Looking At The Pathfinder 2 Wizard Class

Parmandur · May 28, 2018

shidaku said:
If we all agree the fighter is boring...

I certainly wouldn't agree, the Champion Fighter in 5E is hugely fun.

Shasarak · May 28, 2018

CapnZapp said:
The best solution to boredom when playing a fighter is... to not play a fighter.

I think that is a good point. Having different classes play different ways to suit different players seems like a much better way to design.

heretic888 · May 28, 2018

So, am I the only one that's going to point out that a Fighter and Wizard in 4E *don't* have the same bonus to their respective specialties (weapon attacks vs magical attacks)? Fighters typically have +3 to +4 more than Wizard.

This feels like a You're Not Even Wrong situation...

The Crimson Binome · May 28, 2018

heretic888 said:
So, am I the only one that's going to point out that a Fighter and Wizard in 4E *don't* have the same bonus to their respective specialties (weapon attacks vs magical attacks)? Fighters typically have +3 to +4 more than Wizard.

If you're talking about the weapon accuracy bonus, then that's balanced by AC being ~3 points higher than the other defenses. Both fighter and wizard are still adding their primary stat + half level + weapon/focus bonus to their attack rolls, and all of those numbers will be virtually identical for everyone in the party.

It's somewhat more apparent in 5E, where spell attacks are made against AC, and there will be huge stretches where everyone is at +7 to hit.

heretic888 · May 28, 2018

Saelorn said:
If you're talking about the weapon accuracy bonus, then that's balanced by AC being ~3 points higher than the other defenses. Both fighter and wizard are still adding their primary stat + half level + weapon/focus bonus to their attack rolls, and all of those numbers will be virtually identical for everyone in the party.

It's somewhat more apparent in 5E, where spell attacks are made against AC, and there will be huge stretches where everyone is at +7 to hit.

Weapon accuracy bonus *and* fighter weapon talent class feature *and* the occasional bonus from charging or using weapon powers that target NADS. In other words, asserting the Fighter and Wizard have the same attack bonus is not accurate at all and a misrepresentation of how 4E actually works.

Then again, this is an online criticism of 4E so I guess inaccurate misrepresentations are pretty much just business as usual, neh?

The Crimson Binome · May 28, 2018

heretic888 said:
Weapon accuracy bonus *and* fighter weapon talent class feature *and* the occasional bonus from charging or using weapon powers that target NADS. In other words, asserting the Fighter and Wizard have the same attack bonus is not accurate at all and a misrepresentation of how 4E actually works.

The wizard can also have minor situational bonuses, and combat advantage. Another reason why the similarity is more apparent in 5E is that minor situational bonuses are replaced with Advantage, which doesn't change the number involved.

Even if the fighter tends to be at +1 over the wizard, due to weapon talent, they still have the same primary stat + half level + enhancement bonus. There's never a point where someone is attacking with anything other than their main stat, unless you're doing something wrong.

heretic888 said:
Then again, this is an online criticism of 4E so I guess inaccurate misrepresentations are pretty much just business as usual, neh?

Don't look for enemies where none exist. This is a criticism of Pathfinder 2E, based on a superficial similarity to 4E. The fundamental flaws which make 4E inherently unplayable in any meaningful capacity have nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

barasawa · May 28, 2018

Xavian Starsider said:
I always disliked how 3e put a limit on cantrip use. Looks like Pathfinder is continuing this trend wherein a low level wizard who has cast all his offense spells for the day now gets to be a really bad fighter with lousy attack bonus, lousy damage, lousy ac, and lousy hp. Joy! Swing that quarterstaff, Gandalf. Because stick fighting is what being a wizard is really about!

LoL

Gandalf was far better than that, he's fought with a staff in one hand, and a sword in the other. Lets see any D&D mage/wizard that can pull that off!

Also he kept up with the warriors like that, so he also has better to hits, and all that than the D&D spellchucker.

Michael Hale · May 29, 2018

If only more players actually knew how to play a Wizard

Xavian Starsider said:
I always disliked how 3e put a limit on cantrip use. Looks like Pathfinder is continuing this trend wherein a low level wizard who has cast all his offense spells for the day now gets to be a really bad fighter with lousy attack bonus, lousy damage, lousy ac, and lousy hp. Joy! Swing that quarterstaff, Gandalf. Because stick fighting is what being a wizard is really about!

Wizards aren't about blasting a spell every round. If you are a straight Wizard and you use more than 3 or 4 spells a combat (other than at high level where you have spells to burn), you aren't playing your Wizard right. It's all about battlefield control and buffing. You may be really excited when your Wizard makes 5th level and can crank out a fireball, but the damage you can get out of a fireball is pathetic compared to Haste! 5 of your buddies getting an extra attack every round and running fast enough to catch anything that runs away is TONS more effective than a fireball and you don't have to cast it every round. So get a crossbow if you just have to do something every round. Otherwise, Haste, Wall of Fire, or the insanely powerful if used right illusions should be all you need, and you can always toss a bull's strength on the barbarian for good measure.

zztong · May 29, 2018

shidaku said:
Not to mention, it begs the question of why include "boring" classes?

If we all agree the fighter is boring, and that there are much more fun, more exciting "Fighter Plus" classes, why do we include the fighter at all?

I wouldn't say the Fighter is boring. I'd say its straight-forward, and its one of the current classes that I find appealing. (I'd much sooner throw the Gunslinger onto the scrap heap.) There's so much that's different from table to table and player to player. There are some local players that stick with the straight-forward classes. Those players had trouble with things like Daily and Encounter abilities. (Though much of that had to do with the way the Daily and Encounter abilities were defined. "Marked" /shudder.)

My preference is that certain core classes (Fighter, Rogue, Cleric) have a straight-forward option and that players can select options that either keep the class straight-forward or allow for something more elaborate that you might find to be less boring. In this way, certain tables with less involved players can keep those players. Another benefit to that approach is that a DM who needs to "bot" an NPC (like a Cleric) can fall back to a straight-forward build.

Shasarak · May 30, 2018

I think it would be a mistake to generalise the fact that some people find the Fighter to be boring to mean that the Fighter is boring.

Looking At The Pathfinder 2 Wizard Class

Parmandur

Book-Friend

Shasarak

Banned

heretic888

Explorer

The Crimson Binome

Hero

heretic888

Explorer

The Crimson Binome

Hero

barasawa

Explorer

Michael Hale

Villager

zztong

Explorer

Shasarak

Banned

Similar Threads

Related Articles