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.
Why, thank you ^^
This stuff has already been answered:
1. 2 more top slots spell blending equates to one extra fight per day if you have a lot of fights. At high level it is extremely rare you run out of slots at all.
The sorcerer who builds to blast or with some useful focus spell, can use a top level focus spell in place of a spell as long as they can refocus.
Why do those arguing for more top level slots with the Spell Blending thesis keep overlooking focus spells?
2 more top level spell slots, even make it four if you blend for a two more one level lower spell slots, can often be matched by a quality blasting or utility focus spell.
If you even manage to go through enough encounters for the top level slots to matter.
2. Changing out spells: A wizard has 27 normal slots and 9 school slots and one use of Arcane Bond, maybe another if they take the feat 2 levels slot.
This will give them 36 total slots per day with 9 limited to a school spell and one spontaneous casting of a spell they already cast.
Whereas a sorcerer with Arcane Evolution knows 36 spells know, 9 of them bloodline spells limited to the type of bloodline, Then one additional spell from their spellbook that is either an additional signature spell or an additional spell know of the highest level.
This gives them a total 37 spells known.
Then if they take Greater Mental Evolution at level 16, they know another 9 spells, maybe 10 if the DM is particularly generous with allowing them to know another level 10 spell.
Then if they take Greater Crossblooded Evolution. They know 3 more spells from another bloodline heightened to maximum level.
This gives them 48 spells know plus one flexible spell known from a spellbook for a total of 49 spells known.
So a level 18 sorcerer with signature spells will have up to
Bloodline Spell
4 Spells Known
3 spells from another bloodline
1 Flexible spell from Arcane Evolution
And 8 lower level signature spells.
So with their 4 maxi level slots, a sorcerer at level 18 has 17 total choices with their top level slots.
17.
Compared to the wizard even with spell blending who has maybe 5 plus a school spell and a free scroll. All spells they must slot in advance.
So a total of 7 top level slots that are fixed in advanced, so they must slot two of the same spell they can cast by blending away lower level slots.
Compared to 4 top level slots cast with a variation of 17 different spell choices.
The more you can use lower level spells useful like 4th level invis or a 5th level translocate, the more power they haves since the spell blender has blended his lower level slots away and loses access to this lower level useful utility spells.
So Mr. Versatility Wizard has 7 locked in slots compared to Mr. Supposedly No Versatility sorcerer has 17 different spells he can use with his top level slots.
Who is really Mr. Versatility?
3. If the wizard wants to be Mr. Versatility. Then he must not get Spell Blending and take Spell Substitution.
Suddenly he has 3 flexible slots, 1 school slot, 1 free daily scroll, and his 1 use of Arcane Bond.
This gives him 6 top level slots, which must also be chosen and locked in even with the 10 minute time to change per spell.
This is one again compared to the 17 different spells in combination the sorcerer has.
How many extra slots is 2 extra slots for Spell Substitution or 4 extra slots for Spell Blending?
Maybe another fight or two? Maybe? If you have that many fights?
4. Action Cost of Spells: What does it matter if you have extra spell slots if you can't cast them any faster than the sorcerer or any other class? You will still be bottlenecked by the action cost of spells on a per fight basis.
5. What if the sorcerer has a quality focus spell like a blasting spell they can do for 18d6 for a focus point. This is 108 potential damage spell.
If you launch a 9th level chain lightening your potential damage is higher 11d12 at 132 which is an idea spell. Or an Eclipse burst at 112 possible damage with a great rider for a 9th level slot while the sorcerer can up to 108 all day.
The wizard arguments are based on, "I take spell blending to prove I can have more top slots" and I take "Spell Substitution to prove I can be more versatile." It keeps switching whenever it seems better to make the claim in the argument.
Yet every Arcane sorcerer is the same. All of them always get 48 spells known, up to 9 sig spells they can heighten to max level slots, and can do either Imperial bloodline for some great utility focus spells or Dragon Bloodline for some quality damage focus spells.
It doesn't change for the sorcerer. The sorcerer always has something useful with massive on-demand flexibility.
I already conceded that the wizard with Spell Substitution has better out of combat utility and problem solving capabilities. But when it comes to on-demand versatility in combat, the sorcerer is king, especially the arcane sorcerer.
Now with new bloodline effects like Explosion of Power, the sorcerer is the king of blasting.
If like players like Blue Frog and myself know both sorcerers and wizards well and those arguing the wizard is fine don't even know the sorcerer at all.
They don't study their focus spells, the bloodline effects, their feats, and all the build options.
Doesn't it ever seem strange to you all that you don't see a thread on sorcerers or bards or druids or clerics?
I can't even make an argument for any of those classes needing improvements. I don't even know why the sorcerer and cleric were boosted like they were in the Remaster. I feel like the cleric is almost overpowered now.
Did you look at that cleric Inviolable? I picture a cleric standing there having a chat while fiends are hitting him and dying.
Other Party Member: "Why are you standing there why that demon is hitting you? What are you doing?"
Cleric: "Don't worry. It'll be dead soon. So what did you eat for breakfast?"
They can even blast now and six heals with no charisma requirement.
And that Raise Symbol for a +2 circumstance bonus to all saves.
I knew the cleric had boring feats, but dang, they really boosted that class.
The wizard gets barely anything. It was really surprising.
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".
Did you forget that we're talking about WoM's homebrew, which adds a net two extra spell slots at top ranks? 8 is literally double the Sorcerer's 4.
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.
I agree, it is disingenuous to use the scaling for a 3rd-rank spell when discussing 9th-rank spells. You should have brought up falling stars first, instead of requiring me to bring up the most obvious example of a 9th-rank arcane blasting spell.
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.
Unless you're still stuck in that same cramped white room, falling stars is exceptionally easy to aim. It has huge range, and you can call down four of them, which lets you cover a far greater area than fireball.
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.
9 extra damage at 17th level is not going to break the bank. After those four slots are gone, the Wizard will also significantly outperform the Sorcerer, because sorcerous potency doesn't let you cast falling stars with lower-rank slots.
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.
Isn't one of your biggest complaints that preparing any individual spell and overly relying on it means you get screwed over? Because I can easily see this over-reliance on eclipse burst going very wrong if you go up against an undead or cold-resistant enemy (or both). Either you can rely on the same spell all the time, in which case the rigidity of spell preparation isn't as bad as you say, or you can't, in which case you can't rely on a single spell to do all the work unless it specifically lets you dance around resistance and immunity, like falling stars. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
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.
But it's not, though. That extra action you're spending on that focus spell is an action that could be spent on a force barrage (as you said: more damage right now is often better than maybe more damage later) or something equally effective while you use a spell that requires no save. This also ignores the host of buff spells you can cast as a wizard, such as haste, fly, or foresight. Modifiers to your saves and attack rolls aren't the be-all and end-all when spells can do so much more.
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.
It's pretty simple: the Sorcerer is already on the higher end of what counts as acceptable power, in my opinion. WoM's proposal would make the Wizard much, much more powerful than that. Therefore, the proposal is excessive, and we should perhaps make less ridiculous demands in order to be taken seriously.
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.
... is that it? And this is the end of the world, because... ?
I'm honestly confused: for pages now, you've complained about spell preparation like it was the worst thing to have in the world, but when it comes to it, this is what you take issue with? Having a couple of spells that aren't a perfect fit in the moment, even if they're still perfectly serviceable? It feels at this point that I take more issue with Vancian spell preparation than you do -- I personally hate spell prep -- but I'm not making a meal of it in the same way.
If like players like Blue Frog and myself know both sorcerers and wizards well and those arguing the wizard is fine don't even know the sorcerer at all.
I don't think you really have the best grasp of this discussion or its subject matter, to be honest. It's not just that I'm very much not arguing that the Wizard is fine, I wrote a separate thread advocating a path towards improving the Wizard, where I linked to a 25-page Wizard homebrew I wrote, which I also linked in this thread and referred to several times. You're not just off-base; you and the base are on separate continents.
So, to make this as basic as possible: I do in fact think the Wizard is in a bad spot, and want the class to improve. I just think there is room for perhaps an ounce of nuance in this sort of discussion, because I don't think "the Wizard needs improvement" ought to translate to "let's give the Wizard essentially infinite spell slots for any given adventuring day". The very fact that not one, but several people seem to be advocating this unironically speaks less to me of the merits of those demands, and more to how wacky discourse gets when you spend too long in an echo chamber.
Unless you're still stuck in that same cramped white room, falling stars is exceptionally easy to aim. It has huge range, and you can call down four of them, which lets you cover a far greater area than fireball.
That's exactly the problem, mind you. A greater area is not always a boon but can be a drawback when it's friendly fire. I did a lot of Paizo's AP and there are precious few finale books (because you have to be 17+ to use it) where you can actually cast it.
Unless you're going first (which as a wizard with low perception you probably won't), a 40 feet burst is way too much. That's why it's considered to be an ok-spell, but certainly not a great one for a lvl 9 slot.
9 extra damage at 17th level is not going to break the bank. After those four slots are gone, the Wizard will also significantly outperform the Sorcerer, because sorcerous potency doesn't let you cast falling stars with lower-rank slots.
9 extra damage over 82 is more than 10% more. Not that bad.
And after those four slots are gone (IF they are gone, because as Deriven pointed out, between focus spells, top slots and lower debuff slots, you have a lot to play with), I gave you the maths with eclipse burst and it's not significant, it's 2 damage less. If you think 9 damage is negligible, then so is 2 I guess.
Isn't one of your biggest complaints that preparing any individual spell and overly relying on it means you get screwed over? Because I can easily see this over-reliance on eclipse burst going very wrong if you go up against an undead or cold-resistant enemy (or both). Either you can rely on the same spell all the time, in which case the rigidity of spell preparation isn't as bad as you say, or you can't, in which case you can't rely on a single spell to do all the work unless it specifically lets you dance around resistance and immunity, like falling stars. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
What over-reliance ? I can cast 17 different spells with my slots, eclipse burst is only one of them. I still can use chain lightning or dehydrate or phantasmal calamity to target whichever save is the lowest - or hell, even quandary or disappearance or true target or vampiric exsanguination or wall of stone or shadow siphon.
Meanwhile, you slotted Falling Stars, making it effectively a dud if you find yourself in melee.
But it's not, though. That extra action you're spending on that focus spell is an action that could be spent on a force barrage (as you said: more damage right now is often better than maybe more damage later) or something equally effective while you use a spell that requires no save. This also ignores the host of buff spells you can cast as a wizard, such as haste, fly, or foresight. Modifiers to your saves and attack rolls aren't the be-all and end-all when spells can do so much more.
I'll take a -3 to an opponent's save anyday over 1d4+1/2 lvl damage.
As for haste, fly and foresight, that's the thing: they're efficient spells, so they're already in the sorcerer's spell repertoire, which means he's better than the wizard at using them.It's pretty simple: the Sorcerer is already on the higher end of what counts as acceptable power, in my opinion. WoM's proposal would make the Wizard much, much more powerful than that. Therefore, the proposal is excessive, and we should perhaps make less ridiculous demands in order to be taken seriously.
Well, I never talked about WoW's proposal so I don't see what this has to do with the discussion.
... is that it? And this is the end of the world, because... ?
I'm honestly confused: for pages now, you've complained about spell preparation like it was the worst thing to have in the world, but when it comes to it, this is what you take issue with? Having a couple of spells that aren't a perfect fit in the moment, even if they're still perfectly serviceable? It feels at this point that I take more issue with Vancian spell preparation than you do -- I personally hate spell prep -- but I'm not making a meal of it in the same way.
When things can be easily compared, the sorcerer is better in every aspect to the wizard:
- He deals more damage with every blast (that cannot be disputed)- His focus spells are better (can hardly be disputed)
- His feats are weaker (could maybe be disputed, but apart from improved counterspell that I love, there is precious little meat on the wizard)
Some people said it was ok anyway because a wizard can have more top slots. I'm merely saying that this supposed advantage is nullified if you make just one dubious choice.
Even if 8 spellslots is a lot (and I /mostly/ agree—if I use scrolls of max rank spells with a retrieval prism or belt, does that break the game? does cleric font break the game? how much is DBI worth, given you can only use it on spells you've already used?)...
A prepared spellslot is straight up less valuable than a spontaneous spellslot. It's not really clear what the "relative" value of each is in conversion, but the more I've interacted with the system, the more I've wondered why every single prepared caster doesn't have more slots than their spontaneous counterparts. Only cleric really has this sort of feature.*
In 1E, spontaneous slots were behind curve and had a narrower amount of spells that could fill them than they do now, even if spontaneous slots were numerous; meanwhile, prepared slots could be prepped midday, and advanced on a faster curve, meaning prepared had meaningful advantages. Many prepared casters also had ways to spontaneously convert slots, be that via a class feature (like Druid and Cleric) or a feat (Preferred Spell). Those mitigations mattered a lot for class usability.
In 2E, spontaneous slots have far fewer tradeoffs in comparison, while prepared slots are extremely inflexible—especially for spellbook casters. While prepared (especially non-spellbook) will have moments where they can pull exactly the right spell out, most of the time, being prepared is straight up a liability. All your guardrails are gone. The things that made the trade worth it (especially spell power) are mostly gone. You are often slotting a ton of evergreen-ish spells anyways, because you have no fallbacks to ensure your slot is useful if you don't. The main point of differentiation in prepared spells will typically be defense targeting, not niche-filling or situationality; doing otherwise is a good way to have dud slots.
The end result of it is just that a prepared slot is not at all equivalent to a spontaneous slot. The spontaneous slot is far more easily used, and worth far more as a result. Yet most prepared casters have the same amount of slots as spontaneous casters, if not fewer. It is utterly baffling.
===
*Heal is a rate-limited spell, which is meaningful in this context—it's no good unless someone has taken damage, so you can't just blow heals every turn to nova. Still, I think it's noteworthy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This stuff has already been answered:
1. 2 more top slots spell blending equates to one extra fight per day if you have a lot of fights. At high level it is extremely rare you run out of slots at all.
The sorcerer who builds to blast or with some useful focus spell, can use a top level focus spell in place of a spell as long as they can refocus.
Why do those arguing for more top level slots with the Spell Blending thesis keep overlooking focus spells?
2 more top level spell slots, even make it four if you blend for a two more one level lower spell slots, can often be matched by a quality blasting or utility focus spell.
If you even manage to go through enough encounters for the top level slots to matter.
2. Changing out spells: A wizard has 27 normal slots and 9 school slots and one use of Arcane Bond, maybe another if they take the feat 2 levels slot.
This will give them 36 total slots per day with 9 limited to a school spell and one spontaneous casting of a spell they already cast.
Whereas a sorcerer with Arcane Evolution knows 36 spells know, 9 of them bloodline spells limited to the type of bloodline, Then one additional spell from their spellbook that is either an additional signature spell or an additional spell know of the highest level.
This gives them a total 37 spells known.
Then if they take Greater Mental Evolution at level 16, they know another 9 spells, maybe 10 if the DM is particularly generous with allowing them to know another level 10 spell.
Then if they take Greater Crossblooded Evolution. They know 3 more spells from another bloodline heightened to maximum level.
This gives them 48 spells know plus one flexible spell known from a spellbook for a total of 49 spells known.
So a level 18 sorcerer with signature spells will have up to
Bloodline Spell
4 Spells Known
3 spells from another bloodline
1 Flexible spell from Arcane Evolution
And 8 lower level signature spells.So with their 4 maxi level slots, a sorcerer at level 18 has 17 total...
That's cool, spontaneous casters have their advantages. As it should be. Spontaneous still can't completely change their repitiore day-to-day. As a prepared casters I can just decide to be a whole different guy tomorrow and it rocks. Spontaneous casters have encounter to encounter flexibility but are rigid otherwise. That encounter to encounter flexibility is very good and cool, it's not always better though. There is also something disingenuous about framing it as 45 spells known. Wizards can and will be able to fill each of their slots with a different spell. 4x9+1 is already 37, and 43 with cantrips, 44 with their starting focus spell even if their starting focus spell isn't fantastic. Split slot at 6 can bring us to 45 even, and scroll adept brings it to 47. You can get the second focus spell going to 48. Need I go on? It's clearly not a meaningful way to talk about either class and involves framing that doesn't really get at the core strengths or weaknesses
That's exactly the problem, mind you. A greater area is not always a boon but can be a drawback when it's friendly fire.
So we are in fact in that cramped white room; got it. How will the Sorcerer fare any different?
What you're also missing is how this extra area is an asset: if you happen to have multiple spread-out enemies, falling stars is tremendous. In fact, the more spread-out enemies you have, the more effective this spell is.
9 extra damage over 82 is more than 10% more. Not that bad.
If you think that's "not that bad", wait until you hear how weaknesses work. This is very much a case of downplaying and hyping up the same thing based on argumentative convenience. Oh, and by the way: while your Imperial Sorcerer is giving themselves that -3 to saves, your Wizard is giving themselves an extra 9d6 damage thanks to Secondary Detonation Array. That's an extra 31.5 damage, a 38% increase. Now that's not bad.
And after those four slots are gone (IF they are gone, because as Deriven pointed out, between focus spells, top slots and lower debuff slots, you have a lot to play with)
Whoa there. First you were complaining about how the Wizard is bad because they lack the Sorcerer's spell output... but now it's okay because of their focus spells? The ones that are derided for being weak? And their lower-rank spell slots, too? I don't know if this was your intention, but you're making a much better case for defending the Wizard's current state than I or anyone else has so far.
I gave you the maths with eclipse burst and it's not significant, it's 2 damage less. If you think 9 damage is negligible, then so is 2 I guess.
As stated already, the issue is much simpler than that: eclipse burst is just one spell, whose specific damage numbers you are over-relying on to draw your comparison between the Sorcerer's and the Wizard's damage. Chain lightning, dehydrate, and phantasmal calamity all deal less damage, as do the other spells you've mentioned, and many of these run into the same friendly fire problem you mention, while still being less able to catch specific targets and dealing worse with cover. The problem here is that you've argued yourself into a corner where you act like damage is everything, but the moment it's pointed out to you that the thing you're downplaying deals more damage, suddenly it's not a big deal. You act like not having the perfect spell for the occasion is the worst thing in the world (and you pretend spontaneous casters never have to deal with this), but then you deliberately argue only on the best-case scenario when it comes to doing raw damage comparisons. So cracked is your argumentation that you are simultaneously demanding for the Wizard to have more spell slots and more damage per spell than the Sorcerer, while also defending the Wizard's current state and claiming they can sort themselves out perfectly fine thanks to their focus spells and low-rank slots. Let's come to reality, please.
Meanwhile, you slotted Falling Stars, making it effectively a dud if you find yourself in melee.
You do realize most enemies don't occupy your space, right? It's not just that you have plenty of spells in hand that make it so you'll only get caught in melee due to extremely poor play (momentary recovery and wall of stone come to mind), you can still aim the larger area in such a way that you don't find yourself in it. Chain lightning isn't going to cut it at that range, and when your 6 HP/level caster is getting attacked in melee, your priority is going to be to get out of there, not keep on blasting like a monomaniac. Thankfully, spells like momentary recovery let you do both, and the spell's wording works particularly well with falling stars.
So we are in fact in that cramped white room; got it. How will the Sorcerer fare any different?
Well, Falling Stars only work in that wide open space fight under the light of the stars, that is no less whiteroomy than a cramped corridor.
Wait, scratch that, your hypothetic wide open space fight under the stars is actually the white room one, since 99% of encounters in Paizo's APs happen in cities, dungeons, caves. You would think it's not the case at higher levels but, at least in APs like Pathfinder, AoA or AoE, the last books are surprisingly cramped (trying not to spoil).
What you're also missing is how this extra area is an asset: if you happen to have multiple spread-out enemies, falling stars is tremendous. In fact, the more spread-out enemies you have, the more effective this spell is.
Well, I'm genuinely shocked, I wouldn't have guessed that ^^
If you think that's "not that bad", wait until you hear how weaknesses work. This is very much a case of downplaying and hyping up the same thing based on argumentative convenience. Oh, and by the way: while your Imperial Sorcerer is giving themselves that -3 to saves, your Wizard is giving themselves an extra 9d6 damage thanks to Secondary Detonation Array. That's an extra 31.5 damage, a 38% increase. Now that's not bad.
Secondary detonation array is one of the few great feats of wizards. It's as much damage as explosion of power, though.
So I *can* give an opponent -3 to his save, which is bonkers in PF2e tight maths. But I also *can* cast lvl 9 chain lightning for 11d12+9 damage + 9d6 explosion of power, followed by a lvl 7 (so as not to be too greedy) Force Barrage) for 4d4+4+9d6 extra damage.
In a matter of fairness, I should say that the 5-feet emanation of explosion of power is harder to aim and need team help.
Like I said, it's a matter of options. The sorcerer can outdps the wizard, the sorcerer can outdebuff the wizard. Just do a full round with a wizard and the sorcerer can do the same, just better.
Whoa there. First you were complaining about how the Wizard is bad because they lack the Sorcerer's spell output... but now it's okay because of their focus spells? The ones that are derided for being weak? And their lower-rank spell slots, too? I don't know if this was your intention, but you're making a much better case for defending the Wizard's current state than I or anyone else has so far.
You keep telling people they can't read, but here I was talking about the SORCERER focus spells, not the WIZARD, as should be obvious.
The problem here is that you've argued yourself into a corner where you act like damage is everything, but the moment it's pointed out to you that the thing you're downplaying deals more damage, suddenly it's not a big deal. You act like not having the perfect spell for the occasion is the worst thing in the world (and you pretend spontaneous casters never have to deal with this), but then you deliberately argue only on the best-case scenario when it comes to doing raw damage comparisons. So cracked is your argumentation that you are simultaneously demanding for the Wizard to have more spell slots and more damage per spell than the Sorcerer, while also defending the Wizard's current state and claiming they can sort themselves out perfectly fine thanks to their focus spells and low-rank slots. Let's come to reality, please.
Who's talking to a best case scenario when in 99% of the fights you won't be able to use Falling Stars ? I'm merely saying it's a spell you won't be able to use often - which actually might be fine if you were a sorcerer and could use the slot for another spell, but is not on a wizard.
As for damage, you might have noticed that I was comparing a level 8 spell to a level 9 one in a bid to give the poor wizard a chance.
As for the rest, since you read it wrong, I have no answer except that it's the opposite. It's hilarious that you think I say the wizard is perfectly fine when I'm advocating loudly for a change.
If we want the Wizard to more easily adapt on the fly beyond Spell Substitution, why not have a Feat line similar to Clever Counterspell but applied more broadly.
Perhaps something like a Spellshape that makes it so that the next spell you cast can be a different spell than the one you prepared but both need to share a Trait beyond Concentrate/Manipulate (and be in your Spellbook, of course.)
Or a Feat that lets you leave slots "open" at Daily Preparation that can then be used to cast a spell with X trait, like [Mental] or [Polymorph]. You could even have different Feats for different Traits.
Not sure how powerful this stuff would be but I do know it'd likely increase the mental load a bunch, which makes me doubt it'd be worth it. But it's an idea.
Excited to see the wizard feats in rival academies. I doubt there'll be anything to "fix the class" but new toys are always appreciated. I'm hoping for more scholastic type feats and (fingers crossed) fun things you can fuel with your curriculum slots.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's cool, spontaneous casters have their advantages. As it should be. Spontaneous still can't completely change their repitiore day-to-day. As a prepared casters I can just decide to be a whole different guy tomorrow and it rocks. Spontaneous casters have encounter to encounter flexibility but are rigid otherwise. That encounter to encounter flexibility is very good and cool, it's not always better though. There is also something disingenuous about framing it as 45 spells known. Wizards can and will be able to fill each of their slots with a different spell. 4x9+1 is already 37, and 43 with cantrips, 44 with their starting focus spell even if their starting focus spell isn't fantastic. Split slot at 6 can bring us to 45 even, and scroll adept brings it to 47. You can get the second focus spell going to 48. Need I go on? It's clearly not a meaningful way to talk about either class and involves framing that doesn't really get at the core strengths or weaknesses
You can change your spellbook day to day, but why would you if you already have most useful spells in your repertoire ?
Deriven brought the sheer number of spontaneous spells you get because it makes its limitation moot. If, hypothetically, a sorcerer could only know 15 spells from all levels, he would be forced to overspecialize and would lack a lot of staple effects.
But with so many spells to play with, a sorcerer can have AOE spells for all situations (cramped or not, Will or Fort or Ref...), single target spells and boss killers, and still have room for common buff spells like fly or haste, or debuff spells like slow or fear, while having a staff that gives him see invisibility and tongues, and a couple scrolls for his other needs.
Also, you cannot compare a spell repertoire with a spellbook. A wizard can indeed slot a different spell in each of his slots, but he'll probably be way less effective than if he doubled down on some golden spells.
Let's take a level 6 imperial sorcerer with a basic spell list. Since you took Arcane Evolution at level 4, you have an extra signature spell so long as you don't change your list.
1 - Force Barrage*, Gust of Wind, Befuddle, Illusory object
2 - Dispel Magic*, Invisibility, Blazing Bolt*, Acid Grip
3 - Haste, Slow, Cave Fangs, Fear*
So in a fighting situation, you can:
- Use a rank 3 Force Barrage or a slow on a solo boss.
- Use Cave Fangs in an AOE
- Use Blazing Bolt against multiple targets that are already engaging your friends
- Buff your friends with haste or invisibility
- Dispel magic at max rank.
- Have spells against will, reflex, fortitude and AC
- Have acid, fire, force (and electricity with cantrip) options.
Meanwhile, the wizard *could* slot the exact same spells (except that he can't because he has to account for his school). Let's do just that and since we're comparing combat potential, let's give him the battle school.
1 - Force barrage, Gust of Wind, Befuddle, Illusory object
2 - Resist energy, Invisibility, Dispel Magic, Acid Grip
3 - Fireball, haste, slow, force barrage
Doesn't look that far apart, right ? Except that it's much less flexible.
- Your dispel cannot heighten
- If you need two invisibilities you're SoL (because DBI only works on your top slots as a specialist).
- If you need two fireballs and two slows, you're SoL
And of course, that's still with less damage and less chance to land a debuff (although -1 is not that big a deal so far).
So either you keep being as generalist as possible - but then you have much less staying power in a fight. Or you overspecialize by slotting two fireballs or three force barrages - but then you have much less flexibility.
Please note I'm only talking about battle efficiency here, utility is yet another topic.
Even if 8 spellslots is a lot (and I /mostly/ agree—if I use scrolls of max rank spells with a retrieval prism or belt, does that break the game? does cleric font break the game? how much is DBI worth, given you can only use it on spells you've already used?)
"Does this break the game" is just about the worst metric you could possibly use to evaluate any change. PF2e is a resilient game, and is extremely difficult to actually break unless you do something really out there, like restrict everyone to just one action per turn. Giving the Wizard 8 top-rank slots may not break the game, but it would certainly create major balance problems, just as the Cleric would create balance problems if you could prepare literally any spell into their divine font slots, not just harm or heal. If we don't think extra slots is a big deal, then perhaps we shouldn't complain so hard about the Sorcerer and other classes having potentially more spell output than the Wizard.
Well, Falling Stars only work in that wide open space fight under the light of the stars, that is no less whiteroomy than a cramped corridor.
Wait, scratch that, your hypothetic wide open space fight under the stars is actually the white room one, since 99% of encounters in Paizo's APs happen in cities, dungeons, caves. You would think it's not the case at higher levels but, at least in APs like Pathfinder, AoA or AoE, the last books are surprisingly cramped (trying not to spoil).
Falling stars does not specify the need for an open sky, unlike spells like lightning storm that do. The spell is therefore usable indoors, and if you are making antagonistic rulings like these, it is no wonder the caster players at your table would be miserable. That's not a problem that will be solved by massively overbuffing the Wizard.
Secondary detonation array is one of the few great feats of wizards. It's as much damage as explosion of power, though.
... you mean, the feat that requires you to be within 5 feet of an enemy? The thing you just spent multiple posts arguing was a terrible idea? Have fun casting chain lightning from there while the enemy beats your silly sizzled Sorcerer to death.
Like I said, it's a matter of options. The sorcerer can outdps the wizard, the sorcerer can outdebuff the wizard. Just do a full round with a wizard and the sorcerer can do the same, just better.
I certainly agree that this is the case now; the point I am making is that this holds less true when the Wizard gets literally twice the top-rank slots of a Sorcerer, allowing them to cast far more powerful spells across multiple high-difficulty encounters and thereby beat the Sorcerer on raw power too. No amount of sophistry is going to disguise the fact that you're unironically asking for the Wizard to become an 8-slot caster, for all intents and purposes, and believe this is okay.
You keep telling people they can't read, but here I was talking about the SORCERER focus spells, not the WIZARD, as should be obvious.
Did you, thought? Let's look at what you said again:
9 extra damage over 82 is more than 10% more. Not that bad.
And after those four slots are gone (IF they are gone, because as Deriven pointed out, between focus spells, top slots and lower debuff slots, you have a lot to play with), I gave you the maths with eclipse burst and it's not significant, it's 2 damage less. If you think 9 damage is negligible, then so is 2 I guess.
Hmm, sounds to me like you wrote an ambiguous paragraph that accidentally disproved your pages' worth of complaining about the Wizard's supposedly lacking spell output, then clumsily tried to backtrack while lashing out in typical fashion. Whoops!
Who's talking to a best case scenario when in 99% of the fights you won't be able to use Falling Stars ? I'm merely saying it's a spell you won't be able to use often - which actually might be fine if you were a sorcerer and could use the slot for another spell, but is not on a wizard.
Still you, from the looks of it, particularly given how now you're resorting to house rules to try to make your point. Accusing me of lacking reading comprehension, a thing Maya kindly and specifically asked you not to do, does not contradict the fact that you are downplaying factors you've been playing up this whole time, all to push the narrative that the Wizard should become an 8-slot caster. I don't know who you're trying to convince, because it's not working on me, and something tells me it's not going to fool Paizo either.
I'll take a -3 to an opponent's save anyday over 1d4+1/2 lvl damage.
Didn't you just wax lyrical over 9 damage? Need I remind you, force barrage's 1d4+1 + 4 per odd rank on just a 7th-rank spell slot and with a single action is 14 average damage, quite substantially more -- and what's more, it's guaranteed. If a -3 is enough to get you excited, then literal unavoidable damage has got to be the dream (oh, and bonus: this is in fact one of the Wizard's focus spells!).
As for haste, fly and foresight, that's the thing: they're efficient spells, so they're already in the sorcerer's spell repertoire, which means he's better than the wizard at using them.
Ah yes, the three spells that every caster has, and nothing more. Tell me: do you seriously believe there are less than 40 spells ever worth picking? This is being generous and assuming these all work like signature spells, because otherwise you're only going to be picking one version of haste, one version of fly, one version of slow, and so on. AestheticDialectic is right to point out that this discussion only works when people completely and deliberately ignore the drawbacks of spontaneous spellcasting, including the inflexibility of spell repertoires. It is plainly obvious you are arguing on the basis of an imaginary Sorcerer that has every spell they could possibly want in their repertoire. By the same token, I could easily start arguing that the Wizard has whichever spell we're discussing prepared, a much more likely notion too given how Spell Substitution exists.
Well, I never talked about WoW's proposal so I don't see what this has to do with the discussion.
This is a blatant lie, as per your own post:
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.
Notice that you literally quoted the exact bit that refers to WoM's brew, and would only make sense in the context of WoM's brew. You knowingly picked an argument with me specifically on the grounds of WoM's brew. The fact that you would shift the goalposts so hard on the discussion that it ceases to make sense shows to me that you're much less interested in constructive discussion about the Wizard, and much more in picking fights just to appear in the right.
I think this discussion would flow a lot better if you got off your little soapbox for just one second and listened to others a bit better: I am very much on your side when we both talk about how underwhelming the Wizard is, and how they could do with improvements. I don't disagree with you that the Wizard compares unfavorably in many ways to the Sorcerer. The difference is that I think the improvements should be somewhere in the ballpark of realistic, if still ambitious, whereas you seem intent on pushing utterly ludicrous requests like giving the Wizard twice as many top-rank spell slots as any four-slot caster, giving them Fighter-level accuracy on spell attacks along with passively better-than-legendary save DCs, perhaps even both. There are such things as good and bad ideas, and I don't think yours or WoM's proposals fall in the former camp.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
- If you need two invisibilities you're SoL (because DBI only works on your top slots as a specialist).
I fully agree with your whole post, but I just chime in to say that DBI works on any slot as a specialist, it's just that you only get one of them.
So either you keep being as generalist as possible - but then you have much less staying power in a fight. Or you overspecialize by slotting two fireballs or three force barrages - but then you have much less flexibility.
Yep. Prepared casters are specialists or weaklings. The only ones I've seen contributing were packing the same spells over and over again.