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 ^^
| 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 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.
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
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.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
| 4 people 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.
| 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.
Sounds like wizards should just have the ability to cast spells right from their spellbooks.
Reprepare:
Powerful wizards know how to fully utilize their spellbooks while using their magic to stay alive...your not that wizard yet. Like any wizard you can rifle through your spellbook for 3 actions to change any slot to another spell that could be prepared in that slot, but you require protection from your allies. While repreparing you are off guard. After repreparing a spell you must use your next actions on the following turn to cast the spell that was selected.
At level 8 you have improved at pinch spell preparation and can do so while no longer being off guard.
Level 15 your ability to prepare on the fly has improved, you may cast any cantrip you have prepared while repreparing, if shield was cast double the bonus to +2.
With spell substitution, a level 6 wizard can end up casting slow (or fireball, or whatever) 4 times over the course of the day, and just incrementally lose other potential spells from their rank 3 slots, which can really help them avoid feeling like they just have prepare multiple versions of the same spell at the beginning of each day. This is where drain bonded item is at its most helpful because it should be incredibly rare to need to cast 3 of the same top rank spell in any but the most extreme rolling encounters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With spell substitution, a level 6 wizard can end up casting slow (or fireball, or whatever) 4 times over the course of the day, and just incrementally lose other potential spells from their rank 3 slots, which can really help them avoid feeling like they just have prepare multiple versions of the same spell at the beginning of each day. This is where drain bonded item is at its most helpful because it should be incredibly rare to need to cast 3 of the same top rank spell in any but the most extreme rolling encounters.
Not that rare actually. PF2 casting follows the "double tap" rule: If you want to be sure to land one spell, you have to cast it twice. And three times if we are speaking of a boss encounter.
So casting the same spell repeatedly is expected. Now, it doesn't necessarily have to be a top rank spell, and that seems rather bad to do so. But it definitely happens often, I do it regularly.
DBI does help a lot when you want to cast that big-ticket spell a second time, and frees up a spell slot for something different. I do think SuperBidi is right that a Wizard will often want to prepare the same spell more than once, especially if it's a combat-relevant spell, but I also think Unicore is correct to point out how Spell Substitution gives the Wizard a lot more wiggle room: if it's looking like a 4-fireball day, the Wizard can adjust accordingly, and if the Wizard prepared too many fireballs, they can pivot mid-adventure towards something else. Of all the arcane theses, Spell Substitution is arguably the most wizardly to me and I think eases quite a few of the drawbacks of spell preparation, which is why I think it and arcane bond could very well trade places as a core class feature.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can change your spellbook day to day, but why would you if you already have most useful spells in your repertoire ?
Cuz Deriven is simply wrong that the best way to play any spellcaster is to simply have and use the assumed power house spells. Generally prepared casters do best in sandbox adventures and anything with this degree of freedom where you can use your time to learn what you'll deal with each day. If you only prepare your fears, slows, haste and such, you will be worse than a spontaneous caster, but that's absolutely not how a prepared casters should be played at all. I'll just link video that's good on the subject
video here
Out of the 600 something arcane spells how many are quality?
Can other spells not considered quality be better in a given situation.
Not to beat around the bush with the question but if a sorcerer can at most have 4 spells known per spell rank here is how many spells they cannot know that a wizard can know more of. Taling distinct spells not heightened versions of the same spells which confuses the point of spell diversity overall for spell options at a given rank.
Sorcerer can at max know these arcane spells before adding in feats.
Rank 1 - 4 known of 114 100
Rank 2 - 4 known of 120 116
Rank 3 - 4 known of 99 95
Rank 4 - 4 known of 90 86
Rank 5 - 4 known of 76 72
Rank 6 - 4 known of 49 45
Rank 7 - 4 known of 40 36
Rank 8 - 4 known of 28 24
Rank 9 - 4 known of 23 19
Rank 10 - 2 known of 9 7
Thats 581 spells a particular sorcerer will not know.
How many at each rank are quality?
A side note about Arcane evolution. It gives you effectively a rotating 1 more. So really any particular sorcerer is not changing from what they are with one spell from arcane evolution chosen daily. Also that sorcerer is spending resources the same as a wizard to get these extra spells to swap between but will likely be delayed with a lower Int for learn a spell (and really shouldn't get this feat at all if they dont invest in arcana)
A sorcerer only knows 4 rank 1 spells so that's 100 spells they don't know and can't regularly use. are there only 4 quality rank 1 spells?
In fact at each rank how many spells are quality? Are the rest really spells that are so useless that having them instead of the 4 this hypothetical only quality spell sorcerer chose really going to underperform?
If this is true then the implication of that statement is that there was catastrophically bad game design when making spells.
I am going to guess that instead there is some serious misunderstanding in how the spells not considered quality can be used and why they were written.
The other ignored point is spell synergy. A sorcerer will not be able to change up their known spells to pick out a list for the day suited to a strategy in an upcoming fight that takes advantage of the terrain, distance, enemy weaknesses and spell synergy. Like the example I gave with control water followed up with spells like hydraulic torrent and acid grip to make sure enemies cannot all arrive at your party front line at the same time, and the ones that do are easy pickings. Three spells that might not be on a sorcerer quality list at all but a wizard can learn and prepare for a fight they know they can easily win using this strategy. Thats one example, it took me a couple seconds looking at the arcane list to spot it. I'm not even particularly knowledgeable about the spell list to call out how many synergies can be found among those 600 arcane spells with terrain, party abilities, and enemy limitations.
The main point here is it seems that all this talk about sorcerers being strictly better in all ways also is a indictment of the other
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why do we always do this when it comes to Wizards?
No other class that was buffed in the remaster was unplayable or mechanically broken. A class shouldn't need to be in such a state to get looked at. That would be abject failure on behalf of paizo to release something in such a state.
It's not some threshold that should be met or is required for action, because, if it's in that state, multiple people have failed in their jobs at several levels. It's not something that should be expected to happen ever, let alone as something which is a needed requirement for change.
The Wizard is a bad class for multiple reasons, none of which are based on their ability to mechanically function at a base level.
seriously though, thats a lot of spells not being used at all if theres only like 36 in the game that are actually good.
...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
What are you talking about? I'm not even including cantrips. If you include cantrips, they are at 50. If you add in level 10 spells and take an extra one, you are 51 to 52.
Then the fact if you choose a different spell in each slot, you can use that spell once with one extra use per day for Arcane Bond.
While the sorcerer can use their spells know in far more versatile combinations than a wizard, especially a wizard who slots a different spell in each slot.
This is a useful way to talk about the class that you are casting aside because the prepared caster loses in nearly every way to the spontaneous caster when you see how they can use their spells known in a vastly more versatile manner than the wizard.
| 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 weaknessesYou 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...
Exactly. Back when the sorcerer was severely limited in spells known with no real feats to expand it much and the wizard had better feats to expand their flexibility this all made sense. It no longer makes sense.
With 48 spells possible known and one flexible spell per day, you have more than enough versatility to handle most situations. Then you take into account party capabilities, you don't even need that wizard day to day versatility.
Then you have Aesthetic Dialectic changing his tune from post to post. In one post, he has Spell Blending for more top level slots. Then in another post he has Spell Substitution for encounter to encounter changes to his spell list. When you can't have both. He needs to pick a thesis and stick with it because he can't have both, wizard feats don't allow that like bard feats allow two muses, druid feats allow multiple orders, sorcerer feats allow access to multiple bloodlines, psychic feats allow access to other minds.
Wizard and witch have no feats to access other curriculums, thesis, or patrons. Not sure why given how much the focus spells and abilities aren't that great, but whoever designed both classes decided they didn't like access to other schools or thesis or patrons. Too powerful? That seems like a crazy assessment, but possible I guess.
The wizard limitations don't make sense given how much they gave every other PF2 class, the way they spread spells across the traditions with arcane losing so much of its power, and how bad the curriculums compare to muses, orders, minds, bloodlines, etcetera in what they give.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why do we always do this when it comes to Wizards?
I mean mostly because people like talking about Wizards more. It's not like they're unique here, or even the worst example of a kind of meh class with boring options.
It's just when Paizo dropped the ball with the Remastered Ranger everyone said "wow that sucks" and that was the end of the discussion.
- 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.
This is exactly what I've seen too. They don't change their spells much at all because the quality spells don't change if you're a spontaneous or prepared caster.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can change your spellbook day to day, but why would you if you already have most useful spells in your repertoire ?Cuz Deriven is simply wrong that the best way to play any spellcaster is to simply have and use the assumed power house spells. Generally prepared casters do best in sandbox adventures and anything with this degree of freedom where you can use your time to learn what you'll deal with each day. If you only prepare your fears, slows, haste and such, you will be worse than a spontaneous caster, but that's absolutely not how a prepared casters should be played at all. I'll just link video that's good on the subject
video here
You claim I'm wrong while not providing any evidence than a theory video. I play all these classes. I have listed multiple feats, spells, class features, and the like proving what I am stating is true. You ignore all of it because you seem to play one caster and no others so you don't even have knowledge of the other casters to compare.
If you have been playing so much, please provide multiple examples where constantly changing out your spell load allowed you to perform at superior level in combat?
I've already stated that a Spell Substitution wizard with a well built spellbook can shine in non-combat situations where time allows them to load out problem solving spells.
Problem is will they perform better than a rogue using skills or a group coming up with a plan using their pooled resources? Is it more fun for the group to wait for the wizard to solve the non-combat problem with spells or do so as a group?
When you call someone wrong, please provide more evidence as I have provided sufficient evidence to the contrary where a statement "Deriven is wrong" with no evidence to prove why as an extremely weak counterargument.
At this point, I'm more interested in whatever data is telling the developers that Wizard is fine. There must be something wrong with the data or its interpretation, because I just can't believe that's the case.
I think their data is based more around player satisfaction than performance or comparative interesting builds.
As seen in this thread, there are some folks who don't really spend much time comparing classes and consider a class fine if they're having fun with it.
I'm not even sure how played the wizard is. That would be interesting information to see. I know in my particular group the wizard went from one of the most played classes in our 30 plus years of gaming to almost never played in PF2. I saw more wizards played in 5E than PF2.
Though the 5E bard did increase in play a great deal as did the cleric in 5E. Both were strong in 5E and are strong in PF2.
I do have one player that keeps trying a wizard even though he knows they aren't as good as other classes solely because he likes them conceptually and his favorite characters from past editions are wizards.
Since I made wizards spontaneous and gave Spell Substitution as a free thesis, wizards at least do well enough even though he takes very few wizard feats. He stacks on archetype feats as he doesn't like the wizard feats.
What I find telling is I made the wizard a spontaneous caster who can change out their spells with Spell Substitution for free and that has made them merely equal to other classes in performance due to the great class features and feats the other caster classes receive.
People who don't play other casters don't realize that the other traditions are far more versatile than the arcane list in terms of impact spells. Primal being able to heal and blast is very powerful. Occult has almost everything. Divine with the change to spirit damage is now an all round good list. Arcane is great at blasting and some utility, but lacks some powerful buffs, debuffs, and no heals and not much condition removal as well as not great summons.
Arcane aka Sorc/Wizard list used to be the king spell list in PF1 and it wasn't even close. In PF2 the different traditions are very comparable to each other.
Why do we always do this when it comes to Wizards?
No other class that was buffed in the remaster was unplayable or mechanically broken. A class shouldn't need to be in such a state to get looked at. That would be abject failure on behalf of paizo to release something in such a state.
It's not some threshold that should be met or is required for action, because, if it's in that state, multiple people have failed in their jobs at several levels. It's not something that should be expected to happen ever, let alone as something which is a needed requirement for change.
The Wizard is a bad class for multiple reasons, none of which are based on their ability to mechanically function at a base level.
I'm not sure. Some people are very satisfied with the current iteration of the wizard and others are not.
I'm not even sure how many people play wizards in PF2. Someone at Paizo thinks they're fine, so no great fixes.
But who knows, maybe the level 20 feats are so good a Paizo designer thinks that makes it all worth it. Spell Combination is pretty ridiculously good. That feat alone almost makes me want to play a wizard to 20. I was doing some theorycrafting with Spell Combination and that feat has some absolutely ridiculous combinations on top of the double disintegrate.
I still would love to hear someone with experience with Spell Combination telling us how well it worked. It looks pretty incredible. The level 20 wizard feats are good. You won't play at level 20 for long. But I imagine if you make it to level 20 as a wizard, you'll enjoy picking one of those feats.
Maybe that's part of their power budget. I don't know. Best level 20 caster feats, so you gotta be kind of boring until you hit level 20.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You claim I'm wrong while not providing any evidence than a theory video. I play all these classes. I have listed multiple feats, spells, class features, and the like proving what I am stating is true. You ignore all of it because you seem to play one caster and no others so you don't even have knowledge of the other casters to compare.
If you have been playing so much, please provide multiple examples where constantly changing out your spell load allowed you to perform at superior level in combat?
I've already stated that a Spell Substitution wizard with a well built spellbook can shine in non-combat situations where time allows them to load out problem solving spells.
Problem is will they perform better than a rogue using skills or a group coming up with a plan using their pooled resources? Is it more fun for the group to wait for the wizard to solve the non-combat problem with spells or do so as a group?
When you call someone wrong, please provide more evidence as I have provided sufficient evidence to the contrary where a statement "Deriven is wrong" with no evidence to prove why as an extremely weak counterargument.
Mainly because I'm not interested in rehashing any arguments, nor am I particularly invested in convincing you in specific. You have shown in the details of how you play that you simply don't interact with the tools prepared casting gives you in order to maximize its potential, and because spontaneous is actually very good in this edition you simply think prepared sucks because it isn't always better and not leaps and bounds better. They're simply both viable options and I don't need you writing the same walls of text about the same class features and feats again and again. I don't agree with your assessment, I think the way you play is not suited to prepared casting, but also that this is fine. There is simply a large personality difference between us here. For example you see it as an inconsistency that I mention both substitution and blending as things which provide a lot of power and potential to wizards because they cannot be taken simultaneously, but to me it's an open ended question. These are abilities which push the power and capacities of the class in different powerful directions
I don't know if it is worth my time to argue with someone who is convinced the same handful of spells are the only good ones, that top levels slots beyond 3-4 are not worthwhile, nor really sees the power and potential in the modularity and flexibility of changing your entire load out day-to-day, and I mean this sincerely. I do think frequently getting the most out of prepared casting is in practical terms going to mean you swap well over half your spells according to the situation and team composition. You don't play in a way or with people where this would be necessary or facilitated well. We simply will not see eye to eye on this. It won't happen
Oh, and the video is not a theory video. It's instructional, just need to clarify that point
Mainly because I'm not interested in rehashing any arguments, nor am I particularly invested in convincing you in specific. You have shown in the details of how you play that you simply don't interact with the tools prepared casting gives you in order to maximize its potential, and because spontaneous is actually very good in this edition you simply think prepared sucks because it isn't always better and not leaps and bounds better. They're simply both viable options and I don't need you writing the same walls of text about the same class features and feats again and again. I don't agree with your assessment, I think the way you play is not suited to prepared casting, but also that this is fine. There is simply a large personality difference between us here. For example you see it as an inconsistency that I mention both substitution and blending as...You claim I'm wrong while not providing any evidence than a theory video. I play all these classes. I have listed multiple feats, spells, class features, and the like proving what I am stating is true. You ignore all of it because you seem to play one caster and no others so you don't even have knowledge of the other casters to compare.
If you have been playing so much, please provide multiple examples where constantly changing out your spell load allowed you to perform at superior level in combat?
I've already stated that a Spell Substitution wizard with a well built spellbook can shine in non-combat situations where time allows them to load out problem solving spells.
Problem is will they perform better than a rogue using skills or a group coming up with a plan using their pooled resources? Is it more fun for the group to wait for the wizard to solve the non-combat problem with spells or do so as a group?
When you call someone wrong, please provide more evidence as I have provided sufficient evidence to the contrary where a statement "Deriven is wrong" with no evidence to prove why as an extremely weak counterargument.
I know prepared casting as well as I know spontaneous. I could discuss either one. I'm not somehow unaware of how to use prepared casting. The wizard is not the only prepared caster, it is merely the worst of even all the prepared casters.
You don't hear me complaining about prepared casters in general because clerics, druids, and magus have sufficient class features and feats to make them still a quality class. The remastered witch is sufficiently improved as to no longer be a lackluster prepared caster.
The wizard is the sole class with lackluster class features and feats that I can't help but call that out. It's not the prepared casting that makes the wizard class lackluster.
You're focused on the prepared casting because it's all you have to argue for the wizard. Which should tell you something about the class when it is so lacking in class features comparatively to other caster classes that you can't even tout good builds compared to other prepared casters.
I could breakdown great builds for the druid, cleric, and magus using prepared casting. I can't do that much with the wizard.
I'd be quite satisfied with the wizard as a prepared caster if their feats and class features better supported the versatility so often attributed to them and their feats made for some fun builds.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're focused on the prepared casting because it's all you have to argue for the wizard. Which should tell you something about the class when it is so lacking in class features comparatively to other caster classes that you can't even tout good builds compared to other prepared casters.
I could breakdown great builds for the druid, cleric, and magus using prepared casting. I can't do that much with the wizard.
I'd be quite satisfied with the wizard as a prepared caster if their feats and class features better supported the versatility so often attributed to them and their feats made for some fun builds.
Cleric is a complicated one because it is the best class in the game. Divine list is stacked, it has a great chassis, divine font and good feats only lacking wr2 focus spells for some domains. I don't think it should be our measure because it over performs compared to everything... But I this isn't important really. I was going to go on a tangent about how I think the druid is actually insanely boring and not very good, but you and I don't disagree that giving the wizard a few things would be welcomed. The disagreement is that you want to make them more like other classes, but I see their issue as having too low of a skill floor, and not too low of skill ceiling. The skill ceiling of the wizard I would only put barely below the best casters in the system, but I would put the floor even lower because it requires system mastery wr2 prepared casting. This is why my recommendations have been about raising the floor and steering players in the right direction. The wizard has sneaky power hidden in otherwise very unglamorous feats and features. I would also welcome a change that gives those feats and features more aesthetic appeal to emphasize them more, but I don't agree with positions such as making spell substitution too good(which defeats the point, purpose and fun of prepared casting) nor that they should have more and stronger focus spells. Of all the casters I think the wizard in specific should be the one designed without focus spells in mind and if they didn't already have them I would like to see experimentation with the wizard class and designing them without any at all. It's the one class that I think should be build around those daily preparations primarily and exclusively. So my push back will always and primarily be against removing this identity from the class as it is to my mind the central thing
We both want the class to have more toys, but I specifically do not like when suggestions seek to homogenize casters too much. They're already too homogeneous
|
I'm not even sure how many people play wizards in PF2. Someone at Paizo thinks they're fine, so no great fixes.
So to throw a somewhat meaningless personal data point into the conversation, I have yet to see a Sorcerer in play in 2e. I've seen a few Wizards, and a decent number of Witches (but none of them Arcane). I have no idea what people are doing in their home games, but that probably covers about 2/3 of the people who regularly play PFS in the state of Michigan.
Part of this is that the pregen Wizard is really solidly built -- newbies try it out and then make their own.
And then in the home campaigns that I've played, anyone interested in a full caster gravitates toward Cleric. Casters I have personally played are Wizard, Psychic, Cleric, and Witch. (I don't personally like Wizards, but I won a PFS Runelord boon in a raffle, so had to use that, and my other is a Hallowed Necromancer, which looked more interesting with a Wizard base)
No judgment on effectiveness one way or the other, but popularity-wise, Wizards are fine.
I'm not even sure how many people play wizards in PF2. Someone at Paizo thinks they're fine, so no great fixes.So to throw a somewhat meaningless personal data point into the conversation, I have yet to see a Sorcerer in play in 2e. I've seen a few Wizards, and a decent number of Witches (but none of them Arcane). I have no idea what people are doing in their home games, but that probably covers about 2/3 of the people who regularly play PFS in the state of Michigan.
Part of this is that the pregen Wizard is really solidly built -- newbies try it out and then make their own.
And then in the home campaigns that I've played, anyone interested in a full caster gravitates toward Cleric. Casters I have personally played are Wizard, Psychic, Cleric, and Witch. (I don't personally like Wizards, but I won a PFS Runelord boon in a raffle, so had to use that, and my other is a Hallowed Necromancer, which looked more interesting with a Wizard base)
No judgment on effectiveness one way or the other, but popularity-wise, Wizards are fine.
Interesting.
I've seen every class in the game played except gunslingers, inventors, and thaumaturges and the new classes animist and exemplar.
I play a lot of sorcs. I'm the magic guy of the group, so I prefer casters over martials. I get too bored of martials over the long haul. In every edition of D&D or PF until PF2, I have preferred the wizard.
In PF2, I feel the sorcerer and druid provide a better play experience than the wizard.
Bards are great, but I just can't get into them.
Clerics are way better in the remaster. Almost too good. I'm playing a Remaster cleric and they are good at almost everything now with casting. Divine list is great now.
I'm finding the new oracle is more enjoyable than the old oracle even though I miss the unique oracle flavor in the old one and PF2 legacy. But the new oracle is much more playable and powerful.
My players are divided in their preference. Most prefer martials as casting is not their thing. One player does prefer wizards, but he acknowledges they're not as good as the other casters but he just likes them. I figure that is what keeps a lot of players playing the wizard. Tradition and preference. Wizards are not bad enough to be unplayable.
I'm surprised no one you have played with has read the sorcerer with all their amazing builds. I've built sorc battle casters and healers. Sorc is a real versatile class with lots of interesting build options.
Some of the bloodlines have some great focus spells. Imperial, Harrow, Nymph, Elemental, Draconic (even better now). Shadow I like because it looks cool.
Sorc design is real nice now.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The mathfinder video is literally just telling you to do things wizard players have been doing for as long as they've played the game. We know these things. We do these things already. I personally disagree that prepared casting is valuable in the system; most prepared casters are decent in spite of prepared casting, not because of it. They'd almost universally be better as spontaneous casters, and it doesn't feel like being prepared is a tax paid to gain better class features—if anything, it feels like you get worse features for being prepared.
For wizard, specifically, there aren't enough situations where you need more spell diversity than a sorcerer, and preparing a diverse spell assortment means not preparing repeat casts, which you ultimately have to do to be effective.
I have built sorcerers. There aren't really that many hard choices to make with spell selection—especially when you account for the ability to cycle out spells that are past their prime, like magic weapon. The stuff you miss out on just isn't critical. You have enough room to take a healthy mix of utility (like airlift), debuffs, and damage—and you only get more room as you level. Sorcerer would need to actually feel constrained in its choices for wizard to have a point. It just isn't, especially not with a staff (which basically acts as lower level spells known), scrolls, and arcane evolution.
Note how minimally different the prep swaps in the example in the mathfinder video actually are. Most of those swaps make very little practical difference, like swapping between horizon thunder sphere and floating flame. And frankly, I take issue with some of the spell selections:
-I dislike that cantrips aren't specified.
-Thesis also isn't specified for the wizard, unless I missed it.
-No staves.
-His comparison Sorc is using more generic of a list than it needs to, honestly. I also think comparing bloodlines other than imperial is instructive.
-No repeat preps on Wizard, though Universalist is presumably to mitigate this. Universalist jacks up your spell learning costs by a lot, though—with the spells mathfinder is using, I think there's a good argument he should be battle magic instead, as they would at least get Earthbind for free and he can just dump Force Barrage into school slots. The universalist benefit isn't as large at L6.
-Revealing light—which he prepared every single day—is best shoved off onto a scroll or having its functionality replaced by a consumable like revealing mist (a consumable which, incidentally, cannot fail to work). I'm also unsure why revealing light is prepped on the first day.
-Swapping off Befuddle on the first day is kind of a "cheat" to make the wizard look better here. Befuddle is never actually prepared on any day. Befuddle is a solid spell, sure, but Sorc loses nothing here if they don't have befuddle. I'd also consider befuddle significantly more situational than Fear, so I'm unsure why it's Befuddle on the "generic" daily list.
-Earthbind is awful outside of enclosed spaces, and even then, it's kind of mid. Casting magic weapon on a backup bow is genuinely better anti-flight than Earthbind a lot of the time. Too many enemies you want to earthbind can just stay out of range or run away forever. This prep would at least be more understandable if you got it for free from Battle Magic.
-Using Wooden Double as a top rank slot is kind of questionable. I get the rationale, but it's still quite situational compared to other possible choices.
-In general, the final day's spell selection is so specced into one single-target boss fight that you're going to have a BAD time if there's anything else. I'm not much for this kind of prep. Overly specialized prep is a good way to get humbled. How do you know the boss has no adds? How do you know you won't have to fight some lower level fey first?
So, let's look at what we could get from a level 6 arcane sorc, accounting for the stuff mathfinder left out, and removing a few of the weirder choices that make wizard look better than it should.
Draconic
0: †Shield, Illuminate, Electric Arc, Figment, Needle Darts
1: †Fear*, Leaden Steps, Illusory Object, Force Barrage
2: †Blazing Bolt*, Noise Blast, Acid Grip, Laughing Fit
3: †Haste, Slow, Lightning Bolt*, Agonizing Despair, [Earthbind/Wooden Double/Dehydrate]**Feats: Reach Spell, Anoint Ally, Arcane Evolution, Advanced Bloodline
Staff: Staff of the Unblinking Eye. Grants 0) Detect Magic, 1) Sure Strike, 2) Darkvision, See the Unseen, Translate.
Focus Spells:
Flurry of Claws: Meh. Okay backup to target AC.
Dragon Breath: Excellent blast for a focus spell. Great backup spell.Notes: Lightning bolt is chosen since I have dragon breath, but it's fine to just take fireball. I also swapped out floating flame for noise blast because of dragon breath; swapping it back is fine, as is picking a utility spell like invis (or even revealing light) instead.
Every spell on that staff is good, and it's plugging a few holes in our capabilities.
---
Genie (Shaitan)
0: †Detect Magic, Illuminate, Figment, Needle Darts, Shield
1: †Illusory Disguise, Fear*, Leaden Steps, Force Barrage
2: †Revealing Light, Floating Flame, Blazing Bolt*, Loose Time's Arrow
3: †Enthrall, Slow, Fireball*, Agonizing Despair, [Earthbind/Wooden Double/Dehydrate]**Feats: Reach Spell, Propelling Sorcery (excellent with the reaction focus spell), Arcane Evolution, Advanced Bloodline
Staff: Staff of the Tempest. 0) Electric Arc; 1) Thunderstrike, Hydraulic Push; 2) Thunderstrike, Mist, Resist Energy (electricity only)
Focus Spells:
Genie's Veil: Good substitute for the defensive spells mathfinder has, especially with propelling sorcery.
Heart's Desire: A partial substitute for Laughing Fit, and could free up a second level slot; it's certainly a replacement for befuddle. I may still want laughing fit, but I'd try to see how much of a substitute this can be in practice first.Notes: This is probably the one that least meets the assignment, since its rank 1 bloodline spell is pure utility that doesn't match anything Mathfinder is taking and its rank 3 bloodline spell just isn't that good. But it's still kind of nice on its own terms. Propelling Sorcery and Genie's Veil are really nice together, and make up for the loss of defensive slots. I feel like that focus spell isn't discussed much since it's on a worse overall bloodline, but it -is- really good.
I've swapped Acid Grip for Floating Flame, because Hydraulic Push can meet some forced movement needs in pinch (albeit less reliably—hope you're holding a hero point for that attack roll). You could swap it back.
Loose Time's Arrow is honestly better than non-prebuff haste, so that's a plus for this loadout. It's a bit off from the assignment, though. You could take something else instead.
---
Imperial
0: †Detect Magic, Electric Arc, Figment, Needle Darts, Shield
1: †Force Barrage, Leaden Steps, Illusory Object, Fear*
2: †Dispel Magic*, Floating Flame, Acid Grip, Hidebound
3: †Haste, Slow, Fireball*, Agonizing Despair, [Earthbind/Wooden Double/Dehydrate]**Feats: Reach Spell, Arcane Evolution... idk for 2nd or 6th, since the bloodline spell isn't that great.
Staff: Staff of Control. Grants 0) Daze; 1) Charm, Command; 2) Laughing Fit, Stupefy.
Focus Spells:
Ancestral Memories. Needs no introduction.Notes: I would heavily consider archetyping this build to access more interesting focus spells instead of taking 2nd and sixth level feats. Amped guidance could help reaction economy a lot early on; alternatively, you could take Distant Grasp to get some focus spells targeting Fort. Oracle is always a choice as well, etc.
Anoint ally isn't bad here, but I think there's more potential elsewhere, and you want focus points without having to take more of your bad bloodline spells.
This is most in line with Mathfinder's own choices. You could swap out hidebound, but this sorc actually has the most constrained action economy because of Ancestral Memory use; you're less able to use shield, so I think it's probably worth it. Might be worth taking frostbite or void warp as a cantrip if you desperately want a damaging way to target fort.
---
For imperial and genie, there's an argument for making fear your third rank signature instead, and having force barrage be your first rank signature. For all bloodlines, there's an argument for making Force Barrage an additional signature on the third day instead of taking wooden double as an extra spell.
In almost all cases, I'd consider taking boneshaker (if allowed) over acid grip; it's additional fort targeting for damage and can likewise produce forced movement. That'd let me change some other things around.
I personally like ignite fireworks over floating flame on the non-genie bloodlines; I like the being able to deal some damage and inflict dazzled. Making those swap-ins strays a bit much from the assignment, though.
I'd also have a few scrolls of magic weapon in the bag for anti-flight, or maybe have paid for potency oils (which are 3 gp more expensive, but the melee can use the oil themselves).
===
†Bloodline spell
*Signature
**Arcane Evolution; can be swapped as needed. Could be especially worth using it to make force barrage a signature on day 3.
I'm... not seeing a lot of practical differences.
-I have fewer defensive spells. No interposing earth—just the shield cantrip, hidebound, or the genie focus spell. But both draconic and imperial get AC bonuses from their blood magic effect.
-For Draconic and Imperial, I've shoved anti-invis duty onto See the Unseen from a staff and consumables. Again, the consumables are actually more reliable than revealing light... so this isn't much of a loss. If your GM lets your divine/primal/occult caster prepare premaster Faerie Fire, that's also a better choice for anti-invis than revealing light.
-Sometimes I target reflex (floating flame) instead of AC (horizon thunder sphere). This is usually better, anyways. And when I do take blazing bolt to target AC, it can at least be used as 1A, unlike Horizon Thunder Sphere.
-I probably actually paid more money to get spells into my Sorc's spellbook. That does mean something.
I'd consider these tradeoffs more than acceptable in exchange for the benefits of spontaneous. Wizard might need to buy fewer top rank spells—but the Wizard also doesn't have Haste in this comparison. The wizard isn't pulling out a consumable instead of casting Revealing Light, but the wizard has a slot dedicated to a niche spell every day for the sake of utility, which isn't great play anyways and kind of goes against the wizard fantasy. (If you want dazzled, prep ignite fireworks!) The non-imperial sorcs also have really impactful focus spells, and imperial sorc is obviously strong itself.
This comparison would've actually been easier on the wizard at level 5, before advanced bloodline spells come online and before sorc gets their last third rank known. I was kind of surprised mathfinder chose level 6.
Have any of you tried this Knowledge of Shapes oracle feat?
It allows the oracle to use Reach Spell and Widen Spell for an increase in Curse rank. This feat is available at level 4. That is wild to get access to these two spellshaping feats as a free action for one rank of curse that you can refocus down to nothing between fights.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At this point, I'm more interested in whatever data is telling the developers that Wizard is fine. There must be something wrong with the data or its interpretation, because I just can't believe that's the case.
Lots of people have issues with Spontaneous casting and prefer Prepared casting for pure personal tastes.
Lots of people like the Wizard fantasy of previous D&D editions which PF2 Wizard conveys perfectly.I don't think Paizo is bad at gathering data, it'd be rather obvious to them if their data came from a specific subset of players. I definitely think there's something with the Wizard. And this something can be obviously seen with the endless discussions the Wizard (and only the Wizard) generates. So there may be an equal amount of positive feedback, invisible to us. Because we are in an echo chamber.
From my experience (I worked in video games), there is always something players are focusing on, which is fine, but that they endlessly consider problematic. And no matter what proof you bring them (stats, opinions, etc...) they always consider you, as a game designer, are the one making a mistake, that something's wrong with your data, stats, opinions.
And from my experience, players are much worse at game design than game designers.
Have you even tried to consider the opposite point of view, that Wizard's fine and you are the one working on flawed data? After all, Paizo can ask you the very same question.
|
|
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.
It sounds like most, if not all, the new feat options are going to be focused on the Runelord.
There was a live stream a few days ago wherein Landon Winkler talked about some of the upcoming content from Rivals. It wasn't an exhaustive look, so there may be more, but when talking about the Wizard in particular all that was called out was new schools and the Runelord.
It sounds like the Runelord gets a somewhat heavy polearm focus, being able to fuse them with staves from 1st level and a hint at some melee options for said polearm "I'm not going to say that they are fully martial by any means, but they are capable of doing a little bit of stabbing". Something called a "Personal Rune" seems to infuse these Pole-staffs in some way with different options.
They did say new focus spells and some new high level spells added to their spell list, as well as talk of anathema for each Sin type.
So it sounds like the Runelord will be a class archetype which comes with it Edicts & Anathema. Each Sin will be it's own effective school, with focus spells and curriculum spells bespoke to it's theme, with some of the higher level spells on the curriculum list being new. Since you get the Polearm fusion option at 1st level, I'm guessing this replaces Thesis as well. No word on if the Runelord will retain it's more focus spell driven aspects from premaster. No real indiction if it will expand the Wizard like premaster, or be more of a side-grade archetype like the premaster Spellshot.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At this point, I'm more interested in whatever data is telling the developers that Wizard is fine. There must be something wrong with the data or its interpretation, because I just can't believe that's the case.Lots of people have issues with Spontaneous casting and prefer Prepared casting for pure personal tastes.
Lots of people like the Wizard fantasy of previous D&D editions which PF2 Wizard conveys perfectly.I don't think Paizo is bad at gathering data, it'd be rather obvious to them if their data came from a specific subset of players. I definitely think there's something with the Wizard. And this something can be obviously seen with the endless discussions the Wizard (and only the Wizard) generates. So there may be an equal amount of positive feedback, invisible to us. Because we are in an echo chamber.
From my experience (I worked in video games), there is always something players are focusing on, which is fine, but that they endlessly consider problematic. And no matter what proof you bring them (stats, opinions, etc...) they always consider you, as a game designer, are the one making a mistake, that something's wrong with your data, stats, opinions.
And from my experience, players are much worse at game design than game designers.
Have you even tried to consider the opposite point of view, that Wizard's fine and you are the one working on flawed data? After all, Paizo can ask you the very same question.
Counterpoint, it's very easy to do data analysis wrong if you don't have the internal resources to ensure you are doing it right.
For years now I've been working with researchers and engineers on projects which most of you would probably name-check on. Even "professional scientists" get their analysis wrong on occassion. It can be shockingly easy to do if you don't have a robust understanding on how to structure and contextualise your data correctly.
I'm not saying it's the case here, but just having data isn't the same as being able to understand what it's telling you correctly.
At this point, I'm more interested in whatever data is telling the developers that Wizard is fine. There must be something wrong with the data or its interpretation, because I just can't believe that's the case.Lots of people have issues with Spontaneous casting and prefer Prepared casting for pure personal tastes.
Lots of people like the Wizard fantasy of previous D&D editions which PF2 Wizard conveys perfectly.I don't think Paizo is bad at gathering data, it'd be rather obvious to them if their data came from a specific subset of players. I definitely think there's something with the Wizard. And this something can be obviously seen with the endless discussions the Wizard (and only the Wizard) generates. So there may be an equal amount of positive feedback, invisible to us. Because we are in an echo chamber.
From my experience (I worked in video games), there is always something players are focusing on, which is fine, but that they endlessly consider problematic. And no matter what proof you bring them (stats, opinions, etc...) they always consider you, as a game designer, are the one making a mistake, that something's wrong with your data, stats, opinions.
And from my experience, players are much worse at game design than game designers.
Have you even tried to consider the opposite point of view, that Wizard's fine and you are the one working on flawed data? After all, Paizo can ask you the very same question.
No. Game designers have also shown they can be wrong for a long time refusing to make changes to classes that have a real problem even if someone plays them. You see this a lot in MMORPGs where someone has invested in class or enjoys a class that is in a terrible state that takes years for game designers to acknowledge and fix.
Paladins in World of Warcraft were one of the classes that had this problem quite often. They started off over-powered because of a single powerful Seal that allowed their combat ability to far exceed where it should have been. So the designers nerfed that seal, Then you found out the paladin had major problems that made this seal the only thing that made them viable in combat. It took several iterations of the paladin to reach a point where all three builds were competitive within the game.
A lot of the time players with real knowledge of the game provided piles of evidence of the problem and the game designers ignored them for years because the reality is not so much they don't realize the class has a problem, but one class is one class in a game of many classes. They only have so much time and resources to dedicate to fixes to classes that require more design resources than they are willing to dedicate for a single class when they have the majority of classes in a good place.
Right now is the wizard so bad they need an immediate fix? Nope. You don't like the wizard and consider them weak, play a sorcerer or witch...problem solved.
So this lackluster wizard with weak build options can continue on for years as the remaster was the first attempt at fix. The fix provided some relief, but not necessarily all that was needed.
I think the designers will eventually come around to tossing out the old structure and building a good wizard. But it might take a while.
They did a lot of good design work that got worse classes into better places. The wizard wasn't as bad as the pre-remaster witch, swashbuckler, and investigator. Now those classes are in much better places. Sorc and cleric didn't need as big a bump as they got, especially the sorc. The cleric did have really boring feats and their feat selection is much better now. Sorc was in a good place, but the bloodlines were pretty lackluster. Bloodline powers and theme are in a better place now.
So I see this as a first attempt to fix the wizard next to a bunch of good design work for classes that needed it more.
They don't want the wizard overpowered, so they are baby stepping it along. I do expect it to get better at some point.
For myself in my personal games, I already fixed the wizard. So though I am passionate about the wizard being officially fixed, I have it at a competitive level now.
I, if no one else, do admit when I'm wrong like with the summoner. The summoner is well-designed for PF2 even though I do hope for a PF2 unchained situation where they make the summoned eidolons a bit more like the creatures they are. One thing about PF2 is they are real careful about handing out immunities to almost anything.
I still consider the summoner fine. Summons could be better, but that's an issue with summoning spells, not the summoner.
I think when you have a lot of classes in a game like this along with constant content creation, redoing a class and then having to update an entire corebook is not easy or cost efficient. So even if a class has problems, it takes a while to fix.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Counterpoint, it's very easy to do data analysis wrong if you don't have the internal resources to ensure you are doing it right.
For years now I've been working with researchers and engineers on projects which most of you would probably name-check on. Even "professional scientists" get their analysis wrong on occassion. It can be shockingly easy to do if you don't have a robust understanding on how to structure and contextualise your data correctly.
I'm not saying it's the case here, but just having data isn't the same...
Yeah, obviously. But I don't think the feedback on PF2 classes is an extremely hard to understand piece of data.
Let's consider the counterpoint: How can the Wizard blow the Sorcerer out of the water?
Well, I see one major pain point on the Sorcerer that would lead to subpar effectiveness compared to a Wizard: Spell Repertoire composition.
If you lack system mastery or spell knowledge, it's easy to fill a Repertoire with a bunch of useless spells. Obviously, you'd do the same with your Prepared spells but as you can switch them every morning you have a much faster cycle of improvement through trial and error. This would lead to Wizard being better than Sorcerer in my opinion.
Beginners lack system mastery and are not spell savvy. So chances are high that among beginners the Wizard performs better than the Sorcerer. That will be the first impression on Wizard vs Sorcerer for a lot of groups and we know how first impressions tend to last.
I obviously don't say this reasoning answers our question. I just point out that when you start questionning your own data set (which is super limited in our case) you can end up understanding why the Wizard could be fine compared to the Sorcerer. We have to remember we are not the average player, we are, for most of us, experienced players with countless hours of play.
I won't say no player would both know how to add spells to their spellbook and swap them around and also not know how to signature spell or pick good spells on level up, but I don't think that's a large number.
I don't get this sentence, it's too convoluted.
What I know is that I have an Excel sheet to handle my Sorcerer Repertoire and especially optimize the free swaps at every level. I know a lot of players who won't go through this burden and play a Wizard instead which is doing the exact same thing without the hassle.