| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Animist has a great initiative with Medium's Awareness.
Even on casters I haven't found it as important. In PF1 initiative could win you a fight before it even started. In PF2, it let's you buff a little if you don't bother to pre-buff before entering battle or have AOE versions which buff everyone like group haste.
With the short range of spells and short duration, you want everyone close up for some of the initial buffs.
Which can often be better pre-buffing outside a door than when engaged. Heck, you can even knock on the door to start the encounter if you feel like it. Enemy has to open the door anyway to get to you then they are in a crowded hallway. And it's good comedy if you can imagine alerting the orcs or enemies on the other side of the door with a knock.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seems to me that a smart martial character would have a ranged weapon for that start to a battle.If they are not built for ranged, it is likely much better to Delay until the opponents come into melee range.
Fair enough -- if you can convince the player to do that (players IMO are often not as smart in this regard as their characters should be).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seems to me that a smart martial character would have a ranged weapon for that start to a battle.For many (if not most) melee martial characters, carrying melee and ranged weapons is far less effective than it seems.
For instance, a strength-focused fighter in heavy armor would typically see an attribute progression something like this:
Lvl 1: Str +4, Dex +1, Con +3, Int +0, Wis +1, Cha +0
Lvl 5: Str +4 (partial), Dex +2, Con +4, Int +0, Wis +2, Cha +0
Lvl 10: Str +5, Dex +3, Con +4 (partial), Int +0, Wis +3, Cha +0
Lvl 15: Str +5 (partial), Dex +4, Con +5, Int +0, Wis +4, Cha +0
Lvl 17: Str +6 (partial+apex), Dex +4, Con +5, Int +0, Wis +4, Cha +0
Lvl 20: Str +7 (apex), Dex +4, Con +5, Int +1, Wis +4, Cha +1So, if this fighter swaps or draw a ranged weapon, they make a Strike using dexterity, resulting in a hit and critical hit bonus that is 3 points lower than that of their melee weapon. Over time, that gap narrows—dropping to just one point at levels 15 and 16—before widening again to a 2-point difference at level 17 and a 3-point difference at level 20. In a game with math as tight as PF2e's, that is a significant margin. That’s not to mention the additional cost of purchasing runes for two weapons (combination weapons do reduce this cost, but they also limit your options for property runes and the size of your damage die). However, it’s not really worth it when you consider that, once the enemy engages in melee combat, you’ll still need to use a swap action—which might even trigger a reaction.
So, except for characters like the rogue and swashbuckler, it is usually far more effective to simply Delay and wait for the enemy to act. In most cases, they will advance on the party; in the rare instances where they choose a ranged attack, it is better to spend movement actions to close the distance and attack in melee.
TBH if I build a PC in Heavy armor, I aim for the Bulwark and never progress their DEX at all, so the difference is even bigger.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, a martial character could raise a shield or take cover and then ready an action to trip the first creature that gets close enough and then still have a full turn to do whatever they would have done if they lost initiative.
And if no one comes close because they see the martial readied an action, then that is just another round for casters to do caster things. I agree that moving forward into melee is generally a bad strategy, but that doesn't make it a good idea to waste three actions at the start of a combat.
Using Ready means the martial loses 1 action and maybe 2 if the trigger is not met. And then they have a full round of opponents acting anyway, just like they would have if they Delayed and used their 3 actions.
Delaying loses 3 actions at the beginning of an encounter, because you then just move to a lower place in the initiative for the rest of the encounter. It can be advantageous to delay into a spot between enemies, so I am not saying it is never valuable, but if there is only one enemy, and you delay until after they go so you can attack them 2 or 3 times on your first turn, than all you have done is given up those first 3 actions you could have done something.
For example (for simplicity there are 2 PCs and one enemy): PC1 (a melee martial) wins initiative and delays. Their ally goes second and casts a ranged spell or a buff. Their ally goes enemy goes, moves twice and attacks once. PC1 re-enters the initiative and attacks 3 times. PC2 casts another spell. The enemy goes with 3 actions. PC1 goes again.
It doesn’t really matter if the PC1 is going on round 2 or 3 at that point, all that matters is the order.
If PC1 delayed a trip action (and is between the enemy and PC2),
Then instead of monster going move, move, attack, they might end up going move, move, stand up, or move move attach from the ground and remain off guard to everyone, but the the rest of the order from then on out remains PC2 goes, enemy goes, PC1 goes. It loops into the next round, but functionally PC1 has got to do more in example 2 than in example 1, because encounters end when the enemy (or the PCs) die/lose, not at the end of a number of rounds.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fair enough -- if you can convince the player to do that (players IMO are often not as smart in this regard as their characters should be).Seems to me that a smart martial character would have a ranged weapon for that start to a battle.If they are not built for ranged, it is likely much better to Delay until the opponents come into melee range.
It’s not that hard. All it takes is a player with some leadership qualities to say: “No, guys, let’s hold off on rushing in. It might be better to let them advance first—that way, we don’t waste actions on movement and can see what they’re capable of. Let the spellcasters and rangers act first.” It’s really only tricky to say this if you’re the GM, but even then, you can bring it up at the end of the encounter: “If you had waited for the monsters to act first—whether by Delaying, or by Recalling Knowledge, Raising a Shield, Taking Cover, Hiding, or simply positioning yourselves better and Readying an action—you could have avoided getting surrounded and giving the enemies the chance to use all three of their actions.”
It’s a matter of gameplay experience that can be shared through a bit of discussion. That habit of rushing in and attacking early in the initiative order stems largely from D&D and PF1e, where there was a dedicated move action and little reason not to use it (though even then, being too hasty could still be dangerous, as initiative order might leave you flanked and surrounded by enemies).
Using Ready means the martial loses 1 action and maybe 2 if the trigger is not met. And then they have a full round of opponents acting anyway, just like they would have if they Delayed and used their 3 actions.I mean, a martial character could raise a shield or take cover and then ready an action to trip the first creature that gets close enough and then still have a full turn to do whatever they would have done if they lost initiative.
And if no one comes close because they see the martial readied an action, then that is just another round for casters to do caster things. I agree that moving forward into melee is generally a bad strategy, but that doesn't make it a good idea to waste three actions at the start of a combat.
I also tend to prefer Delay. However, in the first round, Ready is interesting because using Delay prevents you from taking a reaction or Raising a Shield—unless you were already using Defend as your exploration activity. Also, depending on your class, Ready can do more than just a Strike; a monk, for instance, can Ready a Flurry of Blows.
There is actually a specific detail of the system I don't quite agree with: the fact that Ready costs 2 actions. It already comes with limitations and risks—such as the trigger never occurring and the fact that it inherits the Multiple Attack Penalty (MAP). If Ready were a single action, I think it would see more interesting and tactical use by players than it does now, where they avoid it because the action cost is so high.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For me Delay versus Ready depends on what actions I have available. We almost always have our martials hold back to force the enemy to use move actions to start a battle unless it is a caster or ranged attacker, then we do want them to close. It takes some figuring out to determine the best course of action to take in the opening round.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Winning initiative is pretty good even for melee martials who want to wait for the enemy to be in range. You can pop your quickness potion, dust of disappearance, or whatever other buffs you’re using.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If then enemy can reach you on their turn then a readied attack is certainly a good option. Sacrifice 1 extra action and a reaction on your to get a cheap shot in. Maybe thats to expensive for some. Its definitely situation by situation. You aren't going to third attack anyways so as long as I am not running into the enemy alone and about the get dog piled I usually don't mind spending 1 stride if it gets me next to the enemy. I'll probably then demoralize for second and attack on the third.
If I am about the get dogpiled because 3 bad guys go after me then I definitely wait.
Another option besides readying while waiting is to Recall Knowledge. My martials aren't usually smarties but it usually doesn't hurt to try. While Readying your first action could be to raise a shield or maybe even stride in front of a caster if they are exposed. Give them a soft screen between approaching enemies.
There are definitely options. A caster likely has a more interesting turn 1 if the enemies are in a nice ball, but ultimately I don't stress initiative one way or the other.
But that is precisely the point of my criticism. You invest in a level 8 feat to gain a focus spell limited to very specific scenarios—spying on locations you already have access to. It’s not the sort of thing that comes up often, and at the same time, it’s a situation that standard clairvoyance already handles. The only real advantage is not spending a spell slot—something that effectively resolves itself over time, as the slot required for the spell becomes less in demand and the cost of the scroll makes less of a dent in your budget.
Well, I did state up front that I liked it because I had opportunities to use it. As for standard Clairvoyance handling it... it doesn't.
Firstly, it's not "locations you already have access to." It's "locations to which you can gain access." My old 15th level Wizard was a pretty sneaky guy (Master in Stealth by that time, with a pretty high Dex. Not to mention the old staples: Invisibility, etc.)
The spell basically is planting a hidden camera. (An old one. Without sound. :-D ) Which leads us to the real benefit of Rune of Observation: the duration.
Clairvoyance is much easier to use, but it lasts for 10 minutes. Rune of Observation has a minimum duration of 1 hour, 2 without effort (assuming you started with a full pool of 2 Focus Points) and until your next Daily Preparations if you spend 10 minutes an hour refocusing. Because you can extend the duration as a free action costing a Focus Point.
So yeah, it's situational as hell. But I was in a campaign where we were sneaky, and watchful, and taking it was absolutely the right call. The big time I watched that base commander all day to find out useful information. There's nothing else like it in the game to my knowledge (if I'm wrong, feel free to correct me.)
And now, since I think it's been generating some decent conversation (I know I've been learning a lot): more Feats!
- Dizzying Spell: If you like using spells that target Will, this allows you a chance of throwing Stupefied in on top of whatever else you're doing. Really depends on your spellcasting style, also if you have party members that can take advantage of Stupefied.
- Secondary Detonation Array: Why do I think whoever came up with this is a fan of Looney Tunes? The idea of some extra damage (and 1d6/Rank Force is ok damage for 1 Action) or forcing the target(s) to move is fun.
- Superior Bond: Well, it's pretty straightforward... might even be considered dull. But, it's a second casting of a (Max Rank -2) Spell, which is pretty decent.
- Spell Tinker: Man, they really buffed this one in Player Core. The CRB version halved the duration of the spell you tinkered with. I'm honestly not proficient enough with the Arcane spell list to know if this would be all that useful: I don't know what spells have choices and suitable durations. Still, it's pretty cool that a Wizard can do this.
- Infinite Possibilities: I do enjoy Feats that leverage large spell collections, and this is fun. Pick a slot, and you can cast any Spell in your Spellbook of (Slot Rank-2) from that slot.
- Reprepare Spell: While most useful with the Spell Substitution thesis, this is pretty good on its own. There are more evergreen 4th Rank (or lower) spells that match the criteria than I thought. I mean, 1st Rank Fear is evergreen, so why not just Reprepare Vision of Death all day and thrown in 8d6 Mental damage and a possible death effect?
- Second Thoughts: A mixed bag. Cool that you can get your slot back (temporarily) when something crit saves. Not so great that only Mental spells qualify.
- Spell Combination This is interesting. Turn 1 slot of ranks 3-9 into Combination Slots that can hold a combination spell, which allows you to cast two Spells with one Cast a Spell activity. If used as a combo, both Spells have to be at least two Ranks below the Rank of the Slot. I mean, with this Feat and Quickened Casting you could essentially hit something with three Spells (a Rank 10 and two Rank 7s would be the most forceful example) in 1 Round. Ouch. I mean, you could use a Rank 5 slot to cast Slow with Blindness, because hey, why not? Either one is nasty. Both in 1 round?
- Spell Mastery: Pick a spell for each Rank of 6th through 9th. Gain a spell slot of each rank that can only be used for the corresponding Spell, and you then auto-prepare them every day even without a Spellbook. Change the array with a week's downtime. Well, I mean, it's four Spellslots.
Note: Archwizard's Might doesn't count; other full spellcasters just have their own version of the "get a 2nd 10th Rank slot" Feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
- Dizzying Spell: If you like using spells that target Will, this allows you a chance of throwing Stupefied in on top of whatever else you're doing. Really depends on your spellcasting style, also if you have party members that can take advantage of Stupefied.
This is the kind of wizard feat that makes me think, “Paizo, you were so close to making this a decent feat.”
The problem with this feat is that it competes with Bon Mot in terms of opportunity cost. The difference is that Bon Mot is useful to the caster in the same round, isn't restricted to specific single-target Will-save spells, is a 1st-level skill feat, and lasts for a full minute! To be fair, Dizzying Spell isn't entirely useless; it does hinder the target if they happen to be a spellcaster who fails the Will save against your next single-target spell.
In short, it’s yet another feat with a steep requirement (a 14th-level class feat) that is limited in scope and only situationally useful.
- Secondary Detonation Array: Why do I think whoever came up with this is a fan of Looney Tunes? The idea of some extra damage (and 1d6/Rank Force is ok damage for 1 Action) or forcing the target(s) to move is fun.
Here is one of the very few wizard-exclusive feats introduced by the remaster that is actually good.
In practice, this deals damage similar to the animist's earth bile, but with better scaling, doesn't cost focus Points, doesn't lock up your third action with a Sustain requirement, and forces enemies into a tough choice: take significant damage from a one-action ability or spend an action to move out of the area. It’s even great for avoiding friendly fire; if an ally doesn't have a specific plan for their action—or if they already intend to move or are quickened—you can place the circle over them to potentially hit more enemies, depending on the situation.
It is one of the very few spellshape feats in the game that is truly worth taking.
- Superior Bond: Well, it's pretty straightforward... might even be considered dull. But, it's a second casting of a (Max Rank -2) Spell, which is pretty decent.
Yet another feat with an excessively high prerequisite. It basically amounts to: "gain an extra slot at your third-highest spell level to recast a spell of that level or lower."
- Spell Tinker: Man, they really buffed this one in Player Core. The CRB version halved the duration of the spell you tinkered with. I'm honestly not proficient enough with the Arcane spell list to know if this would be all that useful: I don't know what spells have choices and suitable durations. Still, it's pretty cool that a Wizard can do this.
The main problem with this feat is that it competes for the same feat slot as Effortless Concentration. That alone makes it unviable.
Another issue is that it is highly situational. It only works with your buffs that are exclusively single-target (meaning if a spell affects more than one creature and you include yourself among them, you cannot modify the effects on yourself, including heightened versions of some spells). It is also restricted to spells that offer choices, such as resist energy—spells you would likely have moved past by the level where you gain access to alternatives that provide the equivalent of all those choices anyway. Furthermore, 2 actions is a very high cost to change a choice. This imposes a massive opportunity cost on the feat.
Honestly, it might look promising at first glance, but a more clinical analysis reveals it isn't a good feat, especially for this level.
- Infinite Possibilities: I do enjoy Feats that leverage large spell collections, and this is fun. Pick a slot, and you can cast any Spell in your Spellbook of (Slot Rank-2) from that slot.
Take an 18th-level feat and sacrifice a spell slot to cast a spell two ranks lower, just to get a taste of what it’s like to play a spontaneous caster.
Jokes aside: while the ability to cast a spell from your spellbook—which you spent so much time and money filling—on the fly is appealing, the cost is simply too high. Not to mention that the feat comes very late in the game. By that level, you likely already have Manifestation prepared as a 10th-rank spell, allowing you to cast any spell of 9th rank or lower (or 7th rank or lower from other traditions)—all without needing to have collected every single arcane spell released for PF2e.
Honestly, it’s not worth the cost.
- Reprepare Spell: While most useful with the Spell Substitution thesis, this is pretty good on its own. There are more evergreen 4th Rank (or lower) spells that match the criteria than I thought. I mean, 1st Rank Fear is evergreen, so why not just Reprepare Vision of Death all day and thrown in 8d6 Mental damage and a possible death effect?
Another deceptively high-level feat.
While it might seem cool to have 4th-rank (or lower) spells function like focus spells—meaning they don't heighten automatically—consider the context: at this level, you already have access to 10th-rank spells, and 4th-rank scrolls are incredibly cheap and accessible (a 4th-rank scroll costs 70 gp, whereas the average loot from a single encounter ranges from 15,600 to 41,500 gp). Sure, being able to cast fly and invisibility "infinitely" is neat, but in practice, you can already achieve that without spending an 18th-level feat or wasting 10 minutes re-preparing a single spell.
- Second Thoughts: A mixed bag. Cool that you can get your slot back (temporarily) when something crit saves. Not so great that only Mental spells qualify.
I think you were overly critical here regarding the only level 18 wizard feat that is truly worthwhile.
First, you don't get the spell slot back. Instead, at the cost of a reaction (meaning, on the same turn you cast the spell), you simply switch the spell's target after learning an enemy has critically succeeded, forcing this new target to make a fresh save. In practice, it’s a "Sure Strike" for mental spells requiring Will saves; it costs only a reaction, though it does require facing at least two enemies in combat.
And mental spells aren't all that situational. While constructs and oozes are immune—and not exactly rare—and undead can be mindless (though at this level, you're more likely to deal with intelligent undead), the fact remains that most enemies are susceptible to mental spells. Furthermore, Will is one of the best saves to target; generally, the enemies with high Will are spellcasters, and those aren't usually the primary type of enemy you encounter constantly in most adventures. But even if they are, being able to redirect a mental spell against another enemy for the mere cost of a reaction is fantastic.
- Spell Combination This is interesting. Turn 1 slot of ranks 3-9 into Combination Slots that can hold a combination spell, which allows you to cast two Spells with one Cast a Spell activity. If used as a combo, both Spells have to be at least two Ranks below the Rank of the Slot. I mean, with this Feat and Quickened Casting you could essentially hit something with three Spells (a Rank 10 and two Rank 7s would be the most forceful example) in 1 Round. Ouch. I mean, you could use a Rank 5 slot to cast Slow with Blindness, because hey, why not? Either one is nasty. Both in 1 round?
This is another one of those extremely rare Wizard feats that are actually good. It’s a shame it’s only available at level 20, though—you wouldn't normally build a Wizard solely for a level 20 ability.
This thing is incredibly powerful. It is especially potent for Wizards focused on damage, buffs, or debuffs; combining two lower-rank spells into a single 2-action cast that consumes only one spell slot is highly efficient. The feat truly shines because there is no limit to how many slots you can use to do this.
- Spell Mastery: Pick a spell for each Rank of 6th through 9th. Gain a spell slot of each rank that can only be used for the corresponding Spell, and you then auto-prepare them every day even without a Spellbook. Change the array with a week's downtime. Well, I mean, it's four Spellslots.
It is a great feat for the reasons already mentioned. However, it falls short of Spell Combination—making for unfair competition—since both are level 20, it becomes an "either-or" choice.
That said, echoing my earlier point: a level 20 feat, no matter how good, is far from enough to justify the choice or viability of a class.
There are some assessments/critiques of these feats that I agree with, but that only ever seem to go against the Wizard when they are bigger issues with other classes.
Getting more lower rank spells isn’t that great? That is why the animist is not a 4 slot caster and struggles to get all that much out of feats that only work with vessel spells and apparition slots. Also, why complain about constricted lower rank school slots when you can already basically cast any spell you were going to put in that slot from a scroll for free.
Effortless concentration is so good, why even have other feats at that level? This is universally true for casters. And it is an even better feat for a wizard with a lot of top slots than for other casters.
Also, a wizard is going to have 2x as many spells to cast out of infinite possibilities than a spontaneous caster, but that actually makes the feat more trouble than it is worth at many tables as it can really slow down the game.
Wizard really is fine for feats at 10+ and will have more feats you wish you had room for than you can take, and that is without counting a. Archetype.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Missed the one true GOAT 14th level wizard feat, probably the one true goat wizard feat period - Shift Spell
Being able to move persistent effects back on top of fleeing opponents is just generically good on its own. But it goes far beyond that. Some uses:
Reverse gravity. Remember that section of the fitness gram pacer test where you did pushups and the announcer kept saying “up, down, up, down”? Reverse gravity with shift spell does that to your enemies. Or you can just keep shifting it higher like an elevator. A party I was in did this to great effect on one of the spawn of rovagug.
Wall spells. They moved around your wall of force? Teleported through it? Now it’s in front of them again. And for wall of force specifically it’s invisible so DM dependent but you may be able to get some mileage out of moving it where they don’t expect. Bonus points for readying shift spell with wall of force to put it right in front of an enemy at the *worst* possible moment.
Pillar of water. Does that spellcaster want to get a turn wheee they can cast without drowning? Too bad!
Illusionary object. Oh my god illusionary object. Ok so first off illusionary object has a duration of *permanent* when upcast enough. So if you have illusions you like to use a lot you can just tote them around with you wherever you go. Put them mostly underground, or up above you until you need them. Who doesn’t want to always have access to a pre-disbelieved one way vision blocking solid black sphere for you and your party to dwell in?
But that’s just table stakes. The real meme, at least for a certain type of player, is mixing illusionary objects with real walls, and then moving what’s real and what’s not around to utterly befuddle enemies. Unless they have truesight. In that case you just beat them to death with reverse gravity.
Wizard really is fine for feats at 10+ and will have more feats you wish you had room for than you can take, and that is without counting a. Archetype.
I’d say it really kicks in at level 14. Before that, if I were building a Wizard for any reason, I’d likely use low-level feats to pick up an archetype. I’d probably go with the Witch archetype to gain a few extra spell slots to prepare and access a different tradition for added flexibility—while still using Intelligence—or perhaps the Necromancer archetype (since it also relies on Intelligence). The Occult tradition is a great choice in my opinion; it offers extra spell options and grants access to some excellent focus spells, plus having thralls makes for a great use of my third action.
Missed the one true GOAT 14th level wizard feat, probably the one true goat wizard feat period - Shift Spell
Being able to move persistent effects back on top of fleeing opponents is just generically good on its own. But it goes far beyond that. Some uses:
Reverse gravity. Remember that section of the fitness gram pacer test where you did pushups and the announcer kept saying “up, down, up, down”? Reverse gravity with shift spell does that to your enemies. Or you can just keep shifting it higher like an elevator. A party I was in did this to great effect on one of the spawn of rovagug.
Wall spells. They moved around your wall of force? Teleported through it? Now it’s in front of them again. And for wall of force specifically it’s invisible so DM dependent but you may be able to get some mileage out of moving it where they don’t expect. Bonus points for readying shift spell with wall of force to put it right in front of an enemy at the *worst* possible moment.
Pillar of water. Does that spellcaster want to get a turn wheee they can cast without drowning? Too bad!
Illusionary object. Oh my god illusionary object. Ok so first off illusionary object has a duration of *permanent* when upcast enough. So if you have illusions you like to use a lot you can just tote them around with you wherever you go. Put them mostly underground, or up above you until you need them. Who doesn’t want to always have access to a pre-disbelieved one way vision blocking solid black sphere for you and your party to dwell in?
But that’s just table stakes. The real meme, at least for a certain type of player, is mixing illusionary objects with real walls, and then moving what’s real and what’s not around to utterly befuddle enemies. Unless they have truesight. In that case you just beat them to death with reverse gravity.
Yes, Shift Spell is a good feat too. But people tend to overlook it because it originates from an Adventure Path, and not every GM allows uncommon feats from APs.
Regardless, if I were building a wizard, my feat selection for level 14+ probably wouldn't include it, as I consider Secondary Detonation Array a more interesting option (though perhaps if I multiclassed into Necromancer—since I’d already have to spend actions creating Thralls—taking Shift Spell might be more appealing, given that it doesn't require constant use).
As for my subsequent choices, they would likely be Effortless Concentration at 16, Second Thoughts at 18, and Spell Combination at 20.
If you are going secondary detonation array, you may want to pick up forcible energy in your level 12 slot by level 20 and pick up spell shape mastery.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Getting more lower rank spells isn’t that great?
It's useful but its not great. Example Sorcerer has Divine Evolution/ Primal Evolution which give top level slots at level 4 much better. Then there are things like Greater Vital Evolution which is going to give you a top slot and a next top slot at level 16.
Wizards feats mostly do have uses, but they are largely narrow and underpowered.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you are going secondary detonation array, you may want to pick up forcible energy in your level 12 slot by level 20 and pick up spell shape mastery.
No, for two reasons.
The first I’ve already mentioned: Forcible Energy is weak alone. There are better options for sustained spells that use up your action than simply applying Weakness 5 to a specific element.
Forcible Energy could potentially be more powerful if the entire party coordinates to use the same energy damage property runes, but that comes with consequences and limitations.
First, it kills the party's versatility. If everyone agrees to take a fire rune, for example, and you encounter an enemy that is resistant—or especially immune—to fire, you end up with the opposite of the intended effect: because everyone committed to the same element, the whole party is penalized when facing enemies resistant to it.
Second, coordination isn't always possible—whether because some allies are divine or occult casters lacking good options for that element or because an ally's build doesn't have much room for energy damage runes (since the player wants to use the property rune for a different effect they find more interesting).
Furthermore, at this level, it is much better to Sustain a cinder swarm than to waste actions applying weakness 5.
That’s not to mention groups that don't coordinate—either by choice or due to a lack of options, such as in PFS play.
The second and most important reason: it doesn't matter if it becomes a free action via Spellshape Mastery; that feat turns your spellshapes into free actions, but it doesn't combine them. Your next action still needs to be Cast a Spell, or you lose the spellshape. You simply cannot combine one spellshape with another.
Secondary detonation array is a decent feat but it is not a good choice over “I moved the area of effect right back on top of you for an action”, even if you’re not particularly creative with shift spell.
It could be worth it over effortless concentration, if you don’t have many sustain spells. You probably should still go with effortless concentration though, there are good sustained spells.
This thing is incredibly powerful. It is especially potent for Wizards focused on damage, buffs, or debuffs; combining two lower-rank spells into a single 2-action cast that consumes only one spell slot is highly efficient. The feat truly shines because there is no limit to how many slots you can use to do this.There's a limit: it's 8 slots, one per 3-10 ranks.
Good point; I don't know why I overlooked that part. But it's still a feat I think is well worth it.
Secondary detonation array is a decent feat but it is not a good choice over “I moved the area of effect right back on top of you for an action”, even if you’re not particularly creative with shift spell.
It could be worth it over effortless concentration, if you don’t have many sustain spells. You probably should still go with effortless concentration though, there are good sustained spells.
It actually depends a lot on how you play. For players who focus on AoE spells with duration, Shift Spell is likely more appealing. However, if your focus is on using instant-damage spells, the Secondary Detonation Array tends to be a better choice.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That’s not to mention groups that don't coordinate—either by choice or due to a lack of options, such as in PFS play.
In my experience, flaming and shock runes are very common and it is very easy to suggest them to party members that don’t already have another way to easily add fire damage or lightning damage. By level 20, when you can get spell shape mastery, you could hit a boss in the first round with a one action and two action spell to stack both fire and electricity weakness on one target and if it is still around by round 2, you can hit them with something like cataclysm on round 2 to double trigger weaknesses and then get another detonation array in there for good measure, before hitting them with another 1 action spell that can also trigger another detonation array. Or you can do the forcible energy set up on just one energy type and detonation array on the second spell I. The first round of your party isn’t set up to exploit 2 energy types.
It is a pretty solid amount of extra damage. Maybe not as much as level 20 imperial sorcerer exploits but it is not terribly far behind and is less likely to make your GM angry at you.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its situational. Its only as good as the percentage of monsters with status bonuses to their saves. Do you have a % based on real monsters? Like why couldn't this just work for all enemies? Why make it narrow in use.In PF2e I would gladly pick feat giving +1 DC...May I introduce you to Irresistible magic. A wizard exclusive.
It's also only useful if the GM remembers that you have the feat, or that the player is aware that the monster happens to have a +1 to Saves vs Magic. (Good luck with that Recall Knowledge check; I hope you ask the right questions!)
I imagine it doesn't get used in a lot of situations where it should apply as a result people being unaware or not communicating.
I hate feats that rely on meta-information to function correctly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its situational. Its only as good as the percentage of monsters with status bonuses to their saves. Do you have a % based on real monsters? Like why couldn't this just work for all enemies? Why make it narrow in use.In PF2e I would gladly pick feat giving +1 DC...May I introduce you to Irresistible magic. A wizard exclusive.It's also only useful if the GM remembers that you have the feat, or that the player is aware that the monster happens to have a +1 to Saves vs Magic. (Good luck with that Recall Knowledge check; I hope you ask the right questions!)
I imagine it doesn't get used in a lot of situations where it should apply as a result people being unaware or not communicating.
I hate feats that rely on meta-information to function correctly.
Yes it tends to lead to just getting forgotten, or annoying players who waste everyones time by asking constantly, more often as it actually gets used.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. If you are playing in Foundry using automations and this feat automation was fully made and working, it may work. Otherwise, it puts additional pressure on the GM and players.
To the GM, they have to remember that a specific player has a specific ability that may change one of their monsters' rolls.
To the PC, they have to constantly remember the GM every time it rolls against some of they spells “I have such ability that penalizes your saves if your creature has such an ability.”
This is one of the main design issues I find in PF2e regarding various abilities—one I hope gets fixed in a future edition.
Situational passive abilities—especially those that rely on the GM remembering something only they would know in order for a PC's ability to take effect—simply shouldn't exist.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes it tends to lead to just getting forgotten, or annoying players who waste everyones time by asking constantly, more often as it actually gets used.Its situational. Its only as good as the percentage of monsters with status bonuses to their saves. Do you have a % based on real monsters? Like why couldn't this just work for all enemies? Why make it narrow in use.In PF2e I would gladly pick feat giving +1 DC...May I introduce you to Irresistible magic. A wizard exclusive.It's also only useful if the GM remembers that you have the feat, or that the player is aware that the monster happens to have a +1 to Saves vs Magic. (Good luck with that Recall Knowledge check; I hope you ask the right questions!)
I imagine it doesn't get used in a lot of situations where it should apply as a result people being unaware or not communicating.
I hate feats that rely on meta-information to function correctly.
I was surprised it survived the remaster unchanged.
For an effect as limited in scope and as situational as it is, they sure picked an extremely annoying way to go about it.
I haven't updated my spreadsheet in about 2 years, but there was a point in time it would have an impact on just 8% of published monsters, but it could potentially generate a bunch of additional effort for both player and GM.
And then Ancestral Memories was printed, and I had to wonder why even bother wasting page space of something like Irresistible Magic.
The problem with this feat is that it competes with Bon Mot in terms of opportunity cost.
Bon Mot is a great Skill Feat, but it suffers from the same "poor synergy with the class" that you complained derailed Convincing Illusion. Now, if you're building a Charismatic Wizard anyways, I would agree that Bon Mot is a better option. If you're not though, Dizzying Spell is probably going to work better for you overall, and doesn't have Bon Mot's Crit Failure risk.
By that level, you likely already have Manifestation prepared as a 10th-rank spell, allowing you to cast any spell of 9th rank or lower (or 7th rank or lower from other traditions)—all without needing to have collected every single arcane spell released for PF2e.
No, you're a level too early for that... unless there's some way to get a 10th Rank slot at 18th level that I'm unaware of. Also, I can't say I'm all that fond of Manifestation as my (possibly only) 10th Rank spell. I mean, I'm a fan of flexibility (obviously) but I dunno... I'd prefer something a little more awesome, if you follow me.
I think you were overly critical here regarding the only level 18 wizard feat that is truly worthwhile.
First, you don't get the spell slot back. Instead, at the cost of a reaction (meaning, on the same turn you cast the spell), you simply switch the spell's target after learning an enemy has critically succeeded, forcing this new target to make a fresh save. In practice, it’s a "Sure Strike" for mental spells requiring Will saves; it costs only a reaction, though it does require facing at least two enemies in combat.
I think you've mis-read the Feat.
When your target proves resilient to your magical deceptions, you can try them again on someone else. You can Cast the triggering Spell a second time, targeting a different creature, without expanding an additional spell slot. You can do so only until the end of your next turn, and you can’t use Second Thoughts on it after the second casting of the spell.
So, the text is not "you Cast the triggering Spell", it's "you can cast the triggering Spell", and you have a time limit to do so, the end of your next turn. So essentially, you can try again, on another target, but it's still a normal Cast a Spell activity and it has to be done on your next turn. You only get the opportunity if you spend your Reaction though.
Yes. If you are playing in Foundry using automations and this feat automation was fully made and working, it may work.
But then the player may not even notice it or value it so why?
This is one of the main design issues I find in PF2e regarding various abilities—one I hope gets fixed in a future edition.
They need to stop creating such narrow effects in the game.
In so many ways PF2 needs to be decluttered.
The problem with this feat is that it competes with Bon Mot in terms of opportunity cost.Bon Mot is a great Skill Feat, but it suffers from the same “poor synergy with the class” that you complained derailed Convincing Illusion. Now, if you're building a Charismatic Wizard anyways, I would agree that Bon Mot is a better option. If you're not though, Dizzying Spell is probably going to work better for you overall, and doesn't have Bon Mot's Crit Failure risk.
And who said that when I mention Bon Mot, I’m specifically talking about using it with the wizard?
In general, my criticisms of wizard feats are actually criticisms of the wizard as a whole from a mechanical standpoint. That includes its key attribute. I’m just highlighting specific points to illustrate the issue, but the critique is broad. When I criticize Dizzying Spell, I’m criticizing the fact that wizards are given an expensive option for something Charisma-based casters handle with much better cost-efficiency.
It’s worth noting that many people here (myself included) often accompany their criticisms of the wizard with comparisons to the sorcerer. These comparisons stem from the question: “Mechanically speaking, why should I play a wizard instead of a sorcerer?” It’s very similar to the critiques ThrabenU makes in various class analysis videos. Since the mechanical niches of these classes overlap significantly, when one class performs so sub-par, it inevitably leads to the question: “Why not just play the other class that does all of this better?” The Dizzying Spell vs. Bon Mot comparison is a perfect example of this—a wizard feat attempting a workaround for something the sorcerer has already solved much more effectively.
By that level, you likely already have Manifestation prepared as a 10th-rank spell, allowing you to cast any spell of 9th rank or lower (or 7th rank or lower from other traditions)—all without needing to have collected every single arcane spell released for PF2e.No, you're a level too early for that... unless there's some way to get a 10th Rank slot at 18th level that I'm unaware of. Also, I can't say I'm all that fond of Manifestation as my (possibly only) 10th Rank spell. I mean, I'm a fan of flexibility (obviously) but I dunno... I'd prefer something a little more awesome, if you follow me.
Sorry, that was actually my mistake; Manifestation is level 19. For some reason, I had it in my head that it was already available at level 18.
I think you were overly critical here regarding the only level 18 wizard feat that is truly worthwhile.
First, you don't get the spell slot back. Instead, at the cost of a reaction (meaning, on the same turn you cast the spell), you simply switch the spell's target after learning an enemy has critically succeeded, forcing this new target to make a fresh save. In practice, it’s a "Sure Strike" for mental spells requiring Will saves; it costs only a reaction, though it does require facing at least two enemies in combat.
I think you've mis-read the Feat.
When your target proves resilient to your magical deceptions, you can try them again on someone else. You can Cast the triggering Spell a second time, targeting a different creature, without expanding an additional spell slot. You can do so only until the end of your next turn, and you can’t use Second Thoughts on it after the...
Good catch; I went on autopilot, assuming that using the reaction would allow me to cast the spell. I did find the feat's last sentence odd, but that was because I overlooked the word "can"—specifically how it refers to repeating the entire Cast a Spell activity separately from the reaction itself.
This really diminishes the feat's effectiveness, as it significantly impacts your action economy and pushes the feat toward mediocrity. Even so, I still consider it a good feat—perhaps a bit weak for an 18th-level feat, but still a relatively interesting way to salvage a spell that went wrong.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. If you are playing in Foundry using automations and this feat automation was fully made and working, it may work.
But then the player may not even notice it or value it so why?
This is one reason why I love the Modifiers Matter module on Foundry. It points out and celebrates stuff like this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What do I consider the food wizard feats:
My list of food feats (yummy!):
1. Irresistible Magic
2. Quickened Casting
3. Knowledge is Power (mostly because I like its vibe and there are few feats to increase spell DCs, and also because I generally grab Additional Lore for Undeads, Fey, Plants and the type of monsters I expect to face with my Intelligence characters so by level 8 I should be able to roll high on any RK check).
4. Conceal Spell. It's very campaign dependent, though.
I don't judge level 14+ feats as I rarely play that high.
That doesn't make for many feats. But honestly, caster feats are in general underwhelming.
No Additional Lore : Fiends ?
I wouldn't accept it. I've found things like Lore Demon/Devil and similar, but never such a broad category as Fiends. Otherwise, it'd be my second choice (after Undead).
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I go with the assumption that you can take a Lore for each creature type.
And Lore Fiends is definitely less broad than Religion and IMO covers the same kind of diversity in creatures as Lore Undead does.
To identify creatures that require a Nature or Religion check with Lores, I go with :
Nature
Lore Animals
Lore Plants
Lore Fungi
Lore Fey
Religion
Lore Undead
Lore Fiends
Lore Celestials
Lore Monitors
Lore Fiends fits quite nicely with all the others.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I look at Lore Fiends as the lore level between Religion and Lore Devils. I use that DC. It's hard enough to make Recall Knowledge useful compared to Charisma skills. I'm as nice as possible with Lore skills for intelligence based characters so they feel good about using them.
Given intelligence based casters already have the worst casting stat of casters, no use making it even worse by making Recall Knowledge using lore skills hard. As far as my experience goes, you could give an intelligence based caster Recall Knowledge: Everything and it wouldn't provide more benefit than wisdom does or charisma based skills. So I let Lore skills be as broad as possible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just going to note there is an NPC stat block from the NPC Core, "Fiend Caller", that has "Fiend Lore +18" listed under its skills. So somebody at Paizo at least seems to think that makes for a valid lore category. Personally I think defined creature types should generally be considered Lore-worthy by default, and "fiend" is a tag that has mechanical interactions in several places with many different feats, spells and items.
NPCs don't interact with PC rules and restrictions and can do pretty much anything anyone feels like. So I wouldn't put much stock into that. Paizo also has a habit of one writer doing things that don't line up with anything else, like that time in Extinction Curse where the Scout activity just flat out lets you see an encounter before it happens (which narratively makes sense but mechanically is not what it does at all).
I agree with this in general, but to play Fiend's Advocate for a second here, I do think this is where the theoretical symmetry of the system butts up against the actual practice here. Namely, fiends are just much more commonly encountered (especially as enemies) in actual games, which will tend to make some GMs feel that "Fiend" is too broad of a category in a way "Celestial" or "Monitor" don't, even though theoretically they should be equivalent. And if one does deem it too broad a category and try to maintain the symmetry, it feels too punishing in the opposite direction; it's one to thing to say seperate lores are needed for Demons and Devils, but telling players they need to pick individual lores for Agathions and Aesir feels like telling them not to even bother with those.
Depends on how you define "symmetry", as creatures are not equally distributed. Excluding unique creatures (and going by AoN's remaster mode), a quick count gets me:
Humanoid 832
Human 405
Animal 366
Undead 329
Beast 224
Dragon 211
Fiend 192
Aberration 181
Construct 172
Elemental 167
Fey 140
Plant 105
Fire 84
Earth 78
Spirit 76
Water 63
Giant 58
Wood 54
Celestial 53
Air 52
Monitor 45
Ooze 44
Cold 40
Devil 36
Demon 35
So, Fiend is dramatically more common than Celestial or Monitor. But Undead is far more common still. So if someone allows Undead Lore, I'd definitely have questions about them not allowing Fiend Lore. That seems like it's based on how Fiends have multiple distinct narrative groupings in a way that Undead don't. Bony Undead Lore/Fleshy Undead Lore/Blood Drinking Lore/Translucent Undead Lore just don't have the same ring to them. ;)
Where the line is on this is pretty fuzzy, because ancestry lores like Elf Lore exist RAW, but if you allowed the Human equivalent of Human Lore it covers the most creatures of any lore despite only being for a single ancestry because Human is kind of a default for so many NPCs.
2a. I think creature types in general should by default be considered valid fot specific lores,
2b. Especially if the game regularly uses the tag in a way that is mechanically significant across various spells/feats/items, which is the case here: examples include the Summon Fiend spell, many feats in thd Archfiend dedication, Fiend Warding Tattoos, the Fiend-trampling Stature and Fiend Slayer feats, and many others.
Yeah, this makes sense.
3. Though it is a somewhat broad category with multiple categories falling entirely within it, this is alao true of many other creature types for which Lores exist; Undead for example contains Skeletons, Zombies, Vampires, and several other creature types which each have a plethora of entries all on their own, but Undead Lore is a Necromancer class feature and SuperBidi has said he uses it with the Knowledge Is Power feat in his own games, and of course Celestials and Monitors are in the same boat. One might infer from the description of the Lore skill itself that these are too broad: it calls out both "Demons" and "Vampires" as examples for the "specific creature or narrow category of creatures" lores, but this hasn't stopped Paizo themselves from using Fiend Lore and Undead Lore, so I don't think one should try to read into that in a way which would exclude these. In my opinion, "Fiends" and "Undead" are pretty much analogous categories for this consideration, and that even extends to the aforementioned problem of them being very common as enemies, so to me these would either have to be allowed or disallowed together.
Class features don't have to follow the normal skill rules. Esoteric Lore for example is clearly not legal to pick in general as it explicitly violates the Lore rules. But Thaumaturge gets it because the class says so.
So Necromancer getting Undead Lore doesn't mean Undead Lore is legal for anyone else to take. The Lore rules themselves don't mention it but do mention specific categories of creatures and call out both Demons and Vampires as examples (not Fiends and Undead).
Aside from all that, it's worth noting that what actually gives a better DC is fully GM fiat. The rules do not say "you used a Lore so you get a lower DC no matter what." They say this:
Using an applicable Lore to Recall Knowledge about a topic, such as Engineering Lore instead of Crafting to find structural weaknesses in a bridge, typically comes with a lower DC.
So if you're a GM that thinks a lore is too broad, you can allow it without giving it the lower DC for being specific.
Of course, it's also fair to just say "I want people to recall knowledge and I want Lore to be good, so go ahead and do it." I don't think I've ever said no to these lores in my games and it hasn't been an issue.
I guess that's a lot of words to say "eh, its probably fine if you let people do it." :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even if the GM treated it mostly the same as Religion for DCs, additional lore Fiends is worthwhile for a wizard as it auto-heightens and uses INT. Keeping religion as a top hieghtened skill is pretty costly for a wizard unless it’s just an obviously important skill for the campaign
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So Necromancer getting Undead Lore doesn't mean Undead Lore is legal for anyone else to take.
There are backgrounds giving Undead Lore. It's not just a class feature.
For Fiend Lore, I didn't have any information if it did exist. The fact that one NPC has it helps making a case. I may reconsider my position.
Overall, I tend to take Lores that do exist, otherwise you may have a discussion with your GM (and I play a lot of PFS so these discussions are annoying).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So a PC could invest in Additional Lore Undead to cover all undead.
But to cover all Fiends, it would currently need to take :
Additional Lore Daemon
Additional Lore Demon
Additional Lore Devil
Additional Lore Asura
Additional Lore Div
Additional Lore Oni
Additional Lore Qlippoth
Additional Lore Rakshasa
Additional Lore Sahkil
Additional Lore Velstrac
And that is not even counting Unique Fiends that do not belong to the above categories, nor Swarms similarly uncovered for that matter.
Nor those covered through Arcana like Bebilith.
And we would also need an Additional Lore each for Ahvothian, Erinys, Greater Barghest, Imp, Night Hag, Ostovite, Skelm, Soul Eater and Vescavor Queen.
I don't think so.
When the Technomancer hits Archives of Nethys in a couple of weeks there's going to be a lot apologies for their bad opinions in this thread.
Ok, Technomancer is on AoN and I am now wondering who is supposed to be apologizing for their bad opinions, because I see a lot of things with the technomancer class that I am very thankful the wizard did not inherit during the remaster.
I am not a regular player of SF, so I am more than happy to hear why I am wrong and don't understand what I like about the wizard and its feats, but so many people wanted their to be feats associated with schools of magic (from the beginning of PF2, before the remaster) and seeing that basically happen with the Technomancer, I am glad that did not happen. Having a quarter or more of your feats siloed to a school/programing language that you don't have doesn't add more flavor to characters, it limits them from combining abilities that might fit a specific character concept.
There are a handful of feats that are pretty cool, and the idea of a Spell Cache is a shinning feature, but the technomancer cannot cast as many spells per day as a wizard so it is significantly more limited than the spell substitution thesis, and a lot of the flavorful feats I see that are not overly tied to one specific programing language seem to be tied to assumptions about adventure design that just don't port over to PF2 as well.
Like all the stuff the technomancer has that affects technology specifically is really cool, but that only works in campaigns where you can rely on interacting with technology to be something that comes up a whole lot. That is kind of like how all the counter spelling that a wizard can do is really strong in any campaign where there will be a lot of enemy casters, but that just isn't as fundamental a part of PF2 campaigns as hacking tech is going to be in starfinder.
The overclocking gear thing is interesting, but to work at all as a cross over to PF2, the items tied to the programing language would need to be things like "wand" or "staff" and the wizard in PF2 isn't nearly as much of a crafter/item class as the technomancer looks to be. Having some more variables to add on to a bonded item is a cool idea that could be expanded in the future, but it would be terribly limiting for that to be limited by school.
But like I said, a lot of folks are a lot more invested in Starfinder than I am so I do want to hear about why you think the Technomancer eats the wizard's lunch.
Edit: God mode would be fun on a wizard.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel the Programming language feature, as a defining choice for the Technomancer's abilities, is akin to the Wizard's Thesis rather than the Wizard's School.
Actually, I feel the Wizard is the only class with 2 defining choices, that are Thesis, the most important one IMO, and School, which is a legacy of 3.x/PF1.
Problem is that the class' power budget had to be split between both.
I now wish they would give us a new Wizard with souped-up Theses and no Schools.