens mid session and they're worried about making everyone wait.
Oh, I totally agree that the wizard needs to make that call every day, which is why I said it added some book keeping and judgement calls.
But the system mastery you need doesn't change: in both cases, you'll be more effective if you know which spells are best in which situation, and what you should take.
I gave these example a few posts ago, but everybody in the forums will tell you that Slow is a staple and that you should take it. But in a melee-heavy group, maybe roaring applause would be more effective. They'll tell you that lvl 3 fear is awesome and that's true, but it lacks some steam if you have a bard who wants to use dirge. And so on, and so forth.
...I still love the wizard as my favorite class in PF2, but being the full time childcare provider for an infant turned toddler, who doesn't let me sleep, or play in games with even 50% of my old ability to focus has illuminated some aspects of the class for me.Haha, I know that feeling ^^
1. It should have traded places with the sorcerer so people don't think of the wizard as the basic "entry" caster, like the cleric or the bard are. This is because especially at the mid to high level, the wizard is class that requires a lot of mental bandwidth, organization and game knowledge to play well. There is a logic to that that I personally like, but what other class puts as much burden on the player to be good at the things that make the class function effectively? Minimally this should remove the wizard from the "basic caster" conversation.It has been said a lot and a lot of people think that somehow, a wizard is hard to play but that its mastery is worth it because of a higher ceiling.
I don't think it's the case in comparison to other casters. You might think being a prepared caster is harder because you have to know all spells by heart and you have a lot of bookkeeping. I agree about the bookkeeping, but someone playing a spontaneous caster has to have the same system mastery to choose their list. In order to tailor their small spell repertoire and get the best bang for their bucks, they HAVE to know every spell as well, and have to make tough choices. Is Cave Fangs better than Fireball considering I have a lot of ranged friends ? Is rousing applause better than slow since my martials all have AOOs ? Is fear worth it even if our bard uses dirge of doom ? What should I take for scouting purpose, scouting eye or spy's mark ?
So the spontaneous caster and the prepared caster actually need the same level of system mastery to operate at full steam, and a sorcerer who doesn't know the spells very well and takes only the staple will
If you want to be effective in combat, a sorcerer and wizard need to be equally competent in the best combat spells.
The area where the wizard needs to no more is non-combat spells. Mainly if they have the Spell Substitution thesis as Unicore has stated. If they take Spell Blending or another thesis, they're just a sorcerer with more high end slots to blast with as far as best builds.
For out of combat utility and problem solving as Unicore enjoys, you have to have a more extensive knowledge of spells to fulfill this function well as a wizard. I give all wizard's the Spell Substitution thesis and often help players build spellbooks for problem solving so they can feel good as a wizard.
I know all the good utility spells that let a wizard shine with Spell Substitution as well as I know the combat spells. That's why I can say with 100 percent certainty, there are not many silver bullet spells in PF2. The handful there are usually work against undead or fiends where you're getting a big damage bump for a low resource cost.
But there are a lot of utility spells that can be used for problem solving that a Spell Substitution wizard can access fairly quickly for solving non-combat problems where they have time. This is where the wizard does start to shine over a sorcerer if they know what they're doing.
I think the Spell Substitution thesis should be part of the core identity of the wizard in the same way they made Sorcery Potency part of the core identity of the sorcerer. That change alone would make the wizard far more fun establishing a clear core identity while letting them have some fun with another thesis.
The issue is that a sorcerer with average spells will come out ahead of the non-spell substitution wizard with average spells at the end of the day because as resources dwindle, the wizard becomes really restricted in what they can do and no high rank sorcerer spell slot is useless in an encounter, while a depleted wizard might very well be out of good options with those top slots. And this is a situation fairly common in the hardest part of APs, where a severe or extreme encounter might be sitting after a string of 3 or 4 moderate or less encounters, so it really feels noticeable at the moment where it matters the most. Even the spell substitution wizard can end up in a bind, even if they generally know what kind of threat is ahead but don’t have 10 minutes between finding out at triggering the encounter. That is why I think some feat/feature or focus spell that let wizards switch a spell slot with something in their book would really be the best way to solve the general malaise players seem to have around the Wizard having to have perfect preparation to play effectively. You’d still have to know what spells are in your book, but if it was fairly limited (by day, by action cost, by focus point/etc) then it would prevent the “I have absolutely no spell to help in this encounter.” Which I think is the experience that can be most detracting for Wizard players.
A feat that sets up a back up spell during preparation and gives an action that swaps out any slot with that spell. I think that would do it. Could have a limit in terms of use per day. And as an additional benefit maybe when you drain bonded item you can choose to cast the back up spell instead of recasting a slotted spell.
Edit that: Not a feat. If its something that everywizard will pick up anyway its better off a class feature
So the spontaneous caster and the prepared caster actually need the same level of system mastery to operate at full steamSort of disagree. The limited, fixed repertoire definitely adds a layer of decision making to the sorcerer, but an important thing is that you're only making those decisions at level up, and you can choose to lean on more evergreen options in order to reduce overhead and remain broadly useful.
The prepared caster on the other hand is making that judgement call every single day, and not just in terms of which spells but in quantity as well. That adds a lot of extra work to any given adventuring day, and a sorcerer never has to worry about having too few or too many fireballs like a wizard does.
It's problematic enough that some less experienced players I've had eventually just give up and play their wizards like s~@*ty sorcerers and just stop changing their loadout, especially if a daily transition happens mid session and they're worried about making everyone wait.
Arcane and Occult Evolution require you to know spells very well, so you know how to best use both of these evolutions to maximize your potential.
Then there is campaign specific Spell Repertoire building. I made a sorcerer for Agents of Edgewatch and had to build the repertoire very differently than if I was playing in a standard campaign where combat would be the primary focus like a dungeon crawl.
I had to know the mental tag spells very well to ensure to maximize the benefit of Occult Evolution. I need to have a Repertoire of utility spells that were not normally taken in standard campaigns to fulfill the function of interrogator/undercover agent like Tongues or the new name and Illusory Disguise. I also had to take group invisibility. Then manage the mental tag spells as needed so I knew what mental tag spells would be best in a given situation.
Then you have to ensure to manage the signature spells as well to make sure you know which ones are best to choose for heightening and which ones you won't really need to heighten.
Then you have to know when a spell has lost value and to change it out when you level to alter your repertoire like getting rid of fireball to upgrade to chain lightning or something of the kind.
You also have to know all four traditions so you can make sorcerers who fulfill different roles and how good a group of bloodline spells is as that affects bloodline choice. If a bloodline has a bunch of spells you'll never use, it lowers the value of the bloodline.
Then you have to know how to take advantage of blood magic. If you're casting a spell that doesn't activate blood magic very often, then how good are the Bloodline spells? You want to have Bloodline Spells you will use to activate the bloodmagic effects.
Building and running a sorcerer is not as easy as people make it out to be.
But if you put the time in, it is probably the best caster in the game, made even better in the Remaster.
Pre-Remaster, you had a 45 slot maximum Spell Repertoire if playing Occult or Arcane. Post-Remaster you have a 48 plus spells known Repertoire. The change to Crossblood Evolution was a slight nerf, but the fact the spells are automatically added to your repertoire at level 18 somewhat makes up for it.
I'm really surprised at how few people know the sorcerer very well. They don't seem to realize all the sorcerer builds and feats that allow for very versatile and powerful play including a very robust and varied spell repertoire by the time you hit level 20 allowing for amazing versatility.
In PF1 the sorcerer had a very limited spell selection. Even the 5E sorcerer had a limited spell selection compared to the wizard. But the PF2 sorcerer threw that out.
I would even go so far as to say the PF2 sorcerer is as well as designed as the 5E wizard. They really made the PF2 sorcerer the premiere 6 hit point caster class in PF2. It has the best builds and most interesting feats of the 6 hit point casters.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
as I understand this is one of the reasons why the Wizard and the Magus have a below-average number of baseline trained skills.
Nah. It's bad design driven by legacy assumptions, which, for some reason, didn't merit correction in the remaster. These are the only classes without an effective 4+Int trained skills at base.
The Wizard and the Wizard alone is the only Int class that Paizo felt the need to "control" for Int.
Every other Int based class has 4 skills, either directly or given for use via a class feature to bring it up to 4.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
as I understand this is one of the reasons why the Wizard and the Magus have a below-average number of baseline trained skills.Nah. It's bad design driven by legacy assumptions, which, for some reason, didn't merit correction in the remaster. These are the only classes without an effective 4+Int trained skills at base.
The Wizard and the Wizard alone is the only Int class that Paizo felt the need to "control" for Int.
Every other Int based class has 4 skills, either directly or given for use via a class feature to bring it up to 4.
I run out of skills I want to use on a wizard before I finish filling them out. Tf you need more skills for
A wizard starts with 9 total skills, 9 of 17 base skills. That's roughly 53%. You really only need the int skills plus a few flavor skills, and you'll really only be progressing three skills. So, sincerely, the hell do you need more skills for? Most classes are gonna start with something like 3-4, maybe 5, skills and that's it. Which is plenty
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
as I understand this is one of the reasons why the Wizard and the Magus have a below-average number of baseline trained skills.Nah. It's bad design driven by legacy assumptions, which, for some reason, didn't merit correction in the remaster. These are the only classes without an effective 4+Int trained skills at base.
The Wizard and the Wizard alone is the only Int class that Paizo felt the need to "control" for Int.
Every other Int based class has 4 skills, either directly or given for use via a class feature to bring it up to 4.
I run out of skills I want to use on a wizard before I finish filling them out. Tf you need more skills for
A wizard starts with 9 total skills, 9 of 17 base skills. That's roughly 53%. You really only need the int skills plus a few flavor skills, and you'll really only be progressing three skills. So, sincerely, the hell do you need more skills for? Most classes are gonna start with something like 3-4, maybe 5, skills and that's it. Which is plenty
Skill increases more important than skills and intelligence is irrelevant for skill increases. Acquiring more skills is extremely easy with ancestry, general, and skill feats.
If intelligence or some wizard class feature provided more skill increases for intelligence based skills, then that would be something.
My personal preference for this stuff at the moment is giving another lore skill at +1/+3/+5 INT, alongside more serious changes to how recall knowledge works.
On INT characters, a trained lore is usually around the mark of a master lore on non-INT characters—and once you add in the DC reductions for specific and general lores, lore is honestly very strong if you're INT KAS. The free lore skills are also good at helping to fill the gaps left by religion and nature being WIS skills without completely negating the use or purpose of those skills.
IMO, Lore is a good, precise lever for buffing the "book smart" feeling of an INT KAS character without really buffing anything else they have. Lore also doesn't really need skill increases on INT KAS to remain relevant. (However, of you felt like this wasn't enough... at L15, you could give every INT KAS class a feature that set any lore they would be trained in to expert instead and I wouldn't bat an eye.)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wizard should have a special auto-scaling mono-lore skill, like a special Academia Lore, that lets them identify enemy resistances, weaknesses and saves.
Make it a 1st level feat, with a preq that makes it non-poachable via archetyping.
Plugs several holes in the class at once.
Nah. It's bad design driven by legacy assumptions, which, for some reason, didn't merit correction in the remaster. These are the only classes without an effective 4+Int trained skills at base.
Which derives specifically from the fact that as Intelligence-using arcane casters, they get extra trained skills and plenty of spells to interact with all the things skills normally interact with. I definitely agree they should start with a normal amount of trained skills, though, or perhaps Additional Lore to make up for the lack of a fourth baseline skill.
Wizard should have a special auto-scaling mono-lore skill, like a special Academia Lore, that lets them identify enemy resistances, weaknesses and saves.
Make it a 1st level feat, with a preq that makes it non-poachable via archetyping.
Plugs several holes in the class at once.
As much as I like the idea and do think it could make sense as a thesis, a feat, or both, I question its place as a core mechanic on every Wizard. Not every Wizard wants to be the creature expert, even if it makes sense for the Wizard to be knowledgeable. In general, I think the Wizard could use a lot more feats that play with Arcana, Lore, and Recalling Knowledge, so that it feels like they're actually great at studying and academia in a way that is campaign-relevant.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The knowledge thing is tricky.
Thematically I sort of like general knowledge being de-emphasized. It feels a little weird to some extent to have someone who's meant to be hyperfocused on magical study to suddenly be a know-it-all. Smart, yes, but part of the conceit of being a specialist (as in, someone devoted to studying a specific topic) is not also being a generalist. It can feel a little goofy in PF1 when the guy who spent all of his formative years cooped up in a tower learning how to cast burning hands is also the expert on dungeons and world religions and engineering and geography and history and social customs...
But also, interacting with a monster's strengths and weaknesses is explicitly a core design feature of the Wizard, they're built to be worried about that kind of thing in a way that Rangers and Thaumaturges (since they also have some knowledge stuff) aren't. So it would make a lot of sense to have some internal nod to that in their mechanics.
It might also be instructive for GMs. Foreknowledge is arguably the biggest difference between an overwhelmingly strong wizard and a frustratingly weak one, but it's also a concept space not really addressed in the class. Having something that recognizes that dynamic could be both nice mechanically and kind of help guide newer players and GMs into understanding the way a Wizard should be approaching scenes a bit better too.
|
|
Nah. It's bad design driven by legacy assumptions, which, for some reason, didn't merit correction in the remaster. These are the only classes without an effective 4+Int trained skills at base.Which derives specifically from the fact that as Intelligence-using arcane casters, they get extra trained skills and plenty of spells to interact with all the things skills normally interact with. I definitely agree they should start with a normal amount of trained skills, though, or perhaps Additional Lore to make up for the lack of a fourth baseline
It derives from 3rd edition D&D directly. But, more expressly, it derived from a lack of internal cohesion with the Wizard and the rest of the game.
It’s why the Wizard was also the only class not to have simple weapon prof until the remaster.
I’ve always speculated that the Wizard was designed very early on in the PF2 development cycle and wasn’t ever really critically reexamined to make sure it fit, what would become, the mold. Instead it’s had unique penalties with no reason or payoff.
I do think the Wizard was a case of putting the cart before the horse in PF2e's development, yeah, though I don't think they're alone in this. As I understand it, the problem of casters was a particularly thorny one, as Paizo was shifting to a more balanced system but didn't want to alienate caster players from 1e, and the compromise they had was to keep many easily-identifiable legacy aspects of casters, such as spell slots, while adapting other aspects to 2e.
However, Paizo also took the approach of choosing four "iconic" spellcasting classes to build the four traditions' spell list around, and the end result we got were spell lists way too specifically tied to one class, and in a couple cases classes that are so married to their spell lists that it's become difficult to define their own strengths. The Druid is the reason why the primal tradition has no void spells, for example, and many people have criticized the class for lacking unique features, even though their medium armor proficiency, Shield Block, and generally robust stats are unique for a caster (or, at least, they were until the Animist showed up and ate most of their lunch).
The Wizard, on the other hand, is the reason why the arcane tradition began so overloaded with spells relative to the others: because the class was still defined around the eight schools of magic, the arcane list had to have enough spells for all of those schools, and the assumption around that time was that the Wizard's strength came specifically from accessing that spell list in large amounts with their four slots per rank. Now that we have plenty more spellcasters who get to access a spell list, even choose from several, while still having good class features and feats, sometimes even four slots per rank as well, that design philosophy has aged poorly, so the Wizard definitely needs more ways to stand out. I do think those ways exist in their kit already, such as with their arcane thesis, they just need to be developed a bit more.
The knowledge thing is tricky.
Thematically I sort of like general knowledge being de-emphasized. It feels a little weird to some extent to have someone who's meant to be hyperfocused on magical study to suddenly be a know-it-all. Smart, yes, but part of the conceit of being a specialist (as in, someone devoted to studying a specific topic) is not also being a generalist. It can feel a little goofy in PF1 when the guy who spent all of his formative years cooped up in a tower learning how to cast burning hands is also the expert on dungeons and world religions and engineering and geography and history and social customs...
But also, interacting with a monster's strengths and weaknesses is explicitly a core design feature of the Wizard, they're built to be worried about that kind of thing in a way that Rangers and Thaumaturges (since they also have some knowledge stuff) aren't. So it would make a lot of sense to have some internal nod to that in their mechanics.
It might also be instructive for GMs. Foreknowledge is arguably the biggest difference between an overwhelmingly strong wizard and a frustratingly weak one, but it's also a concept space not really addressed in the class. Having something that recognizes that dynamic could be both nice mechanically and kind of help guide newer players and GMs into understanding the way a Wizard should be approaching scenes a bit better too.
For the most part I agree that wizards shouldn't be knowledgeable about everything and their study of magic would, realistically, make them more narrowly focused, but I also agree that the game mechanically requires prepared spellcasters to be generalists in terms of knowledge of monsters and what spells are prepared. I also think it does make sense that an adventurer wizard is less of an academic, and is a boots on the ground individual who's primary concern is magical aiding their fellow adventurers and knowing about monsters is key to this. I think we can kill several birds with one stone here by having wizards rewarded for hitting weaker saves, having some kind of class ability that helps them identify enemy saves and lastly some inbuilt feature that lets who gain *some knowledge* about the upcoming adventuring day to aid spell preparation that gets around lazy and obtuse GMs who are uncompromising wr2 gathering information
Some class feature that lets you do some kind of divination ritual before preparing your spells for the day to get some vague hints as to what is in-store for you over the next day is enough to prepare spells in a way to perform better than a spontaneous caster most of the time, and it being a feature of the class should raise that floor for a good number of players. So it has to be some combination of monster lore, benefits for exploiting weaknesses and an ability to gain information about the day ahead of you
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So one way that wizards can be made better with no change at all to the class is to keep making sure that new creatures have significantly exploitable weaknesses and saving throws. Wizards do need to be able to learn these (preferably at a time early enough in the adventure to change their spells memorized to exploit this information) some how. Really it is the thaumaturge that is really eating the wizard’s potential lunch here because the got all these abilities that would be amazing to combine with the wizard…if they were INT based. Making arcana checks not to recall knowledge but specifically detect weaknesses to energy types in a specific area (without learning anything else about the creature) would be one potential add on that could really help with that. Possibly in the form of a focus spell or cantrips.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just bouncing ideas off of all the comments.
Maybe wizards could have an ability that they can use after crit succeeding at a RK check for weakest save.
When they crit succeed they can use an activity afterward to pull out their spellbook a rewrite one of their prepared slots.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Really it is the thaumaturge that is really eating the wizard’s potential lunch here because the got all these abilities that would be amazing to combine with the wizard
Setting aside that I strongly believe that this SHOULD be a core feature of the Wizard, the Thaumaturge is far from alone these days.
Bards, Oracles (kinda, Whisper of Weakness is closer to your idea), Sorcerer (LOL), Thaumaturges, Animists, Commanders, and Necromancers, all have mono-skill recall functions or their effective equivalents.
Sine the Thaumaturge, Paizo has been giving it out like candy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really agree the wizard should be a RK beast though. That it should have tools to make it easier? Totally. That it should be part of the chassis of the class? IMO no. The wizard is highly associated with Intelligence, but the wizard isn't a monster hunter like a thaumaturge that knows everything about their enemies. In fact, I don't recall a single wizard from media that plays the "I know everything about this foe" kind of deal. However, I would like schools giving you an auto-scaling lore and a trained skill (someone pointed out earlier wizards have less trained skills than most classes. I think this would be the perfect way to compensate that). Wizards are IMO more of an expert in their field of knowledge rather than an overall knows-it-all, so this makes more sense to me.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really agree the wizard should be a RK beast though. That it should have tools to make it easier? Totally. That it should be part of the chassis of the class? IMO no. The wizard is highly associated with Intelligence, but the wizard isn't a monster hunter like a thaumaturge that knows everything about their enemies. In fact, I don't recall a single wizard from media that plays the "I know everything about this foe" kind of deal. However, I would like schools giving you an auto-scaling lore and a trained skill (someone pointed out earlier wizards have less trained skills than most classes. I think this would be the perfect way to compensate that). Wizards are IMO more of an expert in their field of knowledge rather than an overall knows-it-all, so this makes more sense to me.
Most of the above listed classes have even less of a claim to the concept of being a know-it-all than a dyed in the wool academics would.
If the conversation is pivoting to “does this classes concept extend to cover this?” Then we would need to strip it out from most of them. Professional scholars and scientists have much more of a conceptual stake to be able to know things or pick apart bits of disparate lore into a frame of understanding than a generic “monster hunter” would. Sure, on the job training, trade craft, etc, are all valid concepts. But so is straight up scholastic enterprise.
If we look at how Arcana is positioned, when we look at feats like Unified Theory, it certainly already allows for a framework to understand the “mechanics” of things greater than any other single skill.
Really it is the thaumaturge that is really eating the wizard’s potential lunch here because the got all these abilities that would be amazing to combine with the wizardSetting aside that I strongly believe that this SHOULD be a core feature of the Wizard, the Thaumaturge is far from alone these days.
Bards, Oracles (kinda, Whisper of Weakness is closer to your idea), Sorcerer (LOL), Thaumaturges, Animists, Commanders, and Necromancers, all have mono-skill recall functions or their effective equivalents.
Sine the Thaumaturge, Paizo has been giving it out like candy.
It’s not the RK of the thaumaturge that is stealing the wizards lunch, it is the discovering and exploiting weaknesses specifically.
The thing is, except of Diverse Lore, a thaumaturge is specifically only an expert about monsters and nothing else. The same happen with the commander that AFAIK can only RK about enemies with his unique lore skill. Bards have been always been jack of all trades (they literally had a feature with that name in D&D 3.5 and PF1e) and the "caster" rogue, so much like rogues much of their budget always went to their skills. I would hardly define Whispers of Weakness as making oracles a "know-it-all" class, since both mechanics and flavor it isn't about the oracle being smart but more like the oracle having contact with a higher being of some sort that tells him what to do. Animist is similar but with spirits instead.
As I said before, I wouldn't be opposed to the wizard having a feat or two that makes them better at RK checks. I think I said something along the lines of making Spellbook Prodigy a little better since its effect its pretty much an expert-level feat at 1st level and that's it. What if like, similar to Scare to Death, it granted you access to Unified Theory when you become a master in Arcana? Since the feat is already giving you a feat one proficiency level earlier.
If I had to ask for baseline changes to the class, I would honestly prefer for them to have something fun to do with their spells since most people are going to associate the class with spells and not with RK. Like it or not, the wizard is the poster child of casters much like the fighter is for martials, so IMO much like fighters with weapons they should be the most versatile user of spells in the system. Not with a starting higher proficiency, but with stuff like spell substitution.
|
|
If I had to ask for baseline changes to the class, I would honestly prefer for them to have something fun to do with their spells since most people are going to associate the class with spells and not with RK.
Wizards are associated with schools, books, academics and learning. Knowing things.
Yes spells, because, well, duh. But Every caster is defined by their ability to cast spells. That is what makes them casters.
They also have other aspects to them. Clerics are all about gods and divinity, Druids are about nature and the world, Wizards are about knowledge and learning.
The Recall Knowledge system is precisely where the Wizard's theme is pointing it.
Like it or not, the wizard is the poster child of casters much like the fighter is for martials, so IMO much like fighters with weapons they should be the most versatile user of spells in the system. Not with a starting higher proficiency, but with stuff like spell substitution.
I would also advocate for Spell Subtution to be a baseline feature as well.
The Wizard is allowed to be a good class, if we let it be.
In play the weaknesses are not activated as well by spells because spells tend to use two actions to hit once, though it's a nice bit of extra damage to hit all the targets. It isn't necessarily strong enough to warrant use over a stronger spell. If you knew a creature had a fire weakness of 10, would you use a level 6 12d6 fireball over an 8d12 chain lightning.
12d6 fireball potential max damage is 72. 8d12 chain lightning is 96. Average damage of level 6 fireball is 42 and average chain lightning is 52. So you gain nothing by using the fireball except parity with chain lightning. Then you will have to measure the additional rider effects as well like drained.
Weakness activation for casters is fairly overrated unless it a holy light or a sunburst which provides a dice damage advantage on top of activating a weakness.
Weaknesses are much better exploited by martials who can activate them on a per strike basis with one or fewer actions per weakness activation gaining a damage boost in conjunction with no loss of damage for their strikes.
I generally don't think pursuing weakness activation is a good path for any caster including a wizard unless you're using an equally effective spell that doesn't lose your damage by choosing an inferior spell to activate a weakness that won't even do as much damage as another spell and won't double on a critical save fail.
In the case of the fireball above, a 10 point weakness won't double on a critical fail meaning that if a an enemy crit fails, the average damage will be 84 plus 10 equaling 94 versus the chain lightning of 104 meaning the 10 points better damage from the chain lightning will still be higher on a critical fail.
And the martials can target multiple weaknesses with the same weapon no requiring them to slot spells for a few encounters and then change if suddenly run into something else resistant. One weapon can be made of cold iron with a fire, holy, and cold rune possibly targeting four weaknesses per strike.
Spells cannot do this and have the additional problem of differing in effect to the point where even with weakness activation, it is likely better to use the better spell than slot an inferior spell to activate a weakness that won't cause damage to make it worth it.
The frequency of doing half damage on a success actually far out weighs the frequency of critical failure, enough that success with a weakness is pretty significantly better percentage of total damage wise. When you can hit multiple targets with an AoE with a weakness to the damage type, I’d certainly choose that.
The frequency of doing half damage on a success actually far out weighs the frequency of critical failure, enough that success with a weakness is pretty significantly better percentage of total damage wise. When you can hit multiple targets with an AoE with a weakness to the damage type, I’d certainly choose that.
As I just pointed out, this must be measured by spell.
Even in the example above, a evel 6 12d6 fireball versus an 8d12 chain lightning does the same damage with the fireball activating the weakness while the chain lightning maintains potential to do more damage.
I'm not sure why you love weakness activation for casters save as theory crafting the idea they do a whole lot.
If you look at weakness activation in play, you find it is not a great option to pursue for a caster unless it is spell like sunburst. It's not worth the time or effort.
I've watched weaknesses in play as a player and DM, martials gain way more from activating weaknesses than casters. For a martial it is a flat damage bonus per strike including reactive strikes. It absolutely tears up monsters if you have a group of martials activating weaknesses in a way a caster can't even touch, especially single target. It's to the point I find weaknesses too strong because when martials have the right material or energy, the monsters is made trivial by weakness damage on a per strike basis.
Where a caster it's a one time activation per round for two actions or more that can't even be enhanced with haste.
I don't think it is that important for casters. Casters are better off pursuing spells that do damage with a rider. Eclipse Burst is immensely powerful with great base damage and possibly blinding almost any target than trying to find the perfect weakness.
I don't really agree the wizard should be a RK beast though. That it should have tools to make it easier? Totally. That it should be part of the chassis of the class? IMO no. The wizard is highly associated with Intelligence, but the wizard isn't a monster hunter like a thaumaturge that knows everything about their enemies. In fact, I don't recall a single wizard from media that plays the "I know everything about this foe" kind of deal. However, I would like schools giving you an auto-scaling lore and a trained skill (someone pointed out earlier wizards have less trained skills than most classes. I think this would be the perfect way to compensate that). Wizards are IMO more of an expert in their field of knowledge rather than an overall knows-it-all, so this makes more sense to me.
For me it's more about the fact that "monster hunter" is a redundant classification for all adventurers, including wizards. It's just that in that they cast spells and have to prepare the ahead of time they should have class features to raise the floor for players and direct them to utilizing this to their best advantage. I don't think wizards should be able to recall knowledge about everything easily, but they should be able to easily ascertain what kind of spells would be most effective against certain enemies. Especially because arcane is the most "offensive" spell list. It's the spell list with the most orientation towards spells that affects enemies rather than affecting allies. No healing, few buffs, but a lot of debuffs, crowd control and damage
So I think it logically follows:
1. Wizards are intelligence based
2. Wizards use the arcane list which is most about controlling the battlefield by negatively affecting enemies
3. Wizards must prepare their spells in advance
With the three premises I think we can conclude that the role and play style of the wizard is learning about enemies and their weaknesses(general term), what kinds of enemies and hazards they will face in a given day and preparing the right tools for the job as best they can with the information they can acquire
So my suggestion for what the wizard needs is perhaps a class feature that lets you pick between a divination ritual that gives vague hints about what you might need to prepare, or spell substitution if your DM allows you to get information via downtime activities and roleplay. Then the wizards should have some way to use arcana or some kind of lore skill to learn stats relevant to what kind of spells will be most effective. Spell immunities if any, worst save, weaknesses etc. then lastly to incentivize this kind of play some kind of mechanical bonus(es) for targeting the lowest save or an enemy weakness to help push players in the right direction
Basically what the wizard needs to raise the skill floor is stuff that accentuates their modularity and modality and pushes players in that direction
*Edit to clarify a point:
The class feature is a choice between two options, and that is either you get spell substitution or you get a divination ritual that lets you get vague hints and information from the DM about the upcoming day. Both abilities raise the skill floor, but can be kind of redundant. The ritual is especially useless if you have a co-operative DM who does what they're supposed to and let you gather information that will help you choose what spells to prepare for the day. Spell substitution then is a fall back tool for when you run into situations you didn't or couldn't get info on before hand
Given the Prescient line, I wonder if there could be a feat or line of feats where you can leave any number (maybe just one) of your non-highest rank slots open, then when you recall knowledge on a creature and learn of it's lowest save, weakness, or bypassable resistance, you can fill that slot with one spell from your spellbook that targets that save or has the trait of the weakness/bypass.
That emulates how the wizard is prepared without actually needing the player and GM to actually go through the motions.
There is also some lower level feats that lets you put two spells in one slot and chose between one or the other when you cast. This is considered a pretty high premium by paizo
*Edit:
Said feat
Given the Prescient line, I wonder if there could be a feat or line of feats where you can leave any number (maybe just one) of your non-highest rank slots open, then when you recall knowledge on a creature and learn of it's lowest save, weakness, or bypassable resistance, you can fill that slot with one spell from your spellbook that targets that save or has the trait of the weakness/bypass.
That emulates how the wizard is prepared without actually needing the player and GM to actually go through the motions.
There is also some lower level feats that lets you put two spells in one slot and chose between one or the other when you cast. This is considered a pretty high premium by paizo
*Edit:
Said feat
Unnecessarily high given spontaneous caster sig spells allow this as a core class feature.
And not one rank lower.
Given the Prescient line, I wonder if there could be a feat or line of feats where you can leave any number (maybe just one) of your non-highest rank slots open, then when you recall knowledge on a creature and learn of it's lowest save, weakness, or bypassable resistance, you can fill that slot with one spell from your spellbook that targets that save or has the trait of the weakness/bypass.
That emulates how the wizard is prepared without actually needing the player and GM to actually go through the motions.
There is also some lower level feats that lets you put two spells in one slot and chose between one or the other when you cast. This is considered a pretty high premium by paizo
*Edit:
Said featUnnecessarily high given spontaneous caster sig spells allow this as a core class feature.
And not one rank lower.
It's a high premium because it circumvents the downside of prepared casting. Spontaneous casters also have to spends time retaining if they want to change their spells, prepared casters can literally just put on a whole new persona day-to-day if they want. Showing up with a new caster build as they choose. Mitigating the downside of this ability too much wouldn't make the wizard more interesting
There's a reddit thread up right now that discusses the merit of just giving back casters 1 slot of every level the first time they would refocus after an encounter. While I don't like this idea in and of itself, it made me wonder if there wouldn't be merit to something else in the vicinity.
Specifically... what if you reduced the amount of spell slots per rank a wizard had,* but gave them an ability like this to compensate?
Reprepare and Refocus
Requirements: You are using the Refocus activity
You can use the time you spend refocusing to refill a spent spell slot. When you refocus, you can also prepare a spell into a single expended spellslot.
At level x,** you can prepare a spell into two expended spellslots, instead. Each expended slot must be of a different rank, and one slot must contain the same spell it did at the time it was expended.
At level y, you can prepare a spell into three expended spellslots, instead. Each expended slot must still be of a different rank, and two slots must contain the same spells they did at the time they were expended.
You can use this ability once a day at level 1; twice a day at level x; and three times a day at level y.
This would give wizard some spellsub-ish functionality by default, and would also make it less necessary to fill a ton of slots with evergreen spells like slow in order to get multiple casts throughout the day. That would be a genuine mechanical advantage over other prepared casters.
---
*You'd probably go to 2+1 from 3+1—though maybe it should become a proprietary scaling? Maybe 1+1 or 2+1 top rank, 2+1 next-to-top, and 3+1 below that?
There's maybe even an interesting class design/archetype that reduces slots to 1+1, but lets you reprepare all your non-school slots up to three times a day. I think it'd bog down play way more than the above, though.
**These are placeholders on purpose. I'm not sure what the correct level would be for these upgrades. Maybe it shouldn't even go past repreparing two spells? Hard to say.
~=====~
Given the Prescient line, I wonder if there could be a feat or line of feats where you can leave any number (maybe just one) of your non-highest rank slots open, then when you recall knowledge on a creature and learn of it's lowest save, weakness, or bypassable resistance, you can fill that slot with one spell from your spellbook that targets that save or has the trait of the weakness/bypass.
That emulates how the wizard is prepared without actually needing the player and GM to actually go through the motions.
I made a really long post that I never hit send on the other day, and I had a similar thought in it.
"As much as I loathe such "skip the planning" abilities, it might be good to add a Prescient Planner-style clause to Spellsub to make it easier to use. E.G., once per level, when you use spell substitution, you can pay the same amount of gold it would've cost you to learn a spell two or more ranks below your maximum to add it to your spellbook. You can then swap that spell into one of your slots."
It's a high premium because it circumvents the downside of prepared casting. Spontaneous casters also have to spends time retaining if they want to change their spells, prepared casters can literally just put on a whole new persona day-to-day if they want. Showing up with a new caster build as they choose. Mitigating the downside of this ability too much wouldn't make the wizard more interestingGiven the Prescient line, I wonder if there could be a feat or line of feats where you can leave any number (maybe just one) of your non-highest rank slots open, then when you recall knowledge on a creature and learn of it's lowest save, weakness, or bypassable resistance, you can fill that slot with one spell from your spellbook that targets that save or has the trait of the weakness/bypass.
That emulates how the wizard is prepared without actually needing the player and GM to actually go through the motions.
There is also some lower level feats that lets you put two spells in one slot and chose between one or the other when you cast. This is considered a pretty high premium by paizo
*Edit:
Said featUnnecessarily high given spontaneous caster sig spells allow this as a core class feature.
And not one rank lower.
Why do you keep ignoring Arcane Evolution? As well as Occult Evolution?
As well as the feats that allow them to have 45 spells known? More than the wizard can slot if they change every slot?
How often do you need to change more than one spell?
On top of the wizard having to slot a spell like dispel magic in the highest slot to be effective while a sorcerer can make it a spell known at level 2 then a sig spell to heighten it whatever level necessary with all their slots over level 2?
I'd would love to see how often a wizard has to change spells. I know watching multiple wizards played and playing a few, it was extremely rare to have to change spell slots for battle because high value battle spells are pretty obvious.
The only time I needed to change out a spell load as a wizard was for non-combat situations. Even then only a few spells, often just one.
How often do you have to change a spell loadout for a wizard that it keeps brought up while ignoring the sorcerer also has this ability with a feat for at least one spell and can use signature spells to effectively make a counteract spell heightened so you don't have to slot it in the highest slot.
Then couple that with automatically heightened focus spells which contrary to some people's assertion can be very effective.
Arcane Evolution allows them to pick a spell across any level they might need including the highest level.
There's a reddit thread up right now that discusses the merit of just giving back casters 1 slot of every level the first time they would refocus after an encounter. While I don't like this idea in and of itself, it made me wonder if there wouldn't be merit to something else in the vicinity.
Specifically... what if you reduced the amount of spell slots per rank a wizard had,* but gave them an ability like this to compensate?
Reprepare and Refocus
Requirements: You are using the Refocus activity
You can use the time you spend refocusing to refill a spent spell slot. When you refocus, you can also prepare a spell into a single expended spellslot.
At level x,** you can prepare a spell into two expended spellslots, instead. Each expended slot must be of a different rank, and one slot must contain the same spell it did at the time it was expended.
At level y, you can prepare a spell into three expended spellslots, instead. Each expended slot must still be of a different rank, and two slots must contain the same spells they did at the time they were expended.
You can use this ability once a day at level 1; twice a day at level x; and three times a day at level y.
I would find this grossly overpowered, not because of combat but specifically because of how easy this would be to abuse out of combat. At that point, given enough time a Spell Substitution Wizard would not only be able to prepare the perfect spell for out-of-combat situations, but wouldn't even incur any resource expenditure while doing so. We'd be back at the D&D 5e Wizard out-casting a Sorcerer while also ritual-casting tons of spells for free. Even if you were to ignore the benefit of lower-rank slots and exploration, that's still a total of six ninth-rank spell slots you'd get to use at higher levels, before even dipping into DBI or feats for more.
Well, I know we don't all agree on this but even with some kind of divination mechanism that would allow the wizard to tailor your spell list to the challenges that lay ahead, he would still perform more poorly than a spontaneous spellcaster, just because flexibility on the spot is more important than flexibility on a daily basis when we're talking about fighting.
As for utility, sure, it can be useful to slot specific spells in a given day, even though it doesn't come up that often in our games and scrolls can usually cover the most niche application.
But even if your DM lets you map a whole dungeon and you know for a certainty what you'll face, it won't help you that much.
For instance, being able to switch between AOEs and single target spells at will depending on the way the opponents position themsleves will always be better than slotting an hypothetic silver bullet spell that hardly exists in PF2E (maybe against lycanthrops ?).
So the changes to the wizard should make him more powerful in a fight, not more efficient in OOC activities.
No matter which way you slice it, this is nine extra spell slots of your three highest ranks. We can complain about spell preparation all we want; a Wizard that can cast nearly double the amount of top-rank slots as a Sorcerer while also having the benefits of an arcane thesis on top is going to be stronger than a Sorcerer, and by a lot. Unless you're completely bungling your spell preparation at higher levels, you will be able to prepare useful spells into your top-rank slots, and that is enough for such a benefit to be far too strong.
FWIW, I did take a crack at an attritionless spellcaster framework over a year ago: when I playtested it, you had exactly two slots of your top rank as a prepared spellcaster, no other spell slots, a flexible spell collection of up to nine spells, the ability to replenish exactly one of those slots each time you Refocus... and that only just felt on the cusp of balanced, and definitely on the higher end of power. Even just nine spells was enough to output a lot of utility in exploration, and two top-rank slots per encounter meant you didn't have to hold back at all. Being able to cast top-rank spells without fear of attrition is a boon that should not be underestimated, and there's a good reason why the Kineticist's impulses are generally balanced to be a rank below that of of slot spells in power.
No matter which way you slice it, this is nine extra spell slots of your three highest ranks. We can complain about spell preparation all we want; a Wizard that can cast nearly double the amount of top-rank slots as a Sorcerer while also having the benefits of an arcane thesis on top is going to be stronger than a Sorcerer, and by a lot. Unless you're completely bungling your spell preparation at higher levels, you will be able to prepare useful spells into your top-rank slots, and that is enough for such a benefit to be far too strong.
Well, I know we don't agree on this but at least the discussion is more civil now.
It's true that a spellblending specialized wizard will have two more top slots than a sorcerer. I wrote a guide about the spellblending wizard back in the days, and I emphasized how much of a boon that was. I made the exact same point you're making now.
But "back in the days", the wizard could pilfer dangerous sorcery through multiclass, and ancestral memories gave a RK bonus instead of helping land a spell.
If we're talking numbers, most damage spells have a +2D6/level progression (average +7 damage/lvl). This means that starting at lvl 7, a sorcerer casting a level 4 spell and a lvl 3 spell will deal on average the exact same damage as a wizard casting TWO level 4 spells. And the discrepancy only grows from there: at level 15, my level 7 slots are now as powerful as your level 8 ones when it comes to damage. And if I add foretell harm or explosion of power in the mix, the sorcerer can actually cast spells two levels down and still be as powerful as the wizard.
So the wizard is left with debuff spells that are undoubtedly powerful (looking at you, mass slow) but not always useful and even there the imperial sorcerer can lock down someone more easily.
So it's not that spellblending isn't strong - it is - but it has been indirectly nerfed now that you cannot deal as much damage, while the sorcerer has been hugely buffed. Some people might call for a sorcerer nerf, I'd much rather have a wizard buff.
Also, like I said in my previous post, the lack of flexibility in a turn-by-turn basis can be crippling, even with a great spell list. If after a few fights the only thing you have left as a top slot is a fireball and the opponents are meleeing with your party, you might as well not have it.
I mean, if we're talking about Spell Blending, then your Wizard with the above would have literally double the Sorcerer's ninth-rank spell slots. This isn't a mere 2d6 progression, because this is the rank where we're casting falling stars, not fireball. In pure blasting terms, a 9th-rank fireball deals 63 average damage whereas falling stars, which covers a wider area and lets you choose the energy damage type as you cast it, deals 82 average damage. I'm sure you'll agree that that's a touch more, and more than what you can get from sorcerous potency (or Dangerous Sorcery for that matter).
But also, let's talk crowd control and debuffing. Even if we completely ignore the ninth-rank slots you get, that's three extra 8th-rank slots you get just to cast quandary. No save, no nothing, you just banish the monster to the Shadow Realm until at least their turn and waste at least one of their actions. Again, that's not power the Sorcerer can match, not even on raw spell output. A Wizard who could output all of this power in and out of combat would eat the Sorcerer's lunch even without a +9/10 to their spell damage rolls, and given how the Sorcerer's already a strong class, I sincerely don't believe the goal here should be to achieve a multiple of that class's power. The mere act of asking it unironically I think is enough to discredit what is otherwise a valid desire for more reasonable improvements.
I also think that at this point, the argument about spell preparation being "crippling" is kinda hokey: sure, you can technically prepare nothing but bad spells into your spell slots, but there comes a point where that stops being due to bad luck and becomes a skill issue. A low-level Wizard who doesn't yet know fully how the game works might be blameless when they stumble upon a cinder rat that's immune to breathe fire, ignition, noxious vapors, and sleep, but when you have literal dozens of spell slots to play with, it becomes trivially easy to vary your damage types, vary your saves, and just generally prepare for every eventuality, using low-rank slots in addition to your top-rank ones. I definitely agree that spell prep shines more at higher levels than at lower levels, but that I think is what makes the problem worse: this proposed fix is at its weakest when the Wizard is also at their weakest, and strongest at a point where the Wizard really doesn't need that degree of overkill. If we want to talk about improving the Wizard, let's perhaps think of ways to make them play better at low levels without bringing back the god-Wizard of editions past at higher levels.
I mean, if we're talking about Spell Blending, then your Wizard with the above would have literally double the Sorcerer's ninth-rank spell slots.
3 slots + 1 from specialization + 1 from spell blending + 1 from DBI makes 6, which is 2 more than the sorcerer's 4, not "literally double".
Also, your example is a bit disingenous since we're comparing spells one level apart, not 6 levels apart. Of course, fireball won't hold its own in a lvl 8 slot - but, for instance, Eclipse Burst will.
Falling stars is a spell that's really hard to aim. Great to level armies, less great in a regular AP. So, your wizard casts it for some reason and deals an average of 82 damage with one of his 6 top slots.
Either the sorcerer goes all out and outdamages you with one of his 4 top slots - which, you know, is a good thing because more damage right now is often better than maybe more damage later.
Or he shrugs, and casts Eclipse Burst with an 8th slot - dealing an average of 80 damage. Granted, you don't choose your energy type, but you blind on crit fail which is still something.
But I agree that, the higher your level, the more your power grows. Level 6 spells are a perfect example of a power shift: you get powerhouses like Mass Slow or Chain Lightning while level 5 had great spells, but nothing as effective.
Quandary (and some Power Words) is a spell without a save and it's a great spell by itself. But unless you plan on casting only quandary from now on, you'll eventually find yourself in a situation where you'll cast a save spell (like this mass slow we talked about) and the -3 the sorcerer gets at high level on the opponent's save is worth a top slot any time of the day.
A Wizard who could output all of this power in and out of combat would eat the Sorcerer's lunch even without a +9/10 to their spell damage rolls, and given how the Sorcerer's already a strong class, I sincerely don't believe the goal here should be to achieve a multiple of that class's power.
I don't understand what you're saying here.
You think the sorcerer is overturned so you don't want the wizard to get as powerful ?If that's the case, well at least we agree on the discrepancy between both classes.
I also think that at this point, the argument about spell preparation being "crippling" is kinda hokey: sure, you can technically prepare nothing but bad spells into your spell slots, but there comes a point where that stops being due to bad luck and becomes a skill issue. A low-level Wizard who doesn't yet know fully how the game works might be blameless when they stumble upon a cinder rat that's immune to ignition, noxious vapors, and sleep, but when you have literal dozens of spell slots to play with, it becomes trivially easy to vary your damage...
Nobody said anything about having ONLY bad spells in your spell slots - but sometimes, you do have A COUPLE spells that aren't a perfect fit for the situation. You'd really like another AOE spell but you spent all those you had on your top slots and are stuck with a single target slow and a fly spell. If merely one of your slots during the day (two if spell blending) feels less useful than it should, then your whole advantage is canceled.
I appreciate that you think it's all down to preparation, scouting and being clever, but you cannot tell me that those situations don't happen - they do, even with the perfect spell list.
I would find this grossly overpowered, not because of combat but specifically because of how easy this would be to abuse out of combat. At that point, given enough time a Spell Substitution Wizard would not only be able to prepare the perfect spell for out-of-combat situations, but wouldn't even incur any resource expenditure while doing so. We'd be back at the D&D 5e Wizard out-casting a Sorcerer while also ritual-casting tons of spells for free. Even if you were to ignore the benefit of lower-rank slots and exploration, that's still a total of six ninth-rank spell slots you'd get to use at higher levels, before even dipping into DBI or feats for more.
I mean, that's part of why you would have reduced spells per day in exchange. Playtesting would be required to see the correct amount, but I did say it was possible something as low as 1+1 top rank and 2+1 next to top rank would be correct. (And I do consider the amount of different spells you can have prepared at once a fairly important lever on prepared—it reduces your in-the-moment versatility by a lot). I did also say I was unsure if it should even hit 3/day instead of 2/day. The caveats are right there.
The limited reprepare count is effectively part of your spell allocation for the day, on this idea. Spending on out of combat utility and then repreparing is still eating slots. Your problem sounds like it's more with the total slot count than with the idea of midday reprepares.
===
More directly wrt attrition:
Attrition is tuned to casters, because they're the only classes that suffer real attrition anyways. And casters are "expected" to spend one top rank slot per encounter. So, for example... if casters at zero top rank slots regained one if they completed an encounter, it wouldn't really change the balancing of any individual encounter. It would just make it so casters had a more consistent performance floor.
The primary thing that regaining slots enables is more aggressive bursting in the first encounters of the day, which is part of why I suggested reducing the number of top rank slots the class would have if it had an ability to regain slots. That would also reduce the ceiling on the class's burst, in exchange.
Frankly, I think what you point at is while the system has a clear idea of what casters should do in a single encounter, that assumption is predicated on a caster desiring to maintain resources. The only thing that keeps a caster from going nova every fight is the promise of future fights. You can already cast quandry three times in a row if you don't care about the rest of the day. Is it really that much less balanced if, say, you can now cast it two times in a row, run out of non-school 8th rank slots, and get some back after the combat?
The system likewise doesn't really account for casters running out of resources or expending them too quickly in encounter difficulty. This is why the "expectation" is 3 moderates; one top rank spell, and one or more lower rank spells, focus spells, or cantrips per combat. That's the right rate for the caster to not run dry. And you're ideally supposed to keep the overall "difficulty budget" the same if you lengthen the day (more trivial/low) or shorten it (one or two severes, or one extreme). This doesn't always happen—especially at the end of campaigns—but based on what the devs have said, it's intended play.
===
I would also reiterate a point from earlier: if spending slots is meaningful attrition for encounter balance over the day, the Sorcerer has much less meaningful attrition than a wizard. The sorcerer has fewer top rank slots, but the sorcerer doesn't lose spell choice until they're out of slots—something I consider much more important. Without spellsub, the wizard only has all their spells loaded for as long as they don't use DBI. Without spellsub, you can only cast a spell as many times as you have it slotted+1. And so on. It's much easier to run out of helpful spells on Wizard, despite the higher effective spellslot count—after all, effectively targeting defenses means slotting spells that can do so, and it also means you'll almost always have spells slotted that are duds for a given encounter.