| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're right. This is exactly what many of us are asking for. Strong class features that scale that fit the wizard playstyle as the ultimate arcane caster.
Well, I guess the OP's original position of "we should buff the arcane spell list" is pretty well refuted. No, the arcane list doesn't need a buff. Arcane casters that aren't the witch or wizard are fine (and the remastered witch is...better?).
The problem isn't the spell list. It's class features/feats, and almost everyone agrees the wizard lacks good ones.
...I see...
Then you are deliberately withholding information from your description in order to trick people by presenting a so-called "simple test" that is actually something more complicated.
Hold on, so because I didn't indulge your non-solution that tried to shift the goalposts by sidestepping the problem as presented entirely, I'm deliberately withholding information now? Do you not think that perhaps trying to approach the scenario as presented in good faith instead of making stuff up would have been the smarter approach?
That's worse than moving goalposts. That's intentional deception.Ah yes, clearly it must be intentional deception to present a scenario under the expectation that players address the scenario, rather than an imagined aftermath that deliberately attempts to avoid the scenario in its entirety.
... but seriously, do you realize how you're sounding here? I'm sorry, but this is comical. If you can't come up with a solution that fits within the parameters of the scenario, just say so, it's not a slight against your abilities as a GM or your powers of imagination. It would certainly be a lot more productive than making these kinds of accusations and gratuitously bolding words like we're in a comic book.
And to be clear: the scenario was intentionally chosen to make it difficult to convey information that would let the party prepare spells in advance. If you can't come up with a proper solution to it, it's not necessarily for lack of imagination, it's because this is one of many different situations that happens in adventures, including official adventure paths, where the party doesn't really have great options for informing themselves, and the GM doesn't have very many ways of giving that information in a way that makes sense in-universe. A lot of people have tried to handwave this
Great examples!
And when a caster does bring those kinds of spells or even a combination of them and lore or other RK skills and the GM does give appropriate information from them, a prepared caster can actually prepare. I think this is the kind of play experience a wizard player actually wants to be engaged it when they picked the class. If they envisioned a caster set to blast away without engaging in this kind of information gathering then sorcerer is more suited to it.This may be the kind of conversation to have with new players when they are considering the wizard.
And now you resort to ad hominem attacks...
I'm not the one handwaving, you are by adding restrictions to the original scenario description.
Accusing me of intentional deception, as you put it, is a direct character attack and a false accusation to boot. By contrast, I have taken great pains to indicate that being unable to come up with an effective solution is not a slight against your character or competence. The entire point is that even a very competent GM would struggle with this.
Revealed after the fact to prevent PCs from retreating and preparing more appropriate spells:
After the fact is correct: you clearly couldn't come up with a solution for the scenario presented, so you decided to fast-forward past the scenario, then effectively try to save scum in a tabletop game. Do you really think this is an honest approach to the problem?
And I'm expecting more handwaving/GM-fiat to invalidate using Consult the Spirits and spells.
It's not even handwaving or GM fiat; you clearly haven't read these effects properly. Consult the Spirits only works on an area within 100 feet of you, clairvoyance itself only has a range of 500 feet and is going to be extremely haphazard if you have no idea where you're casting it, and stone may not be able to answer your questions at all. If you're calling all of this "GM fiat", then go try out these strategies to map out the entirety of the Abomination Vaults from the surface and see how that works out for you.
And again, to bring this back to something more concrete, it is a known problem that many APs don't give the players much downtime or let them prepare in advance. Outlaws of Alkenstar, while set in a location that doesn't really favor spellcasters at all, is another AP infamous for this. While you're banging your head trying to rules lawyer your way out of a hypothetical scenario, there are plenty of actual APs and other official scenarios where the GM has to bend over backwards trying to rewrite certain sections if they want the party to be able to consistently know what to expect the next day. Solving that problem I think requires a slightly more concrete solution than just expecting the GM to figure it out.
You're right. This is exactly what many of us are asking for. Strong class features that scale that fit the wizard playstyle as the ultimate arcane caster.Well, I guess the OP's original position of "we should buff the arcane spell list" is pretty well refuted. No, the arcane list doesn't need a buff. Arcane casters that aren't the witch or wizard are fine (and the remastered witch is...better?).
The problem isn't the spell list. It's class features/feats, and almost everyone agrees the wizard lacks good ones.
I haven't tried the Remastered Witch. None of my players have either. It looks better.
The only witch I've seen in action is the divine witch and they were good before and are even better now. The divine hex spell is great as it adds damage to everyone and everything. Spells, martial ranged or melee, and I would even say the witch hex even works with persistent damage or poison as it is just a general damage booster to every damage roll.
The occult hex that extends conditions obviously looks great.
Rest of the hexes still look like a mixed bag.
Feats look much better though. Wand feat looks pretty great. Some of the higher level feats are better. Familiars are better, but also a mixed bag. Some are useful, some are not.
I would say the witch is definitely better unlike the Remaster Wizard which managed to get a little bit worse.
...I see...
Then you are deliberately withholding information from your description in order to trick people by presenting a so-called "simple test" that is actually something more complicated.
Hold on, so because I didn't indulge your non-solution that tried to shift the goalposts by sidestepping the problem as presented entirely, I'm deliberately withholding information now? Do you not think that perhaps trying to approach the scenario as presented in good faith instead of making stuff up would have been the smarter approach?
That's worse than moving goalposts. That's intentional deception.Ah yes, clearly it must be intentional deception to present a scenario under the expectation that players address the scenario, rather than an imagined aftermath that deliberately attempts to avoid the scenario in its entirety.
... but seriously, do you realize how you're sounding here? I'm sorry, but this is comical. If you can't come up with a solution that fits within the parameters of the scenario, just say so, it's not a slight against your abilities as a GM or your powers of imagination. It would certainly be a lot more productive than making these kinds of accusations and gratuitously bolding words like we're in a comic book.
And to be clear: the scenario was intentionally chosen to make it difficult to convey information that would let the party prepare spells in advance. If you can't come up with a proper solution to it, it's not necessarily for lack of imagination, it's because this is one of many different situations that happens in adventures, including official adventure paths, where the party doesn't really have great options for informing themselves, and the GM doesn't have very many ways of giving that information in a way that makes sense in-universe. A lot of people have tried to handwave this
We like and use these types of feats and spells. As you pointed out, the cleric is still better at it than the wizard. The cleric can often consult their god and use speak to dead and such.
The druid often has spells and feats with nature to consult nature and talk to stone and animals for scouting.
The wizard does have some good scouting spells like scouting eye clairvoyance and clairaudience (I think other lists have this as well).
So you can scout areas decently.
This is why I think preparation helps a cleric or druid more than it helps a wizard. That's why you don't see thread after thread complaining about clerics and druids. If you're going into a crypt or against outsiders, primal and divine casters have some spells that shift the math substantially in the PCs favor dealing with undead and outsiders.
Arcane casters don't have that any more. Wizards don't even have the extra focus spells or features to make up for the Arcane List lacking silver bullet spells now.
There is just one class that a small segment of us wizard lovers who love to min-max spell strategy are concerned with: the wizard.
I know we're in the minority. Most people that play PF2 or these games don't care about the wizard as much as some of us do. They don't care if they are that powerful. They don't care if they are a top tier caster. They are mostly content to be Mr. Out of Combat Utility problem solver caster, which wizards are good at. I don't want to be dishonest and say wizards have nothing, but they are pretty good at out of combat problem solving with the Spell Substitution Thesis or a few days of time to pick up some spells most spontaneous casters wouldn't pick up.
But in combat, they are lacking oomph abilities. Focus spells or features that make you feel the power of the class like the Imperior Sorc feels when they cast Ancestral Memories or use Explosion of Power. What the druid feels when they transform into a dragon, fly up and knock the real dragon out of the air using trip. What the cleric feels when they are power healing a group through a tough combat while still launching attacks with a weapon. Or the bard using cantrips or spells while super buffing the group.
Wizard doesn't have any of that. It feels like they should have some of those type of abilities.
|
You're right. This is exactly what many of us are asking for. Strong class features that scale that fit the wizard playstyle as the ultimate arcane caster.Well, I guess the OP's original position of "we should buff the arcane spell list" is pretty well refuted. No, the arcane list doesn't need a buff. Arcane casters that aren't the witch or wizard are fine (and the remastered witch is...better?).
The problem isn't the spell list. It's class features/feats, and almost everyone agrees the wizard lacks good ones.
I was running a campaign with an Arcane Witch (Rune/Inscribed one) as changes rolled in, and they saw immediate improvements. The flavour changes sell the class better, and the familiar getting stuff when you cast hexes gives the familiar a greater presence in combat, as well as making the witch feel less like wizard.
The witch also gets to poach good spells from other lists via Lessons! Witches will always have a fairly decent set of turn by using their favourite focus spells + the associated spell and they get a lot of them, useful for any situation.
I was running a campaign with an Arcane Witch (Rune/Inscribed one) as changes rolled in, and they saw immediate improvements. The flavour changes sell the class better, and the familiar getting stuff when you cast hexes gives the familiar a greater presence in combat, as well as making the witch feel less like wizard.
Is that new? I don't remember witches being able to poach spells.
I guess it isn't new. The poachable spells aren't great, but I guess only the wizard can't poach spells.
That's not what I said; I said immune to spells. And I said that intentionally because there are, in published APs, monsters immune to spells.
And are you claiming there's never fights kept at range? Psychics never go into combat against mindless enemies? Swashies never go against monsters immune to precision damage?
Of course GM choices about encounter design impact which classes will have an easy time and which won't. I am frankly amazed you can argue otherwise - this is just so obvious. And yes that is absolutely true for combat encounters, I'm not just talking noncombat. Because of this, it is IMO very much part of the game that GMs bring their brain to the table. If some classes have daily prep resources intended to be varied based on the collection of campaign information, and you are throwing those scenes out, of course they're not going to be as good or as fun.
There are things immune to precision damage. The number of creatures immune to spells has dropped to one I can think of off the top of my head. There may be more, but with golems just having resistance that threat is gone. I'm glad it's gone.
Nothing is immune to martial damage as a whole, though oozes are immune to certain types of martial damage.
Yes. We do have ranged fights, usually against fliers. Our group sets up to deal with it and honestly spontaneous casters are much better at dealing with ranged as they usually slot plenty of ranged hammer spells they can chain cast, so that favors them as well.
I think you've convinced me that that's true...for high level play. I am not convinced it's true for low level play, where I think info can make prepared classes have their own value, their own shine moments.
And I think even at high levels, it's not the case that in prepared vs. repertoire the latter always wins. I think it's due to Paizo's implementation. To be valuable and balance against the flexibility of spontaneous casting, prepared casters should have something like 2-3 spell choices in a rank for each repertoire spell a spontaneous caster has...and that number needs to be reasonably low (if it's a high number, nobody cares if the prepared caster has more). But for example at L17, the Sorc has effectively 12 spells granted into...
A few things on this.
1. For non-combat utility, the wizard is pretty good at low or high levels. They solve problems using spells. I've done this. I've seen it done. It's part of what I'm talking about when I say groups figure out ways to solve problems as a group. So if you have a wizard, the wizard player uses their spellbook to solve problems.
The other classes do the same with their abilities. Recent example, we had to cross a boiling lake of tar, a druid turned into a large dragon and flew them across. A wizard can teleport them across, though the cost is much, much higher for them than a druid. A rogue or other party members can rig some kind of rope bridge. A wizard has no means they can use all day to do this kind of thing like a druid where Untamed Form has a huge amount of automatically heightening versatility worked in.
This is part of what I'm talking about when if you don't have a wizard, the PCs can find other ways to do stuff. Many other classes have lower cost ways of doing things that don't use up spell slots, which often gives them greater sustain over an adventuring day with near equal versatility.
2. The arcane list is not great for silver bullet spells. The divine or primal list is much better given the main silver bullet spells deal with outsiders or undead.
3. Martials are often better at triggering weaknesses. You are right at low level this is harder, but at high level many of my group's martials carry rune sets they transfer on and off between adventures or encounters. If fighting something with a cold weakness, they put a frost rune on, evil outsiders holy rune, and so on. They don't care about the high end runes as they don't provide much. 1d6 damage gone isn't going to shift the damage too much requiring resistance bypass. If a creature is weak, they activate the weakness per hit rather than one time with a spell or cantrip. They are getting more out of weakness activation than the wizard as well (more than any caster).
In conclusion, Wizards really should have some better focus spells that provide some sustainable power throughout an adventuring day. A good auto-heightening blast if evocation. Maybe a good shapechange spell if a shapechanger. A good summon spells if a conjuror type.
Just like the other classes have. Slots alone do not do the job for classes and a few more slots is hardly worth powerful and versatile focus abilities like Untamed Form, a powerful blasting focus spell like fire ray or frozen bolt, powerful buffing like the bard has, or even witch hexes or familiar abilities.
Classes, especially casters, really need focus spells that support their playstyle, they need them to scale, and they need them to be impactful or at least a few of them. That is much more powerful for sustain than a few extra high level slots or scrolls or something that may not even be used because you have to prep them in advance and the spells on them may not be near as versatile as an easily recovered focus spell.
The number of things I've done on a druid with Untamed Form is many. That's why I take rogue archetype with druids and build up skills like Stealth and Athletics. Three dimensional flanking with air elemental flight. Tripping flying creatures to knock them out of the air with high ranked Athletics and built up Strength. Scouting while in pest or animal form. Opening gates at early levels climbing over walls in gorilla form. Transporting the party over walls, cliffs, up mountains, across water in various forms. All done with a low cost, automatically heightened focus point and great feats for building up untamed form. No spell slots required and I can do it all day.
It's why I don't understand why some dislike the druid. A well built druid with Untamed Form is absolutely amazing. Feels way, way, miles and miles better than the wizard in my experience. I love being able to change into various forms all day. Once I pick up Form Control and get to high level, I can roll in battle form for most of an adventure if I feel like it. Feels awesome.
I feel awesome when I use Ancestral Memories and Explosion of Power on a sorc.
I feel awesome when I use Harrow Sorc focus spells on PCs to buff them or affect enemies.
I feel awesome with the healing power of the cleric.
I feel awesome buffing and casting as a bard.
I almost never see this kind of awesome from a wizard other than the same awesome I see with any caster when something crit fails a save. None of their focus spells have it. None of their class features have it except the Staff Thesis if you want to get a staff, load it with charges, and blow it up. Only the wizard level 20 feats have Spell Combination which is awesome, but I haven't played or seen a level 20 wizard with Spell Combination. Most of their other feats or abilities lack that awesome feeling. More spell limited by actions per round just doesn't feel awesome. Just feels like you have an extra spell to cast for an extra fight that may not even occur. Whereas the focus point casters are blasting off up to three good spells per combat, all day or doing something magically cool all day.
I feel like the wizard should have focus spells that feel great within their specialty and play-style. Good focus spells are much better than extra spell slots in my experience whether it's a good blast, versatile focus spell like Untamed Form, or a buff like Rewrite Fate on the Harrow Sorc or an elemental or draconic sorc flight.
Isn't that good? There should be no single class in the game which is necessary to overcome some challenge. I'm not arguing the wizard should be necessary; the only thing I'm arguing here is against this idea that every class ought to be designed primarily for balance in a Gloomhaven-style or videogame-style "all combat, nuthin' but combat, drop into combat randomly" game. That imposes an unnecessary and excessively stringent limitation on class design to cater to one specific playstyle. The fact that Paizo isn't catering to that playstyle should be obvious from the numerous archetypes, feats, skills, and spells that aren't useful in it. Probably no Dandy Wizards casting Planar Palace in your campaigns, eh? You think that's because Paizo just wasn't thinking straight when it developed those things, or because Paizo was thinking straight...about other styles of campaigns?
This is completely irrelevant. Being able to cast planar palace should not make you weaker in combat than a sorcerer or witch or cleric.
I don't know how to get this idea through to you, but I'll state it as simply as possible: what a class can do in non-combat encounters should have zero bearing on how well they are designed for combat.
For example, if this idea that some put forth that the wizard's ability to do out of combat things like teleport or cast planar palace in any way affects their combat performance, meaning some imaginary power budget exists that makes the designers say "The wizard can cast planar palace, so we should make them weaker in combat", that power budget should not include what they can do out of combat.
Combat balance should be done with an emphasis on balanced capabilities between classes, even if that balance is focused on some other aspect of combat like the bard buffing or the cleric healing.
I'd also like to say I do not think the designers do this, but some put this idea forth. I don't believe it is true at all. I think the designers do design for combat separately from other exploration or downtime. I think the main problem that occurs is they want differentiation and unique niches between classes. Even the investigator is not weak in combat in my opinion, just very differentiated and built appropriately for specific types of campaigns.
I think the wizard has been a double miss for design mainly due to the design team being very careful to not make the wizard within sniffing distance of what the were in PF1. That's what I think is driving this careful, very subdued wizard design.
I'm fine with that. Though personally I'd be okay if sorc kept the 'bigger blaster' title if there was a way to buff the utility of the wizard. Don't cross the themes, Egon.
Sorc was the big boy blaster in PF1. I think they can do fine building a thematic wizard that doesn't step on toes. They just gotta lean in to the strengths of the PF2 system which is focus abilities and a handful of effective class abilities that have some "awesome" in the design and not some "does this even do anything" design" like the wizard currently has.
When I have wizard players that don't even care what thesis they take because they are all so boring and only use the Hand of the Apprentice or Force Missile focus spell at low level because they look cool on top of taking feats from archetypes and other classes because the wizard feats make their eyes glaze over with boredom, that's a problem, especially when the players that loved wizards in PF1 and past editions are doing it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What game are you playing, where a caster using their top slots for noncombat spells "should not" make you weaker in combat? That's definitely not the way PF2E is designed.
The mechanical support Paizo gives for non-combat character development makes it clear that they are not solely concerned with the game creating characters that always, at all levels or through all choices of feat, skill, spell and yes class, do combat equally. Rather, they seem to have taken a 'close enough' or 'band' approach where the chassis of each character should let them find moderate encounters of moderate difficulty. But if some players wholly focused on combat scenes want their group to regularly crush severe threats and that's all they really want to do, then yes only a limited number of spell, feat, skill and class choices will likely do that. That isn't bad design; that is a particular table finding that their specific narrow playstyle is supported by only some of the game's content, not all of it. [
A game where sorcs cast their top slot and still have others and focus spells to fight with? You play that game too. And surprise, surprise, the focus spells help make up for the use of a top slot being used for a non-combat spell.
But wait, who doesn't have that? The wizard.
When you design a game, that can be your approach. But it's yours, and AFAICT it isn't necessarily the approach Paizo took. Or at least, Paizo does not take it to the extent that you seem to want them to. If you put miniatures games/Gloomhaven on one end of a spectrum where literally every aspect of the game contributes to combat, and Warhammer on the other where the options include classes like 'beggar' entirely unsuited for combat, then PF2E is closer to the Gloom end but it's not "all the way".
It is absolutely should be your approach. You have designed badly if you make a class weak in combat while another class is stronger in combat while being equally good or better at non-combat situations.
Like say a charisma based sorcerer or bard with more powerful combat abilities and far superior in social situations dominating you in the wizard major areas of the game.
I tell you, you really don't analyze this game. It's utterly amazing that you don't see it when it's obvious.
Charisma based casters have vastly superior options for influencing the game while not being weak in combat at all.
Why? Because the designers do not weaken classes based on what they can do out of combat. There is no power budget for out of combat as you are implying. None whatsoever. Or charisma based casters would be far weaker when the high charisma allows them to use powerful non-combat skills like Intimidate, Diplomacy, and Deception far better than a wizard.
So please provide proof that the game is designed as you are implying where the wizard or any class is supposed to be weaker if they have good out of combat ability?
You keep stating that this is happening. I want proof. Another argument that is clearly not supported by the game design and keeps getting pushed that somehow the wizard has weaker abilities because the have superior out of combat abilities.
There is no evidence whatsoever that Paizo designers engage in class balance based on the non-combat abilities of a class. Wizard is designed weak not because of its ability to change spells or affect non-combat scenarios, but because they made other options so powerful as to make the prepared casting of the wizard weaker.
It has zero to do with "advance scouting" or providing information or anything of the kind mentioned in this thread as to what the wizard needs to work well.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't that good? There should be no single class in the game which is necessary to overcome some challenge. I'm not arguing the wizard should be necessary; the only thing I'm arguing here is against this idea that every class ought to be designed primarily for balance in a Gloomhaven-style or videogame-style "all combat, nuthin' but combat, drop into combat randomly" game. That imposes an unnecessary and excessively stringent limitation on class design to cater to one specific playstyle. The fact that Paizo isn't catering to that playstyle should be obvious from the numerous archetypes, feats, skills, and spells that aren't useful in it. Probably no Dandy Wizards casting Planar Palace in your campaigns, eh? You think that's because Paizo just wasn't thinking straight when it developed those things, or because Paizo was thinking straight...about other styles of campaigns?
To provide another viewpoint:
Classes can have significant investment into things that aren't directly useful in combat and be good! The Alchemist and Investigator both play in those spaces - I can't say they're entirely successful, but both classes play fine. And archetypes can go even further!
... the problem is, the wizard isn't... really investing their power budget into noncombat utility like the alchemist and investigator do. The arcane list doesn't have that many unique spells that do something completely unreplicable otherwise. Full-list prepared casters like the druid and cleric (or, frankly, the witch whose spellbook works better than the wizard) are better able to pivot into unusual situations researched beforehand. Many spontaneous casters, like bards and arcane sorcerers, can pick up one spell freely and due to how spontaneous works are often more prepared than the wizard if just one unusual spell is needed. Low-level utility spells can be bought as scrolls or vomitted from staves on the cheap. What does the wizard have? An arcane thesis which is good, don't get me wrong, but you can only...
The wizard isn't, especially with certain stats so good. For some reason there are players holding out on this stuff and I'm not sure why. Just an outright refusal to see the problem.
Even in skills the dramatic difference is astounding. I keep hearing wizard players talking about all these Recall Knowledge checks that are so helpful.
I'm listening to this while I'm playing a sorc with maxed out Intimidate, maxed charisma, and skill feats like Quick Coerce, Group Coercion, and Lasting Coercion and with a fairly easy to make intimidate check I can make a whole guard force do what I want for a week without a using a spell slot.
When you point out how low value intelligence is compared charisma, you get the whole Recall Knowledge thing over and over again. It's like these players never used Charisma skills, which are far more powerful than intelligence skills. They are absolutely great for non-combat, especially when your charisma is maxed with an Apex item. You pretty much make interrogation, bypassing social obstacles, and the like easy as breathing.
And yet I see no power budget cost in charisma casters for having such a powerful casting stat and highly useful non-combat skills. They work better than a heightened charm spell in non-combat scenarios. This doesn't include if you want to max out diplomacy or deception as well as they have some real high value skill feats and skill actions. Much, much more useful than Recall Knowledge.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thaumaturge is a great example.
You get Esoteric Lore as a free skill, based on charisma (your main stat) which allows you to recall knowledge on every creature using the same skill, and it progresses to Legendary proficiency for free.
And now you resort to ad hominem attacks...
I'm not the one handwaving, you are by adding restrictions to the original scenario description.
Accusing me of intentional deception, as you put it, is a direct character attack and a false accusation to boot. By contrast, I have taken great pains to indicate that being unable to come up with an effective solution is not a slight against your character or competence. The entire point is that even a very competent GM would struggle with this.
Revealed after the fact to prevent PCs from retreating and preparing more appropriate spells:After the fact is correct: you clearly couldn't come up with a solution for the scenario presented, so you decided to fast-forward past the scenario, then effectively try to save scum in a tabletop game. Do you really think this is an honest approach to the problem?
And I'm expecting more handwaving/GM-fiat to invalidate using Consult the Spirits and spells.It's not even handwaving or GM fiat; you clearly haven't read these effects properly. Consult the Spirits only works on an area within 100 feet of you, clairvoyance itself only has a range of 500 feet and is going to be extremely haphazard if you have no idea where you're casting it, and stone may not be able to answer your questions at all. If you're calling all of this "GM fiat", then go try out these strategies to map out the entirety of the Abomination Vaults from the surface and see how that works out for you.
And again, to bring this back to something more concrete, it is a known problem that many APs don't give the players much downtime or let them prepare in advance. Outlaws of Alkenstar, while set in a location that doesn't really favor spellcasters at all, is another AP infamous for this. While you're banging your head trying to rules lawyer your way out of a hypothetical scenario, there are plenty...
You know what?
When you fail to adequately define the parameters at the start and just say "nope," when people have to guess what the h--- you consider a "simple test," you might not get a better response.
Here's a clue: You need to tell us what the crypt is like. How big is it, etc. Otherwise this is just a meaningless exercise to make yourself feel smart because we can't read your mind.
You know what?
When you fail to adequately define the parameters at the start and just say "nope," when people have to guess what the h--- you consider a "simple test," you might not get a better response.
Here's a clue: You need to tell us what the crypt is like. How big is it, etc. Otherwise this is just a meaningless exercise where you get to feel smart because we can't read your mind.
I don't think I do, actually. See, the problem is that you are taking an extremely simple scenario, more of a rhetorical question really, and treating it as something to trivialize. This is why your first move was to try to avoid the scenario entirely by skipping it, and why your subsequent strategy was to argue endlessly to try to have your way. At no point did you engage with the underlying subject matter, which was try to empathize with the fact that some situations make it difficult to obtain information or feed it to the players, a problem you are facing now by demanding extremely specific details that I, as a GM, wouldn't give to you on the spot just because you demanded it as a player. Instead, I would simply pose that question to you and ask how you, as a player, would go about figuring out the exact dimensions and contents of that crypt in the middle of the wilderness. Again, you are continuing to prove my point.
In fact, we could get even more specific: suppose that deep within this crypt, there is an extremely valuable item held inside a puzzle box made of high-grade adamantine. The puzzle box is itself nonmagical, but is built into the crypt's architecture and so can't be removed, has extremely high DCs that the party is ill-equipped to deal with, and locks itself for prolonged periods of time on a failed check. This would make it a prime target for dismantle, a niche arcane spell that would nonetheless be extremely useful for this occasion. Trouble is: how would the party even know where to look to get this kind of information in that situation, let alone prepare that niche spell? Again, in a world where prepared casters could reliably be fed information as a direct mechanic, without needing "Mother may I" arrangements from the GM each time, that would be easy to do. The same would go for a game that had the above homebrew ritual enabled, where the GM could just prepare dismantle in the Wizard's spell slots (if it's in their spellbook). In a game where the party may not always have the time or opportunity to do this, however, that's not a given, and the result in practice is that spell preparation tends to be much more risk-averse and less diverse than it could be, a problem that especially affects prepared arcane casters and their use of those niche utility spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How does Investigator stack up against Fighter?
How does Alchemist stack up against a traditional martial or traditional caster?
Is your logic going to go circular? Are you going to reason now that since all classes according to you should be designed equally for combat, the fact that these aren't equal must mean they just weren't designed well? Rather than just taking the evidence at face value that a class named "Investigator" has some design budget dedicated to...investigating?
Again I'll go back to the 'band' or 'moderate encounters are moderate difficulty' concept. I don't think Paizo really cares about making every class equally combat proficient at the extremes of builds or encounters. IMO they're just not worrried that sorc outperforms wizard at L18 when facing 5 in a row encounters of L+3 bosses. I think they care that they're 'equal enough' to both be fun and useful in typical games.
Think of it this way: it seems really clear to me that they aren't trying to balance combat effectiveness at L1-2. Early on, there's a few front-loaded martial builds that just clearly outdo everything else for dpr AND don't get one-shotted like most other builds. Why the discrepancy? Because not many games are located there, at least not for long. But the same principle applies to your games, deriven. Why isn't Paizo highly...
No. The investigator compared to the fighter. It depends on what you do with it. I haven't min-maxed the investigator. I did run one pre-remaster. They are much better in combat than given credit for. That ability to alter your actions each round based on whether you succeed or not is like a Sure Strike every round. It's a surprisingly good combat skill. I think they limited its damage because of how good it is at allowing you to do alter your actions while improving the chance to succeed due to being able to alter your actions.
Then they are some of the feats like the one that lets you add the stratagem dice as a flat bonus to your attacks.
I found the alchemist useful in combat. Was it maxed for damage? No. But was it able to provide multiple useful buffs, healing, and bombs all day. Yes.
So I don't equate adding to combat as damage only. The fighter is heavily focused on damage with some ability to do maneuvers or add a rider.
Whereas the investigator is focused more on action success. They can improve skill chances. I don't find it as weak as others find it in play. Is it a damage monster like the fighter? No, but neither is the bard and no one considers them weak.
So no circular logic, I don't consider the investigator weak in combat, especially the Remastered Version.
The alchemist is also not weak in combat. It's not a single target damage monster like the fighter, but they have damage that can't be resisted to well by magic resistance, lots of AOE that adds up even on misses, and elixirs and tools that are really, really helpful to a party.
You don't play an investigator or an alchemist to be the best single target damage dealer. But I think both classes do have balanced combat abilities that do well and standout if used by a player that builds them well.
That's why you don't see me in too many threads on those classes any more. Once I saw the Investigator in play and understood it better, it was better in combat than I expected. The alchemist could still use some work, but it is also surprisingly good in combat, especially with all the new bombs. You know what else? The alchemist is even better than the wizard at activating weaknesses in real time. That was another surprise I saw with the alchemist. They were intelligence based. Could make Recall Knowledge as well as the wizard. And they could also make a bomb to exploit that weakness in real time using Quick Alchemy.
So I'm not sure what you mean by bringing both of those classes into the mix because they are both designed to highly effective in combat and stand out for it. You'll only see this with a player that knows how to build them.
So they are both more proof you don't have to give up anything to be good in combat.
The funny thing is the alchemist player that ran it first in our campaign felt the alchemist should be stronger because they lacked the big hit crits of a barb or fighter, but when I added up alchemist damage they were competitive due to the way they do damage on a miss and their damage kinds of adds without being a big flashy crit. It's like a pool where the fighter dumps one big bunch of water into it to fill it and the alchemist is a constant rain that eventually catches up.
Paizo should be more concerned about the wizard doing what it is supposed to do: be versatile caster guy. They should be able to do it in real time during combat like the sorcerer can.
This is not about damage alone as the wizard can launch a spell and get a crit failure on a high value blast spell. This is about wizard abilities having no standout niche and no standout abilities that shine during combat.
Every caster in the game can cast spells. Yet the Imperial Sorc using Ancestral Memories can cast with a better chance of success using arcane spells than the wizard...even though the wizard is stuck with the aracne list while the sorc can build for any list and any caster role from healer to buffer to debuffer to blaster to control...when they do decide to do arcane, do arcane better than the wizard.
I don't see why you don't see that as a problem when the class stuck using arcane is worse at it than the class that has more versatile build options with multiple spell lists.
Even the witch is more versatile for builds.
If the wizard is stuck using arcane, then at least make them the ultimate user of arcane magic in combat within their curricula. That might be a nice thing for them to have given their lack of ability to do anything else. Don't you think?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As if to support the point that silver bullet spells have become much rarer, Dismantle actually wouldn't work here since a box that can't be removed or opened can't be meaningfully said to be 'in your possession' either ;)
That's fair, though is easily addressed by the box being able to be picked up and instead threatening to destroy the contained item within a set duration once moved in any way. It wouldn't be a dangerous item, so dismantling it wouldn't trigger it, and while it wouldn't be the only answer, dismantle would in fact make this situation much easier.
I would also say that while silver bullet spells don't exist in the same way as in 1e, they do still exist, in the sense that certain spells very obviously do make certain challenges much easier. Earthbind lets you ground flying creatures, airlift lets you transport your whole party across distances that would otherwise be extremely difficult to traverse, air bubble lets creatures stay underwater for a lot longer than they normally would, and so on. Although these spells aren't exclusively arcane, the arcane list just so happens to have a large number of these silver bullet spells, particularly when it comes to utility. These are the kinds of spells that are worth having around just in case, because on the occasion when you might need them, they can be very useful indeed.
... which is also, to an extent, why arcane spellcasting can underwhelm sometimes. It's not just that these are spells that are unlikely to be prepared without advance notice, out-of-combat utility isn't valued super highly in PF2e, and what magical utility party members do bring tends to come in the form of cheap, low-level scrolls. More than perhaps any other spell list, the arcane list is full of spells that are maximally effective without needing to be heightened at all or even relying on spellcasting proficiency, which would normally make them great as low-level spells in a spellcaster's prepared spells or spell repertoire, but often just relegate them to scroll spells once they're low enough to be trivial to purchase. If more of that utility heightened or made use of spellcasting proficiency in some way, then arcane casters could at least have more of a chance of pulling more potent utility out of their sleeve than some rando with Trick Magic Item and a scroll.
You know what?
When you fail to adequately define the parameters at the start and just say "nope," when people have to guess what the h--- you consider a "simple test," you might not get a better response.
Here's a clue: You need to tell us what the crypt is like. How big is it, etc. Otherwise this is just a meaningless exercise where you get to feel smart because we can't read your mind.
I don't think I do, actually. See, the problem is that you are taking an extremely simple scenario, more of a rhetorical question really, and treating it as something to trivialize. This is why your first move was to try to avoid the scenario entirely by skipping it, and why your subsequent strategy was to argue endlessly to try to have your way. At no point did you engage with the underlying subject matter, which was try to empathize with the fact that some situations make it difficult to obtain information or feed it to the players, a problem you are facing now by demanding extremely specific details that I, as a GM, wouldn't give to you on the spot just because you demanded it as a player. Instead, I would simply pose that question to you and ask how you, as a player, would go about figuring out the exact dimensions and contents of that crypt in the middle of the wilderness. Again, you are continuing to prove my point.
In fact, we could get even more specific: suppose that deep within this crypt, there is an extremely valuable item held inside a puzzle box made of high-grade adamantine. The puzzle box is itself nonmagical, but is built into the crypt's architecture and so can't be removed, has extremely high DCs that the party is ill-equipped to deal with, and locks itself for prolonged periods of time on a failed check. This would make it a prime target for dismantle, a niche arcane spell that would nonetheless be extremely useful for this occasion. Trouble is: how would the party even know where to look to get this kind of information in that situation, let alone...
Let me put it as clearly as possible: "How do you convey to the party at that moment that deep in this crypt, the lower floors are full of clay effigies?" When players take actions to gain information, they should receive information.
It's that simple.
Also, this is exactly the context that was missing in your original description.
As far as how the players gain that information, you can always leverage the research subsystem to provide progressively more information as they take more actions.
Let me put it as clearly as possible: "How do you convey to the party at that moment that deep in this crypt, the lower floors are full of clay effigies?" When players take actions to gain information, they should receive information.
It's that simple.
Also, this is exactly the context that was missing in your original description.
Indeed, but the information they receive should correlate to the actions they take. Moreover, you, Dragonchess Player, only know about the clay effigies because I, the imaginary GM, told you so. An actual party in this scenario would have no idea, and so would not know what to even look for in the first place. I'm genuinely having trouble understanding why this is such a difficult concept to grasp here.
As far as how the players gain that information, you can always leverage the research subsystem to provide progressively more information as they take more actions.
The research subsystem is excellent, and I've used it at my table. The main snag here is that it still requires the GM to figure things out by designing a library, which itself requires generating those elements and drawing from existing context, which can be difficult to do in an official AP. The subsystem mentions as well that it is made specifically for time constraints -- in this situation, the party could simply make checks to gain that information, but as established already, that information would be difficult to provide by simple virtue of the situation at hand. The examples given in the subsystem are also quite broad -- it's not always going to be on the level of "here's the list of all the spells that will be useful for you to prepare on the next day" even on the maximal reward. Even with this subsystem, I haven't really seen players prepare that many more niche spells unless it was specifically signposted to them that a specific spell would be useful.
How does Investigator stack up against Fighter?
Fighter is one of my favorite classes and Investigator is not, but if you have an investigation up so Devise doesn't cost actions, Investigator feels pretty decent these days. It's not going to win damage awards, but it carries its weight. It can also do a LOT of other things. "Ranged Investigator with Forensic Medicine" is a surprisingly good healer while also doing solid ranged damage.
How does Alchemist stack up against a traditional martial or traditional caster?
I mean, I'd take a Bomber over a Wizard if I'm building an entire party myself. My son is playing one in Spore War and he can hit the vast majority of weaknesses in the game, on demand, with zero prep or advance notice required. The Thaumaturge just goes "oh it's weak to X", and the Bomber goes "cool, I'll have that on my turn".
Elemental damage? Check. Special material damage? Check. Piercing damage? Check. Hitting a weakness his VV can trigger 3 times in a round because he can do it on a miss from 60' away? Check. About the only thing he can't readily hit is Holy.
Plus he can do that while making himself really tanky with Numbing Tonic, giving the entire party protective buff items that are highly relevant in Spore War for free, and such. He's even got Battle Medicine because he's got the actions to be able to do it.
It doesn't have the "single giant damage number" feel, but consistent damage adds up. Can't speak to the other alchemists, but Bomber carries its weight in combat and then some, all while still having good exploration/downtime utility because of the sheer amount of stuff Alchemy can help with.
Plus, getting formula into a formula book is cheaper than getting spells into a spellbook since so many formula are low-level & auto-scaling. So he'd even have more cash left over for items.
Is your logic going to go circular? Are you going to reason now that since all classes according to you should be designed equally for combat, the fact that these aren't equal must mean they just weren't designed well? Rather than just taking the evidence at face value that a class named "Investigator" has some design budget dedicated to...investigating?
Does Rogue have budget dedicated to it's skills and such, though? I don't think it does, and that's where the problem starts: Rogue is straight up strong in all facets of the game (including investigations). If you allocate combat budget to "investigating" on the Investigator, you've made it better at something that other classes need to be able to do for the game to function (no AP will ever have an investigation that requires an Investigator) while taking away from the thing that happens extremely frequently: combat.
I can't think of another class where anyone would ever try to make this argument. Like, would we want Bards worse at combat to be better at Performing? It just doesn't make sense.
Again I'll go back to the 'band' or 'moderate encounters are moderate difficulty' concept. I don't think Paizo really cares about making every class equally combat proficient at the extremes of builds or encounters. IMO they're just not worrried that sorc outperforms wizard at L18 when facing 5 in a row encounters of L+3 bosses. I think they care that they're 'equal enough' to both be fun and useful in typical games.Think of it this way: it seems really clear to me that they aren't trying to balance combat effectiveness at L1-2. Early on, there's a few front-loaded martial builds that just clearly outdo everything else for dpr AND don't get one-shotted like most other builds. Why the discrepancy? Because not many games are located there, at least not for long. But the same principle applies to your games, deriven. Why isn't Paizo highly concerned about L18 casters being equally effective in a constant string of L+3 boss fights? Same reason, right? Because not many games are located there.
Agreed. I don't think Paizo is super concerned about balance in general the way some folks are. Paizo cares that classes feel fun to play. That requires enough balance that a player doesn't feel like they're being carried. It doesn't require perfect balance.
These days I think if you're playing it reasonably well, pretty much all classes fit into that. Some classes are definitely better than others depending on what you're measuring, but there's no class in PF2 where if someone shows up with it I just go "oh they're going to be useless." That's just not a thing the way it was in the old days.
But on a performance basis, some classes are definitely better than others... and to come back to the topic, I really find Wizard is on the weaker end of that among casters. They're a lot more work to play for less punch than a Sorcerer (or a remaster Oracle). I'm just not sure why I'd play one aside from "I really want to play an archetypical classical Wizard", unlike other classes where the class features offer some lure. (Even Fighter, where the lure is either "I like crits" or "I want a class that is simple to build/play and is effective in melee.")
The biggest problem with the PF2e Wizard is that it doesn't fulfill the class fantasy that "Wizard" conjures in the minds of players. Other classes fulfill that fantasy better. And it's telling that an entire thread has to basically be summed up, "But if you do this specific thing, and make this specific choice, then it's actually decent." That sort of hoop-jumping is just pointing out bad game design.
As a GM I've seen a player come in to PF2e with the idea of playing a Wizard and when it didn't fulfill the class fantasy, they'll probably never play PF2e again. As a player, these problems are pretty obvious. It just doesn't seem fun to play a Wizard in PF2e. Wizard probably hasn't felt this bad to play since perhaps 2e DnD. Too bad they didn't do better with the remaster, but they were probably too rushed to fix the class to level it needed.
Just as a recollection, a level 1 wizard in any edition ive played have never been fun or fulfilled the class fantasy because the class fantasy is always a higher level wizard.
The class fantasy of the apprentice barely learning magic wizard is not what anyone is thinking when they pick the class. I mean they used to be a 1d4 hp class with one spell at level 1 that had to endure and survive low levels to eventually become the wizard fiction depicts them as.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just as a recollection, a level 1 wizard in any edition ive played have never been fun or fulfilled the class fantasy because the class fantasy is always a higher level wizard.
The class fantasy of the apprentice barely learning magic wizard is not what anyone is thinking when they pick the class. I mean they used to be a 1d4 hp class with one spell at level 1 that had to endure and survive low levels to eventually become the wizard fiction depicts them as.
True, the 1st level PF2 wizard is probably better than any previous edition low level wizard.
But because magic in PF2 is generally less powerful than previous editions, and in comparison to other classes in PF2, the wizard fails to deliver in expected flavor as you level up too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just as a recollection, a level 1 wizard in any edition ive played have never been fun or fulfilled the class fantasy because the class fantasy is always a higher level wizard.
The class fantasy of the apprentice barely learning magic wizard is not what anyone is thinking when they pick the class. I mean they used to be a 1d4 hp class with one spell at level 1 that had to endure and survive low levels to eventually become the wizard fiction depicts them as.
True, the 1st level PF2 wizard is probably better than any previous edition low level wizard.
But because magic in PF2 is generally less powerful than previous editions, and in comparison to other classes in PF2, the wizard fails to deliver in expected flavor as you level up too.
Good point.
And the degrees of success pushed what people probably expect a spell to do into the crit success outcome.That and spells are probably a lot less likely to succeed than what a new person coming in would want. I can see if feeling unfair that when you use your very limited daily spells and you are not highly likely to succeed even in the best of circumstances you will feel like the game is punishing your class choice.
Just as a recollection, a level 1 wizard in any edition ive played have never been fun or fulfilled the class fantasy because the class fantasy is always a higher level wizard.
The class fantasy of the apprentice barely learning magic wizard is not what anyone is thinking when they pick the class. I mean they used to be a 1d4 hp class with one spell at level 1 that had to endure and survive low levels to eventually become the wizard fiction depicts them as.
True, the 1st level PF2 wizard is probably better than any previous edition low level wizard.
But because magic in PF2 is generally less powerful than previous editions, and in comparison to other classes in PF2, the wizard fails to deliver in expected flavor as you level up too.
Good point.
And the degrees of success pushed what people probably expect a spell to do into the crit success outcome.
That and spells are probably a lot less likely to succeed than what a new person coming in would want. I can see if feeling unfair that when you use your very limited daily spells and you are not highly likely to succeed even in the best of circumstances you will feel like the game is punishing your class choice.
I wouldn't mind a full discussion of how magic changed and its effect on opportunity cost analysis for spells at some point. I know it would be of interest to a small number of optimizers or players/Dms interested in how the new rules impact spell selection.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let me put it as clearly as possible: "How do you convey to the party at that moment that deep in this crypt, the lower floors are full of clay effigies?" When players take actions to gain information, they should receive information.
It's that simple.
Also, this is exactly the context that was missing in your original description.
Indeed, but the information they receive should correlate to the actions they take. Moreover, you, Dragonchess Player, only know about the clay effigies because I, the imaginary GM, told you so. An actual party in this scenario would have no idea, and so would not know what to even look for in the first place. I'm genuinely having trouble understanding why this is such a difficult concept to grasp here.
As far as how the players gain that information, you can always leverage the research subsystem to provide progressively more information as they take more actions.The research subsystem is excellent, and I've used it at my table. The main snag here is that it still requires the GM to figure things out by designing a library, which itself requires generating those elements and drawing from existing context, which can be difficult to do in an official AP. The subsystem mentions as well that it is made specifically for time constraints -- in this situation, the party could simply make checks to gain that information, but as established already, that information would be difficult to provide by simple virtue of the situation at hand. The examples given in the subsystem are also quite broad -- it's not always going to be on the level of "here's the list of all the spells that will be useful for you to prepare on the next day" even on the maximal reward. Even with this subsystem, I haven't really seen players prepare that many more niche spells unless it was specifically signposted to them that a specific spell would be useful.
One variation I've experimented with is to count things like Consult the Spirits and/or reconnaissance spells as "locations" in the "library" and replace the time limit with a hard limit on the number of times each "location" can provide research points. So for outside the crypt, Consult the Spirits, the exterior inscriptions (translate counts as an automatic success instead of using a Decipher Writing skill check), and clairvoyance to look at some of the interior or speak with stones to ask about what's on the other side can all be "locations" to provide research points. But the party can't keep using the "locations" over and over to hit the maximum, just like you can't keep using the same skill over and over with a normal library. You can also go a little more freeform on the spell "locations" if your group is creative. You should probably also sprinkle in a few "regular" locations (decorations, images, etc.) for regular skill checks with the same limit on the number of checks. You should try to calculate the research points so the party can barely generate a couple of points over the needed amount on average unless they fail too many checks (allowing spells as "locations" can reduce the variation, so it might be OK if one or two PCs have to spend a Hero Point on a reroll).
If you don't mind a little extra work, you can also split the library into two parts. The exterior of the crypt is the variant library above with no time limit to provide a certain amount of information (but not all of the details) and the upper floors inside the crypt is a more traditional library that can provide more information (about the lower floors, etc.) with the more traditional hazards and time pressure; add a few encounters or locations that can be handled with skills instead of combat (biers with decorations, murals and/or mosaics, a negotiation with an addled/bored/forgetful undead, etc.). You should also plan the encounter budgets so that the party will probably be ready to rest right before tackling the lower levels (and after they gather more information to customize their preparations). You should also allow a Recall Knowledge about the clay effigies and/or other foes once the party learns about them from the library ("There were two clay effigies created to guard the high priest's bier in the lower levels; roll a check to recall something about clay effigies.").
One variation I've experimented with is to count things like Consult the Spirits and/or reconnaissance spells as "locations" in the "library" and replace the time limit with a hard limit on the number of times each "location" can provide research points. So for outside the crypt, Consult the Spirits, the exterior inscriptions (translate counts as an automatic success instead of using a Decipher Writing skill check), and clairvoyance to look at some of the interior or speak with stones to ask about what's on the other side can all be "locations" to provide research points. But the party can't keep using the "locations" over and over to hit the maximum, just like you can't keep using the same skill over and over with a normal library. You can also go a little more freeform on the spell "locations" if your group is creative. You should probably also sprinkle in a few "regular" locations (decorations, images, etc.) for regular skill checks with the same limit on the number of checks. You should try to calculate the research points so the party can barely generate a couple of points over the needed amount on average unless they fail too many checks (allowing spells as "locations" can reduce the variation, so it might be OK if one or two PCs have to spend a Hero Point on a reroll).
If you don't mind a little extra work, you can also split the library into two parts. The exterior of the crypt is the variant library above with no time limit to provide a certain amount of information (but not all of the details) and the upper floors inside the crypt is a more traditional library that can provide more information (about the lower floors, etc.) with the more traditional hazards and time pressure; add a few encounters or locations that can be handled with skills instead of combat (biers with decorations, murals and/or mosaics, a negotiation with an addled/bored/forgetful undead, etc.). You should also plan the encounter budgets so that the party will probably be ready to rest right before tackling the lower levels (and after they gather more information to customize their preparations). You should also allow a Recall Knowledge about the clay effigies and/or other foes once the party learns about them from the library ("There were two clay effigies created to guard the high priest's bier in the lower levels; roll a check to recall something about clay effigies.").
I quite like these adjustments; this is a good way to adapt the research subsystem to situations with no time constraints. As you mention, it still requires extra work on the GM's part on top of a bit of homebrew, but this nonetheless starts to approach a consistent way of feeding the party useful information for advance spell preparation, in my opinion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One reason I experimented with including information gathering spells and effects into the research subsystem is that it abstracts the results into a more comprehensive approach that allows the party to gain a benefit without needing to get into the minutiae every time.
It also helps prevent the commonly used (and often abused, IMO) adventure design tactic of preventing scrying, etc. Once the PCs reached the levels where they had magical ways to find things out, published (and some home) adventures seemed to spend a lot of effort in preventing those spells from working.
If you thought about it, lead would probably be more expensive than gold because how often it was used (to line containers; sheets of lead in the walls, ceilings, floors; etc.).
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)
It is a bummer that it takes a long time to get as an R7, but the Arcane list honestly seems to be in a pretty good place imo.
From my own playtime with pf2, it seems like it's actually just the Primal list that has not-so-slowly crept way out of line. It's easily the best, and the supposed downside of lacking utility/control spells keeps being less and less true each release.
Occult and Divine still have some info and non-combat spells that Primal lacks, but Primal keeps getting spells that it really seems like it shouldn't. Even random buff spells like Loose Time's Arrow is arcane, occult, and primal for some reason. Why tf would divine be unable, yet primal can? Same goes for Slow.
Primal has everything you could ever want in combat. And considering how rare it is to get to use info spells like Object Reading in APs, I think the issue is less that Arcane sucks, and more that Primal has grown waaay better.
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.
Contingency trait specifies it doesn't stack with contingency.
But anyways contingency is pretty damn good. You can use it to no sell pretty much any attack with dimension door or containment cast in response to being targeted with something. AFAIK it's the only way in the game to have a button you can just push to block anything. Probably worth picking up some wands at really high level.
Special shoutout to gates wizard with contingency, it gets a focus spell that can quickly teleport it out of a containment sphere if the enemy isn't obliging enough to get rid of it for you (action to hit yourself, reaction for your triggered teleport spell). It even gives you resistance to the fist strike you used to trigger it so you don't even have to take the d4 damage. Great for swallow whole too, only time I wouldn't take acrobatics or athletics on a character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hot Take: We should just give all the spells to the Arcane tradition except those with the Healing and Vitality traits.
If that seems too much, then leave the lists as is, but then give wizards an ability that lets them freely pick non-healing/Vitality spells from other tradition lists and cast them as arcane spells.
Maybe every six levels they pick a tradition that they've studied enough to master, so they get full access nearly all spells by level 18.
It would fit the theme of arcanists being the studious masters of all magic.
I feel that's a fantasy that would probably be better-served by giving that versatility to the Wizard, rather than the arcane spell list: while Wizards are meant to be versatile students of magic, they're also not the only users of the arcane tradition, as we also have arcane Sorcerers, Witches, as well as Maguses and Summoners. The more power you pump into the spell list, the less power that leaves for those classes' unique features, which would make it especially hard to balance choose-your-own-tradition casters. This isn't to say that the arcane tradition couldn't use a bit more love right now, and I think it could do with many more tradition-exclusive spells, but I'd personally want the arcane list to have a sharper identity, rather than be the do-everything or do-everything-but-heal tradition.
Agreed on the desire to get non-Arcane spells would be a great selling point of Wizard.
I do caution that dreaded powercreep issue, as if this is done by Wiz school choice, then you quickly get a situation where the old schools become "trap" options in the face of a nicely curated and cross-tradition poached list.
______________________
I actually think a new Arcane spell could be helpful here.
Take the mechanic of Manifestation allowing off-tradition spells and nerf/reinvent it as a signature Arcane spell that's a lower R version of Manifestation.
(Right now, Manifestation being an all-tradition spell is a bit of a slap in the face to the supposed generalist Arcane casters, imo.)
On top of utilizing neglected traits, this spell could also have another "balance helper" quirk of being prepared caster only. (Arcane Witches may need as much help as Wizards)
Spell Basket
Spell 7
[Uncommon] [Spellshape] [Contingency]
Tradition: Arcane
Cast time: N/A
Duration: Until your next daily preparations
Requirements: Trained in the tradition of selected spell, prepared spellcastingOnce the coveted secret of an elusive witch, knowledge of this spell has spread quickly among studious wielders of Arcane magic. By utilizing your ability to prepare spells, you can expend your limited magics to hold onto a single spell from another tradition.
Instead of weaving Mind & Body to immediately evoke a spell, you weave these essences of Arcane to anchor a stable spell container to your self.
You can only cast this spell as part of your daily preparations from your spell slots, during which you utilize your access to the foreign spell, which must be of rank 5 or lower. The foreign spell must be sourced from a creature or item capable of producing the spell, but this process does not expend its spellcasting. Even if the item is not in a state to produce the spell at the moment, such as a staff with no spellcaster to prepare it, it is compatible with Spell Basket.The foreign spell can then be heightened up to rank 5, whereupon it occupies the spell slot of Spell Basket. You may then cast that spell as per it's normal usage, but it gains the spellshape trait.
Heightened +1: The foreign spell's rank limitations increase by 1
Manifestation does create R -3 spells normally, so Spell Basket's R -2 may seem too generous. But, a big use-case of Manifestation is kinda jank and, uh, "yikes" from a balance PoV. Manifestation seems to skip the spellcast time of the evoked spell. As skipping cast times for those 1min+ spells is kinda an entirely different use-case, and a huge can of worms, that mechanic is easy to trade away for that power budget to go elsewhere.
The other main downgrade from Manifestation is that Spell Basket needs both "on hand" access to the foreign spell, and you have to pre-select which spell you want during prep instead of at the moment of casting.
In my opinion, all the downgrades and extra requirements justify closing the foreign spell gap to a R -2, and having it become available at R7.
The main unused balance lever in the other direction, if one wants to nerf this a bit more, would be to have the foreign spell use the proficiency rank of the foreign tradition's skill, or keep it simple and do a flat -2 DC penalty to the foreign spell. Or increase the starting rank of Spell Basket +1, etc.
Right now, I've intentionally left the "neat loophole" open for focus spells. Very niche, but this does allow the Arcane caster to slot in the focus spell (or cantrip) of a party member. This direct-access need inherently decreases the value / balance risk of this dramatically, as it means that party will already have that focus spell, making more of a "oh, neat" use-case as opposed to any strategy-creating ability.
The other main "balance safety" consideration is that this spell becomes genuine competition for Contingency the spell itself. While Contingency's main use-case is 0A auto-spellcasting, Spell Basket is instead about cross-list utility. Because Spell Basket is about foreign spells, I like the opportunity to *not* repeat the mechanic of Contingency burning a second spell slot, and instead focus on giving Spell Basket a unique consideration / minigame to reward the collection of foreign spell items that might normally get vendor-mulched for gp.
(plus, Contingency & the insta-spell can be cast from wands, another balance yikes, as that's yet more hand-action economy that's getting bypassed)
In general, the 0A casting of Contingency is "more balance dangerous," which gives Spell Basket a large amount of wiggle room to not break anything. Still kinda surprised that Contingency is common, lol.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do caution that dreaded powercreep issue, as if this is done by Wiz school choice, then you quickly get a situation where the old schools become "trap" options in the face of a nicely curated and cross-tradition poached list.
This was always going to be the outcome.
The majority of the schools in Player Core 1 just aren't good. The system Paizo chose for them also meant that they would age poorly as the system progressed.
We shouldn't worry about it, they did a bad job in Player Core 1 and there is no dancing around that.
They either make better school going forward, which we are seeing occassionally, or they will provide ways up update/override spell choices in a mechanically meaningful way (not just "You and your GM sort it out, Hasbro's lawyers are on line 2").
Powercreeping schools, and the entire Wizard class as it stands, is not only good for the game but desireable.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It certainly wouldn't break the game if Wizard had an option like Mysterious Repertoire to be able to grab a spell and go "I treat that as Arcane because I've done extensive theoretical analysis on how to replicate it."
The challenge with tying to school choice is that they have to go add it to all the old schools based on whatever the limiter is (if it's by trait or something). If they just add it as a feat, it's probably a must take feat but that doesn't require any errata.
At this point something that is practical is better than nothing, even if it's not the way you'd do it if you could do the class over again. The reality is that Wizard probably isn't getting another do over.
The challenge with tying to school choice is that they have to go add it to all the old schools based on whatever the limiter is (if it's by trait or something). If they just add it as a feat, it's probably a must take feat but that doesn't require any errata.
Yup, if the change / improvement / "fix" requires the spend of a build resource like a feat to get, imo that's a pretty nasty "better than nothing" kind of assist.
What that does is actively remove meaningful build choice from the player. Whatever type of slot/resource that occupies, that particular choice is kinda dead after that.
(and the class becomes less noob friendly with more trap options)
They are not just a "helpful powercreep," those fundamentally are a design tradeoff where you sacrifice variety, choice, etc, in exchange for what is a mechanical boost. If I can ever come up with an alternative, I don't like suggesting those, feels a little grimy.
Very much like how "buffing Alchemist" via buffing Quick Bomber & Combine Elixir has increased the class' mechanical power, but at the cost of removing build choice. Those two feats are as pseudo-mandatory as it gets.
That was why I improvised an arcane only, prepared only, slot spell. That wouldn't remove existing choice, as the entire goal was getting the ability to slot non-arcane spells.
By inventing a version where the opportunity cost itself is a spell that when selected does that exact function, that creates a result where this "sacrifice trade" is completely dodged. The spell is just a GM opt-in via uncommon trait.
Yup, if the change / improvement / "fix" requires the spend of a build resource like a feat to get, imo that's a pretty nasty "better than nothing" kind of assist.
What that does is actively remove meaningful build choice from the player. Whatever type of slot/resource that occupies, that particular choice is kinda dead after that.
(and the class becomes less noob friendly with more trap options)They are not just a "helpful powercreep," those fundamentally are a design tradeoff where you sacrifice variety, choice, etc, in exchange for what is a mechanical boost. If I can ever come up with an alternative, I don't like suggesting those, feels a little grimy.
I mean, I said as much. That's not the way you'd do it if you were designing the class now... but that isn't happening. Wizard is not getting a second do-over. That makes fixes limited to what can practically be done without changing the chassis. A feat is a pretty easy way to do that.
It certainly wouldn't be the only class with a feat like that.
That was why I improvised an arcane only, prepared only, slot spell. That wouldn't remove existing choice, as the entire goal was getting the ability to slot non-arcane spells.
By inventing a version where the opportunity cost itself is a spell that when selected does that exact function, that creates a result where this "sacrifice trade" is completely dodged. The spell is just a GM opt-in via uncommon trait.
Taking a clearly high-power option and gating it behind Uncommon is even worse, though. Uncommon shouldn't be used as a power block, and especially one intended to actually help a struggling class out is going to put a LOT of pressure on GMs to allow it.
That is in no way good for the health of the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that the Wizard is unlikely to receive a rework, and in general I think the problem with reworks is that in order to succeed, they need to appeal to fans of the existing class and not disrupt their character builds. When a rework doesn't achieve that, you split the playerbase in two, and end up in a sticky situation where at least one of those two halves of the playerbase is going to be unhappy for as long as the class is in their current state. The Wizard I think somehow managed to avoid this, if only because they failed to garner a significant enough new playerbase post-remaster, but the Oracle is a textbook case of this issue. In the highly unlikely event that Paizo were to rework the Oracle again, I don't see any set of changes that would appeal to fans of both its pre-master and remaster versions.
With that said, my personal preference for fixes leans less towards feats, and more towards optional variants: in my opinion, feats are contentious, because they're meant to be optional choices and cost a fragment of a character's power budget, so feat-taxing a character to give them more power does carry a cost. This in my opinion is one of the reasons why class archetypes often feel underwhelming, because they require a significant amount of commitment and power budget investment to provide what is often a sidegrade at best. By contrast, optional variants I think can work better by requiring no character investment: although I doubt Paizo will want to do this for 2e, their Unchained series of class variants for 1e did help cater to players who wanted a bit more oomph to some of their characters. I think it's possible to apply that same methodology here by offering optional variants for those wanting more out of their Wizard.
In addition to the above, I think it's important to separate what we can do from what we want Paizo to do: on one hand, it would be good for Paizo to give us their own developer-approved variants so that GMs can feel safe including those at their games. On the other, if the GMs among us want to include some changes at our tables, it's worth experimenting and sharing our homebrew with each other in a safe, judgment-free environment. One does not exclude the other, and both are worthwhile discussions to have. Whether we want the curriculum expansion in feat form or as a core feature, I think several of us do seem to agree here that it would be beneficial to the Wizard to be able to poach some amount of non-arcane spells, without necessarily adding those spells to the arcane list directly.
I mean... it's uncommon because it's homebrew lol. Kinda weird to homebrew a "common" spell.
I do agree that if/because Contingency is common, then Spell Basket is plenty justified to be a common. But I'm not a Paizo dev.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
From my perspective, class feats provide an easy solution to fixing under tuned classes. As a "homebrew" way of fixing something its an easy button to press. BUT! It's honestly a lousy way of fixing a class, because if the feat fixes the power issues of a class, it likely becomes a required feat that anyone playing the class would be dumb not to take. This is a problem because feats should enable different kinds of builds and play using various feat "families".
If the wizard class had a feat that was simply "you get 1 extra spell slot of each level of spells you can cast" that would literally just be a feat you would be dumb not take. It would be required. Something like that is better done as part of the base class.
But for reasons others have touched on, the wizard is unlikely to get another rework to its base chassis.
If the wizard class had a feat that was simply "you get 1 extra spell slot of each level of spells you can cast" that would literally just be a feat you would be dumb not take. It would be required. Something like that is better done as part of the base class.
Remaster Oracle has entered the chat. ;) There's multiple feats in that class that nothing else even remotely competes with, and one of them is literally "you get spell slots back".
(Also remaster Gang Up, which was buffed for some reason despite already being quite good.)
I was thinking it'd be more of a feat that lets you get access to other spells rather than just adding spell slots, but yeah. Straight up adding more spell slots is pretty much always a must take.