** spoiler omitted **...
Contingency only works with 3 action or less spells. You cannot use it with teleport. You could use a translocate with a contingency, but why? You don't want a cleric or healer to move out of 30 to 60 foot range for healing or blast cantrips. If your party sets up right, you shouldn't have a problem with the cleric getting attacked as they are too busy surviving martials hammering them.
Contingency in the old days was useful because it worked with teleport and the like. It was also useful because your martials could be taken out with one spell. And durations were much, much longer so a duration spell might last a long time once activated.
Now you are spending a 7th level slot to activate a short duration spell for 1 to 10 minutes of some defense or a translocate or something that won't be so useful.
Then you have the opportunity cost of what else can you use that 7th level slot for? 7th level spells are pretty good at dealing damage or casting a group haste or a group slow or a 7th level chain lightning or eclipse burst.
Do you really want to spend that 7th level slot on a translocate or maybe a resist energy for 10 resist on some spell hitting you for 80 or more damage on a missed save? Possibly multiple damage types.
I did not see much use for contingency on a caster in PF2. Short durations, only up to a 3 action spell with spells like teleport not usable with it, and limited effects.
That's how I see it. If someone else feels satisfied using contingency in PF2, I leave it to them. My assessment is I can find better uses for a rank 7 spell slot.
I think Contingency is pretty good even without any weird Ready cheese (that GM Core tells the GM to shut down, btw). Mainly because as a 6 HP class, it will often be optimal to focus you, and so the defensive power that it gives you directly counteracts the enemies' best available tactic.
What would be the situation where a 6 hit point caster can be focused on?
If the enemy has good ranged capability and some foreknowledge you are the blaster.
You are getting ambushed by something that knows your party composition.
In general, a 6 hit point caster should not be close enough to a battle or in position to be focused on. The best defense a caster has is to maximize their distance from the battle while still being effective. That's why 30 to 60 feet is the ideal distance to position a caster from the battle.
And also why the Reach Spellshape feat is the most useful spellshape feat in the game. I take it on nearly every caster character. It allows you to take a 30 foot "move" without moving to get in spell range.
I do not like to be in the range of gazes, auras, emanations, or close enough to get smashed by AOE as a caster.
If you Translocate out of range of the trigger, by RaW those actions and resources are gone, spent attacking the now-empty square. You need outright homebrew to rule it differently.
(I would *not* make any rolls until the Wiz commits to using or passing the chance to trigger their poof though. No peeking at a foe's nat 20 before retroactively deciding to dodge.)
(You also might want to run the foe spell casting identification RaW, so the Wiz doesn't automatically know what spell is coming their way without Quick Recognition)
Being able to nullify a foe's attempts at attacking the Wiz is action advantage.
Even in the lowest value case of a 1A Strike, it's still being stolen by the Wiz for 0A themselves. (and the foe's MAP is going up)
Most of the time you can at least get 2A from a Stride & Strike.
This raises in value with the fewer actions the foe side has, decreases with more foe creatures, etc, etc.
In my opinion, yes, that is very much worth potentially down-ranking one damage spell by one rank, plus the R4 slot.
And this opens up the good kind of shenanigans where the Wiz can get "crazy out of position" and consequently rushed, causing the foes to waste actions running after someone who poofs right on top of their pre-selected party member before any hit lands. (Unless a foe can counterspell the Translocate...)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think Contingency is pretty good even without any weird Ready cheese (that GM Core tells the GM to shut down, btw). Mainly because as a 6 HP class, it will often be optimal to focus you, and so the defensive power that it gives you directly counteracts the enemies' best available tactic.
Honestly? Let them attack the caster. After you get a spell or two off you're mostly afk cantripping while the martials do the hp damage needed to end the fight. Not to mention the process of doing so gets them reaction attacked one way or another.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you Translocate out of range of the trigger, by RaW those actions and resources are gone, spent attacking the now-empty square. You need outright homebrew to rule it differently.
(I would *not* make any rolls until the Wiz commits to using or passing the chance to trigger their poof though. No peeking at a foe's nat 20 before retroactively deciding to dodge.)Being able to nullify a foe's attempts at attacking the Wiz is action advantage.
Even in the lowest value case of a 1A Strike, it's still being stolen by the Wiz for 0A themselves. (and the foe's MAP is going up)This raises in value with the fewer actions the foe side has, decreases with more foe creatures, etc, etc.
Well Trip,
As I see it, is it worth a 7th level slot and a 4th level slot? Or let them use their actions attacking the caster, then use a 7th level slot to erase all the damage they did?
That's another change in PF2 that makes spells like contingency less compelling. Healing is so powerful that letting some monster close the distance, unload actions on the caster, then erasing the damage with a heal while your unwounded martials start hammering the creature is generally worth it.
Then you have more flexibility in how that slot is used rather than tying it up with a contingency that may not even be used.
I loved contingency when I had 6 or more level 6 or higher slots and I didn't have to use a higher slot to heighten it and I had more spells I could use it with.
But with heightening and limited spell slots, I just don't love it anymore. Another one of those changes that made old PF1/3E go to spells less attractive.
Totally valid take.
I'm someone with only a dab of 3.5 experience, and that's it before pf2.
Contingency as it is here just seems like too much fun to pass up, and how one uses it could be outright PC defining in terms of characterization.
Is there any reason you're both writing off Animated Assault? It's core, common, and does decent damage. Less up front than fireball but sustainable for extra damage. The +2 scaling sucks, but it seems like an obvious pick if I want to blast with Occult.
+2 scaling makes it weaker than vomit storm every other rank while only being slightly stronger on its scaling levels (important especially on spontaneous classes). It works better if your party can keep enemies in the AoE, but 5.5 average damage for one action is pitiful at level 3, and downright embarassing at level 6, to the point where I don't think most enemies would even mind standing in it vs losing an action moving.
Totally valid take.
I'm someone with only a dab of 3.5 experience, and that's it before pf2.
Contingency as it is here just seems like too much fun to pass up, and how one uses it could be outright PC defining in terms of characterization.
Doing stuff for fun is a perfectly valid way to enjoy the game. If Contingency is fun for someone, I say go for it. Someone has to experiment with spells to find interesting or good uses. Then pass on the information if they find some great uses that aren't obvious.
I think Contingency is pretty good even without any weird Ready cheese (that GM Core tells the GM to shut down, btw). Mainly because as a 6 HP class, it will often be optimal to focus you, and so the defensive power that it gives you directly counteracts the enemies' best available tactic.What would be the situation where a 6 hit point caster can be focused on?
If the enemy has good ranged capability and some foreknowledge you are the blaster.
You are getting ambushed by something that knows your party composition.
It depends a lot on table assumptions/GM style – I would say, almost any situation where the caster isn't just blasting from 500 ft away (and even some where they are). I personally don't find it problematic if players correctly deduce from the physical description of a monster that, say, its Reflex save is low. Likewise, I don't find it problematic if monsters deduce from the fact that someone is wielding a staff/wand/scroll and/or is in robes that they will be easier to kill than the champion in full plate up front, and that they'll probably be more susceptible to things like grappling and poisons. If target selection is instead handled more proximity based and/or randomly, then yes Contingency gets weaker and maybe no longer worth it.
Range is good but not a cure-all. Monsters at that level tend to be pretty mobile.
I do in general start to target softer targets as monsters gain more capability to do so without endangering themselves. But I have also found that this costs them actions and allows martials to get control of them. If they continue to use ranged attacks or go after 6 hp casters, they often set off Reactive Strikes once they've been gotten control of.
It's an ok opening tactic or against a group that doesn't have the tactical builds or ability to take control of enemies. It becomes increasingly a bad option when in tactical groups where the martials can get control of a target putting them in Reactive Strike hell.
As someone who has never liked wizards, I hope when/if summoner gets reprinted that dragon Eidolons grant pick a list. Getting stuck with the all rounder list doesn't feel great when I only have 4 slots and want to do very specific things with them. I see a lot more primal spells that interest me then arcane.
As someone who's not fond of casters in PF2, arcane is sort of the poster of why magic is bad. Huge list that you only get 3 or 4 choices from per rank, many spells being anemic and resist or crit resist being the more common result of most castings. The size just sort of exacerbates the other problems. Having more unique spells that just do things would be far more enjoyable IMO.
I haven't played a caster in a year and a half, so maybe the lists have gotten better in that time, but the scuttlebutt suggests otherwise.
What are examples of spells that just do things? Heal and magic missile spring to mind, and obviously Maze, but outside of buffs it's hard to avoid rolling dice in PF2.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What are examples of spells that just do things? Heal and magic missile spring to mind, and obviously Maze, but outside of buffs it's hard to avoid rolling dice in PF2.
The old power words fit the bill, I'd say. Although I can understand why they weren't kept in the remaster, it would've been nice to see them redone in some other way instead.
Walls spells usually, Stone as everyone knows is broken as hell, but even Wall of Water that comes on rank 3 can mess entire encounters because of action movement rules as you can make enemies have to Stride, Swim through it and then have to Stride again.
Power words and walks sprang to mind but arcane has those, so I assume they couldn't be what Orochi was looking for.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Arcane does have the by far best list-unique spell in Contingency.
Being able to trigger another spell cast automatically is absurdly good. Plus, there's no once per day limitation, so it can be recast after every combat. (it doesn't even have the contingency trait, so you can still use other [contingency] spells, lol)
I agree it is an awesome spell and a force multiplier for arcane. The type of rules problem you mention is a real nuisance. Some GMs will play it like it is written, some will choose to fix it.
However you have it wrong. If you look at the text of the Contingency Trait it explicitly includes Contigency regardless of its trait status You can have only one spell with the contingency trait, or one contingency spell, active at a time. So this is not a problem other than Paizo using complex wording.
Also want to shout out a new Arcane only R2 Reaction spell, Warping Pull.
It's everything I wish Friendfetch had been. React to a first Strike, reduce the damage to the ally, and force the foe to burn another action moving back into melee if they want to swing again.Crazy good spell.
Extremely efficient action wise. I'm sitting on the fence of giving it 5 stars in my guide.
What are examples of spells that just do things? Heal and magic missile spring to mind, and obviously Maze, but outside of buffs it's hard to avoid rolling dice in PF2.
Control spells like walls, generating terrain or environmental effects like Mud Put, Reverse Gravity, Cosy Cabin or Darkness. Summons and Illusion tend to just do things as half their value is often just in being in the way and consuming a whole enemy turn to deal with.
For buffs remember that there are numerical buffs like Heroism, Protection, Tail Wind, Procyal Philosophy or Elemental Absorption, but also non numerical buffs like Haste, Flight, Jump, Dragon Form, DeepSight, Invisibility and the various condition relief spells.
It is a reasonably valid choice to build a caster with a low Spell DC.
I get that it's a drag that any save spell in this system not designed for mookbusting is only as useful as its "success" entry, but that's a system issue, not an arcane issue. A low dc caster is perfect for a mythic campaign though where all your save spells do nothing because of mythic resilience.
That said, I'm not exactly thrilled with the power words either. Single target spells that only affect mooks are actively a waste to learn. Wake me up when they're single target with no restrictions or just the old hp restriction that lets them apply to any opponent.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's less that spells only as useful as their success entry and more that a lot of spells are balanced with the expectation that they hit multiple enemies and see maybe 1 fail and 2 successes.
I'd also say a lot of mookbusting incap spells are more effective than you're giving them credit for; I've seen Calm end a surprising amount of combats. Incap spells are situational, but very strong when they're applicable.
A lot of single target incap-style spells -are- bad, but a few are strong enough to pick despite the downsides (like Uncontrollable Dance). It's also true that a spell like Paralyze can have a huge impact in a fight that's something like 2x APL+0 enemies. I dislike single target incap because it's inherently more situational than AoE incap, but it is still very useful when it's relevant.
I'd also note that buff spells also don't have guaranteed effects, because a buff didn't actually do anything if it didn't change any outcomes. Heroism isn't more "guaranteed" to be useful than a blast, and can often have significantly less impact than a fireball would.
It's less that spells only as useful as their success entry and more that a lot of spells are balanced with the expectation that they hit multiple enemies and see maybe 1 fail and 2 successes.
I'd also say a lot of mookbusting incap spells are more effective than you're giving them credit for; I've seen Calm end a surprising amount of combats. Incap spells are situational, but very strong when they're applicable.
I think you misread what I wrote. Outside of mookbusting, only "success" matters. For mookbusting, I even said much further upthread that AoE incap is my preferred method.
A lot of single target incap-style spells -are- bad, but a few are strong enough to pick despite the downsides (like Uncontrollable Dance). It's also true that a spell like Paralyze can have a huge impact in a fight that's something like 2x APL+0 enemies. I dislike single target incap because it's inherently more situational than AoE incap, but it is still very useful when it's relevant.
2x APL+0 isn't even a fight outside of the very earliest levels. It's a mild inconvenience unless the party collectively can't roll above a 2. If you can't resourcelessly clear fodder moderates like that, the party has deeper issues.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As someone who has never liked wizards, I hope when/if summoner gets reprinted that dragon Eidolons grant pick a list. Getting stuck with the all rounder list doesn't feel great when I only have 4 slots and want to do very specific things with them. I see a lot more primal spells that interest me then arcane.
As someone who's not fond of casters in PF2, arcane is sort of the poster of why magic is bad. Huge list that you only get 3 or 4 choices from per rank, many spells being anemic and resist or crit resist being the more common result of most castings. The size just sort of exacerbates the other problems. Having more unique spells that just do things would be far more enjoyable IMO.
I haven't played a caster in a year and a half, so maybe the lists have gotten better in that time, but the scuttlebutt suggests otherwise.
This so true. I have brought it up often, but it gets ignored.
I'll agree and state again: who cares how big your spell list is when you get 3 to 4 slots a level. You take the best spells for the highest variety of situations and ignore the rest except to occasionally take one when you need it, then never look at it again.
A big spell list was great when you were getting 6 to 8 spells per level, long durations, easy access to magic items with lots of charges, and the like. But when you're getting 3 to 4 spells a level, a wand or two with one use per day, a staff with a few uses per day, short durations meaning it is better to have multiples copies of the same spells so you can use them again, and the like means a long spell list is like having cable TV with 200 channels when you can only watch one channel at a time.
I get that it's a drag that any save spell in this system not designed for mookbusting is only as useful as its "success" entry, but that's a system issue, not an arcane issue. A low dc caster is perfect for a mythic campaign though where all your save spells do nothing because of mythic resilience.
That said, I'm not exactly thrilled with the power words either. Single target spells that only affect mooks are actively a waste to learn. Wake me up when they're single target with no restrictions or just the old hp restriction that lets them apply to any opponent.
My players found this out trying Power Word spells and stopped slotting them except for Power Word Kill. Mooks are so easy to kill that wasting a slot to single target a mook is a waste. They are nuisance at best to bosses, except Power Word kill.
It is worth a level 9 slot to do 50 damage with no save as 1 action on top of hammering a boss.
Power Word Stun and Power Word Blind pretty worthless. Power Word kill is definitely worth slotting unless you're in a campaign with creatures immune to the death trait.
It's less that spells only as useful as their success entry and more that a lot of spells are balanced with the expectation that they hit multiple enemies and see maybe 1 fail and 2 successes.
I'd also say a lot of mookbusting incap spells are more effective than you're giving them credit for; I've seen Calm end a surprising amount of combats. Incap spells are situational, but very strong when they're applicable.
A lot of single target incap-style spells -are- bad, but a few are strong enough to pick despite the downsides (like Uncontrollable Dance). It's also true that a spell like Paralyze can have a huge impact in a fight that's something like 2x APL+0 enemies. I dislike single target incap because it's inherently more situational than AoE incap, but it is still very useful when it's relevant.
I'd also note that buff spells also don't have guaranteed effects, because a buff didn't actually do anything if it didn't change any outcomes. Heroism isn't more "guaranteed" to be useful than a blast, and can often have significantly less impact than a fireball would.
I have tried the calm spell so many times and it never does much. I stopped using it. It's just too easy to crush mooks quickly in a focused party that spending a slot on calm just feels wasted in our group. Just hit them with damage and finish them fast.
Power words and walks sprang to mind but arcane has those, so I assume they couldn't be what Orochi was looking for.
I do think the general framework of "X happens without rolling" could probably be generalized to a whole range of arcane spells, whether it be for damage, stunning, or other powerful buffs and debuffs. Those could even be single-action spells like the old power words, or variable-action spells like force barrage. This could create an identity for arcane as an exceptionally reliable spell list, where you'd have lots of exclusive spells that just do what they say and bypass rolling, at the expense of having a weaker overall effect than the spells that do incur a roll (e.g. force barrage versus blazing bolt). You could even use a trait that imposes a 10-minute immunity to all of these spells to prevent spam, which would also allow some of these spells to exist at a lower rank.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you misread what I wrote. Outside of mookbusting, only "success" matters. For mookbusting, I even said much further upthread that AoE incap is my preferred method.
...So I did misread. That's my bad.
I still wouldn't agree that only success matters for single target, though. I can understand sort of calibrating your expectations to single targets succeeding their saves. But there -are- single target spells where the failure condition is a huge part of why the spell is valuable, like confusion.
2x APL+0 isn't even a fight outside of the very earliest levels. It's a mild inconvenience unless the party collectively can't roll above a 2. If you can't resourcelessly clear fodder moderates like that, the party has deeper issues.
Same idea also applies to some severe budget encounters: e.g., 3x APL+0, or 2x APL+1 on odd levels.
Moderates can still go south at any level; depends on how annoying the enemies are for the party's strategy, even before the possibility of bad luck. As a DM, I hesitate to call anything I'd actually put on the table "fodder."
That being said, I know where you're coming from.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
As someone who has never liked wizards, I hope when/if summoner gets reprinted that dragon Eidolons grant pick a list. Getting stuck with the all rounder list doesn't feel great when I only have 4 slots and want to do very specific things with them. I see a lot more primal spells that interest me then arcane.
As someone who's not fond of casters in PF2, arcane is sort of the poster of why magic is bad. Huge list that you only get 3 or 4 choices from per rank, many spells being anemic and resist or crit resist being the more common result of most castings. The size just sort of exacerbates the other problems. Having more unique spells that just do things would be far more enjoyable IMO.
I haven't played a caster in a year and a half, so maybe the lists have gotten better in that time, but the scuttlebutt suggests otherwise.This so true. I have brought it up often, but it gets ignored.
I'll agree and state again: who cares how big your spell list is when you get 3 to 4 slots a level. You take the best spells for the highest variety of situations and ignore the rest except to occasionally take one when you need it, then never look at it again.
A big spell list was great when you were getting 6 to 8 spells per level, long durations, easy access to magic items with lots of charges, and the like. But when you're getting 3 to 4 spells a level, a wand or two with one use per day, a staff with a few uses per day, short durations meaning it is better to have multiples copies of the same spells so you can use them again, and the like means a long spell list is like having cable TV with 200 channels when you can only watch one channel at a time.
^ This. A huge spell list full of niche spells is nice if you either know that its going to come up, or have so many spell slots that it's low opportunity cost to take a flier on a couple that the situation might come up where the spell shines.
With PF2's reduced number of spell slots, you usually need to take spells that are going to be reliably useful. And when it comes to doing that, Sorcerer and Oracle are better at it because they can pick those spells and then have all of them available in whatever quantity is needed, rather than having to guess "how many Chain Lightnings do I want today?" and hoping you guess right.
You can do it more readily with low level slots, but the low level niche spells are often less likely to be useful, and those can also just be scrolls.
I also think Spell Substitution is overrated for similar reasons. It's great when the situation aligns where there is a spell for this situation, you have it in your book but don't have it prepared, you have time to wait to get the spell, it's high enough level that its not practical to just carry a scroll, and you can't solve the problem with skills instead.
When all of that aligns, Spell Substitution is great. The rest of the time? Well, I'm going down into a dungeon and discover something I didn't know was there and it's attacking. Unless we can run away and get time to go change spells, Spell Substitution is completely useless in this situation. This happens far more often in actual play. You know what does work in this situation? A collection of reliable and broadly useful spells, because one of those is probably good enough to be useful.
aka: The way PF2 handles prepared casting is outdated and a big part of the problem with Wizards. It's a lot of extra work and planning that has the chance of going wrong for not a lot of gain. You really need a specific campaign style for Wizard to shine that gives the ability to know what's coming up pretty regularly with enough time to adapt to it. Without that, Sorcerer with a decently broad repertoire is going to feel better because if you need to cast Fireball 4 times for some reason, you don't need to plan ahead: you just do it.
5e style preparation is a lower opportunity cost to prepare some niche spell because if you don't wind up using it, you can at least use the slot for something else. In PF2, preparing that spell and not using it can really bite you so you just don't want to do it unless you know you're going to use it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, you know things are messed up when stuffing a bunch of scrolls into a magic bag is more useful than the actual Spell Substitution ability.
It should probably be baseline for the ability to trigger alongside refocusing, and for it to allow not 1 spell swap, but something like max R spells per swap session.
And there also kinda needs to be some encounter-viable ability, such as a 1A focus spell burn to do an instant swap.
As I firmly believe all Wizards should have the basic Spell Substitution as a baseline feature, this example focus spell would be a starting perk of the new substitution specialist.
I would also love to add more Wiz abilities / feats that trigger upon casting spells, so I like this a lot more as a focus spell instead of something like a "you roll initiative" or "once per hour" style ability.
This subtype would also be perfect for having more mechanical interaction with grimoires / spellbooks, perhaps even being the "more flexible personal tome" thesis to contrast the "more spells personal staff" type.
Tome's Sudden Reconfluence
[blah blah] [blah]
Time appears to slow as you evoke a rapid rush of mind, linking itself directly to the magics of your spellbook. Utilizing your personal mastery over the arcane, you immediately exchange one spell for another.You exchange one prepared Wizard spell for another, as per Spell Substitution.
Special: If you are Master in Arcana, you may swap two spells. If Legendary, four spells.
I still think both the arcane list and the wizard class are in a fairly strong place.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still think both the arcane list and the wizard class are in a fairly strong place.
Well I agree with one of those statements. :)
Wizard is just... I mean, I don't see why I'd ever play one? What's the hook? It feels like a Cleric with more work (tracking a spellbook) but not much going on to pay that off. It also feels like there's more interesting focus spells in domains than in schools.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still think both the arcane list and the wizard class are in a fairly strong place.
I wouldn't say the wizard is in a strong place. I wouldn't say its unplayable either. It's very overshadowed by how well built every other class is now. It doesn't add much to a party when you have so many other classes taking stuff from the wizard while having all their own very goods tuff.
Why exactly did the bard need Esoteric Polymath and a spellbook along with all their amazing focus spells?
Why did the sorc need Arcane Evolution when they have 4 slots, bloodlines, sorcerous potency, and a repertoire with flexible signature spells bigger and more flexible than a wizard?
It's just strange some can't see it. But if you play a sorc, you found their repertoire can reach 45 spells known with sig spells and a flexible spell slot with Arcane Evolution. They don't have to prepare in advance so they can use their 4 slots with any combination of up to five spells not including their signature spells.
Even the witch you can build in a variety of different ways. The arcane witch isn't very good. So you just make an occult witch or a healer witch with the divine list.
Where the wizard stuck as the arcane spell guy with the locked in prepared list that they can't change out unless they pick a single thesis and even then it take them 10 minutes.
How is that the wizard in a strong place? Every wizard supporter bases their pro-wizard arguments on theoretical Schrodinger wizard situations.
Sorcs and bards don't care. Don't have threads complaining about them because they feel very strong. And can easily match and exceed what the wizard can do with rare exception.
Then toss in classes like the druid, cleric, oracle, and now animist with improved blasting with the Remaster changes to spirit damage and what exactly is the wizard bringing to the table compared to other caster classes with better class chassis abilities?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't say the wizard is in a strong place. I wouldn't say its unplayable either. It's very overshadowed by how well built every other class is now. It doesn't add much to a party when you have so many other classes taking stuff from the wizard while having all their own very goods tuff.
Why exactly did the bard need Esoteric Polymath and a spellbook along with all their amazing focus spells?
More to the point, a bard with Esoteric Polymath, Multifarious Muse (Enigma), Versatile Signature, Eclectic Polymath, Studious Capacity, Impossible Polymath, and Ultimate Polymath (retrain Versatile Signature) is almost the PF2e version of the PF1e arcanist. Except the PF2e bard gets martial weapons, light armor, and eventually access to all four traditions of spells (although they can only add one non-occult spell to their repertoire for the day; unless human leveraging Adapted Cantrip and Adaptive Adept) to boot...
Wizards aren't "bad" as much as meh. Post-remaster, with the way the school spells are now so limited, it's just more apparent; although some of the newer schools are better/more functional in play than those in Player's Core (e.g., School of Magical Technology).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
having the read all the messages, I can see most people are in agreement that the Arcane list is fine, the problem is that the wizard class is Mid at best, and quite frankly there is no good mechanical reason to play one.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also think Spell Substitution is overrated for similar reasons. It's great when the situation aligns where there is a spell for this situation, you have it in your book but don't have it prepared, you have time to wait to get the spell, it's high enough level that its not practical to just carry a scroll, and you can't solve the problem with skills instead.My understanding is that Spell Substitution is great for keeping the balance of your spells in place. You start with, say, two each of reflex, fortitude and will targeting spells in your top slots, maybe some general use but still not always useful things like Dispel Magic at rank-2 or an AoE incap in your 4th top rank slot. Two copies of Fly, perhaps. Then as you go through encounters and deplete them, you reshuffle to maintain the same balance, maybe to align with what appears to be the dungeon theme. Using a lot of Reflex spells against the mindless constructs? Probably time to wave goodbye to the Will spells you prepped.
You basically try to always have a generalist spell list prepped, whereas prepared casters, by design, become less generalist as they spend spell slots
That feels like a lot of effort to get what a Spontaneous caster gets out of the box. That being considered a major feature is probably a lot of why Wizard just feels so meh.
IMO Wizard would really feel better with 5e style prepared casting. PF2 missed the boat on that the first time and they probably didn't feel bold enough to try it in the remaster, but it just feels better in play. Especially on a class that doesn't have a lot else going on (compared to say Cleric who have Divine Font and IMO a better selection of focus spells).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also think Spell Substitution is overrated for similar reasons. It's great when the situation aligns where there is a spell for this situation, you have it in your book but don't have it prepared, you have time to wait to get the spell, it's high enough level that its not practical to just carry a scroll, and you can't solve the problem with skills instead.My understanding is that Spell Substitution is great for keeping the balance of your spells in place. You start with, say, two each of reflex, fortitude and will targeting spells in your top slots, maybe some general use but still not always useful things like Dispel Magic at rank-2 or an AoE incap in your 4th top rank slot. Two copies of Fly, perhaps. Then as you go through encounters and deplete them, you reshuffle to maintain the same balance, maybe to align with what appears to be the dungeon theme. Using a lot of Reflex spells against the mindless constructs? Probably time to wave goodbye to the Will spells you prepped.
You basically try to always have a generalist spell list prepped, whereas prepared casters, by design, become less generalist as they spend spell slots
That feels like a lot of effort to get what a Spontaneous caster gets out of the box. That being considered a major feature is probably a lot of why Wizard just feels so meh.
IMO Wizard would really feel better with 5e style prepared casting. PF2 missed the boat on that the first time and they probably didn't feel bold enough to try it in the remaster, but it just feels better in play. Especially on a class that doesn't have a lot else going on (compared to say Cleric who have Divine Font and IMO a better selection of focus spells).
5e system just makes prepared the best option, though. We'd just replace one generally easier choice (pf2e style spontaneous) for one demonstrably superior choice (5e style prepared). I'd rather wizard be a second class citizen than all prepared casters having the lunch of spontaneous AND having more versatility
5e system just makes prepared the best option, though. We'd just replace one generally easier choice (pf2e style spontaneous) for one demonstrably superior choice (5e style prepared). I'd rather wizard be a second class citizen than all prepared casters having the lunch of spontaneous AND having more versatility
You could try to split the difference.
In 5e prepared casting, you get a ton of versatility because not only do you change your spells every day, all of them are effectively "signature" spells, since you can upcast them at will.
You could dial this back by just not letting Pf2e prepared casters cast heightened versionf os a spell if they don't prepare a spell at the appropiate level.
For example you're a 9th level universalist Wizard, you have 3 spell slots for levels 1-4, and 2 slots for level 5. In 5e, you can just choose to prepare fireball as one of your choices and you can cast it as a 3rd, 4th or 5th rank spell. In our system, you'd need to prepare fireball as a 3rd rank spell, a 4th rank spell, and a 5th rank spell if you want to cast it at those ranks. You'd still be able to cast 8 fireballs (3 at 3rd rank, 3 at 4th, 2 at 5th), but it'd take up 3 spell selections instead of just 1.
This is still better than a spontaneous caster because Prepared Casters effectively just gain a Repertoire they can change every day, but it's not quite as overpowering as full 5e style spellcasting. You'd need to tweak slots or give Spontaneous casters something more to keep both styles distinct but equally good.
If we're talking about the Wizard specifically, I think it can be okay for inbuilt flexible spellcasting to be their "thing", since it would be a unique benefit to the class that could otherwise only be attainable via class archetype at a heavy cost. I do think, however, that there are a couple of caveats to this:
So in my opinion a fully flexible Wizard is an option that should be available to players, ideally from level 1, because that would make the Wizard accessible to many more players. At the same time, I don't think it specifically needs to be their central class feature, and in fact I don't think the Wizard can really have a singular class-defining feature without it failing to appeal to a great deal many more players. In my opinion, the Wizard's "thing" ought to be their arcane thesis, which I think ought to absorb most of the class's power right now in order to deliver much stronger options. A fully flexible 3-slot arcane caster that pays no price for their flexibility could be a powerful and worthwhile class in and of themselves, just as a spellshaping Wizard would likely be a lot more interesting if they could use spellshape single actions as free actions from the get-go.
With regards to the arcane list itself, though, in addition to trying to reincorporate power words into the remaster, I think there's room for more spells like contingency that let you play with other spells in different ways: for instance, you could have a single-action spell that also works as a spellshape, letting you Cast a Spell and use it as a reaction. Similarly, you could have another spell that lets you choose a much lower-rank spell and cast it for free for a duration, or another spell still that creates a magical nexus that you can Sustain to move around and that lets you use it as the origin point for your spells. Effectively, arcane could be the list for metamagic, in the sense that you'd have a lot of slot spells that mainly serve to modify other spells or play with their rules.
Giving wizards 5ed spellcasting as their "thing" would indeed make them both powerful and interesting to play, and give them a real identity.
But like Teridax said, it might make them too powerful and might need some rebalancing elsewhere.
As for the arcane list, i'm not exactly saying it's weak - it's not. It's just that it lacks some kind of... I don't know, purpose ? It's good to have breadth, but not at the expense of depth.
The classic D&D-inspired wizard is built around the core of collecting spells so they can have the perfect spell for the given scenario as long as they predict the scenario correctly, unless you want to go so far back that they are literally just fantasy artillery with limited ammo. Any version of a wizard that doesn't have to pick and choose spells every day has no particular reason to be called a wizard over any other name.
The fact that divine magic used to top out at 7th level instead of 9th was a partial mitigation between sources to balance out the full list access of divibe casters, but this obviously is no longer the case.
Given the variety of casters who can use arcane lists and other lists in the same way, the lists should be balanced with each other, and parity should be with the class. Wizarda should lean into the strengths of arcane a bit, but shouldn't automaticallu be the "correct" class for arcane casting over the witch.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
5e system just makes prepared the best option, though. We'd just replace one generally easier choice (pf2e style spontaneous) for one demonstrably superior choice (5e style prepared). I'd rather wizard be a second class citizen than all prepared...I also think Spell Substitution is overrated for similar reasons. It's great when the situation aligns where there is a spell for this situation, you have it in your book but don't have it prepared, you have time to wait to get the spell, it's high enough level that its not practical to just carry a scroll, and you can't solve the problem with skills instead.My understanding is that Spell Substitution is great for keeping the balance of your spells in place. You start with, say, two each of reflex, fortitude and will targeting spells in your top slots, maybe some general use but still not always useful things like Dispel Magic at rank-2 or an AoE incap in your 4th top rank slot. Two copies of Fly, perhaps. Then as you go through encounters and deplete them, you reshuffle to maintain the same balance, maybe to align with what appears to be the dungeon theme. Using a lot of Reflex spells against the mindless constructs? Probably time to wave goodbye to the Will spells you prepped.
You basically try to always have a generalist spell list prepped, whereas prepared casters, by design, become less generalist as they spend spell slots
That feels like a lot of effort to get what a Spontaneous caster gets out of the box. That being considered a major feature is probably a lot of why Wizard just feels so meh.
IMO Wizard would really feel better with 5e style prepared casting. PF2 missed the boat on that the first time and they probably didn't feel bold enough to try it in the remaster, but it just feels better in play. Especially on a class that doesn't have a lot else going on (compared to say Cleric who have Divine Font and IMO a better selection of focus spells).
I made wizards like 5E. They work much better and are still not overpowered because of the action economy throttle that keeps PF2 as balanced as it is.
Giving wizards 5ed spellcasting as their "thing" would indeed make them both powerful and interesting to play, and give them a real identity.
But like Teridax said, it might make them too powerful and might need some rebalancing elsewhere.
As for the arcane list, i'm not exactly saying it's weak - it's not. It's just that it lacks some kind of... I don't know, purpose ? It's good to have breadth, but not at the expense of depth.
I gave every caster spontaneous casting in PF2. Makes casting more fun being able to use the spell they need at the right time. You can still only cast so many spells in a round and incap and such don't change.
What broke PF1 casting was metamagic, insanely good spells that were save or done, and the ability to build up absolutely insane DCs. All that is gone now.
So being able to cast a good spell at the right time just leads to more fun for the players rather than a broken game since there is really no way to break the game. PF2 is on some tight rails and it's very hard to go outside of them.
As for the arcane list, i'm not exactly saying it's weak - it's not. It's just that it lacks some kind of... I don't know, purpose ? It's good to have breadth, but not at the expense of depth.
I'd say that the arcane list's huge breadth may actually be working to its disadvantage in this discussion: if the arcane list had a sharper identity and perhaps a few spells trimmed down to focus on the tradition's centerpieces, then the list would have a stronger identity and people could more easily call it "the list for doing X", rather than "the list that does a bit of everything except heal". Instead, one of the mistakes I think Paizo made is that they designed the arcane list entirely around the Wizard, who prior to the remaster needed enough spells to fill out all eight OGL schools of magic: this meant adding a lot of necromancy-themed spells that deal void damage and summon undead, for instance, which I don't think is really what arcane magic ought to be about. If that and perhaps other bits to the list were trimmed down, the standout parts of the list would be much clearer, and the Wizard could be given more room to shine through their own features.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just had this crazy idea I thought of sharing. I'm not proposing it necessarily as a serious rework for the wizard because I'm sure it would either be too OP or hard to implement in the current system, but I think it could be fun to see how much it woulc change the class as a thought experiment.
I haven't played Baldur's Gate 3 yet but I think I read somewhere that wizards there can learn spells from any list, right? So what if wizards could learn spells from all four traditions in PF2e? I think that at the very list they should probably lose their arcane bond and arcane schools class features, with spell blending becoming the default arcane thesis (I choose this one for no particular reason other than I think that it fits the idea of the wizard class the best). It probably would also need a new feature to restrict the wizard from adding certain spells to their spellbook, much like the old D&D 3.5 school restrictions, but with spell schools not being a thing anymore I think this would make it kinda hard to implement. The only thing I can think of is to forsake one tradition but keep the other 3.
In a sense this reminds me of how fighters are at least trained in every weapon in the system, but they become better than the average martial only in a handful of them. Since the wizard doesn't have an accuracy boost like the fighter does, in their case having access to 3/4s of the spell traditions would be their way to represent their prowess and explain why the class feels a bit bland in its mechanics. A much more balanced approach to this idea would be to instead give wizard an additional spell slot at their highest rank of wizard spell slots that they can use to cast a spell of any tradition that's on their spellbook. I guess this could be a new thesis.
I haven't played Baldur's Gate 3 yet but I think I read somewhere that wizards there can learn spells from any list, right? So what if wizards could learn spells from all four traditions in PF2e?
That would be Bards in 5e/BG3, but I quite like the idea of a Wizard option letting you learn spells from any tradition. You might be interested in this Wizard homebrew I wrote a while back, specifically the Universal Magic arcane thesis, which should give you exactly what you're looking for.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo forums try not to make every thread about the wizard challenge... Lol