Looking At The Pathfinder 2 Wizard Class

Yesterday's Pathfinder 2 playtest update at the Paizo website talked about the Wizard class for the game.

View attachment 97776​

It looks like the wizard is going to start out with plenty of options for players. "[FONT=&amp]At 1st level, you begin play with a spellbook containing 10 cantrips and eight 1st-level spells, giving you a wide variety of spells to draw upon when you prepare your magic each morning. Starting out, you can prepare four cantrips and two 1st-level spells each day. In addition, you also select your arcane school at 1st level, which grants you one extra spell slot of each level that you can use only to prepare a spell from your chosen school.[/FONT][FONT=&amp]" They also talk about one of the special abilities of the wizard, "[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Speaking of which, all wizards gain the ability to place some of their power into a designated item called an arcane focus. You can drain the power from that focus once per day to cast any one spell that you have already cast without spending another spell slot. Universalists get to use this ability once for each level of spell that they can cast![/FONT][FONT=&amp]"[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]
They also give us a look at some magic, including the ever popular Magic Missile.

[/FONT]

View attachment 97777​

It looks like they're going to play with the options that are available to the class as well, making the wizard a bit more flexible. This is one of those classes that attracts a lot of controversy, so I am sure that someone​ will be unhappy with the decisions that they're going to make for the class.

 

[Aldarc]

[MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION]

In its day, I used 3e for many different kinds of settings with different kinds of genres.

I see no reason why
1) Pathfinder should be difficult to use for various genres
2) why designing rules to make setting customizability easy needs to be a problem.

The only reason I stopped using 3e is because I value the relative balance of 4e and 5e.

Pathfinder is not 3e. It has become its own brand, and it seeking to strengthen its own brand, and that brand includes Golarion. A large chunk of its fanbase and buyerbase invests in the Golarion-tied APs. That said, I doubt that Pathfinder 2 will be difficult to use for other genres much as Pathfinder 1 is not. PF1, and likely PF2, was indeed highly customizable. It produced a lot of homebrew and 3pp content. You may have to homebrew or tweak the rules a bit for your homebrews, but this has always been standard practice for all D&D and many non-generic TTRPG systems. The polytheism is not an actual problem, certainly no more than assumptions such as "all dwarves love beer" or "elves are a dying people." Most GMs make adjustments as needed and move on with their lives in contentment.

 

[Yaarel]

Pathfinder has become its own brand, and it seeking to strengthen its own brand, and that brand includes Golarion. A large chunk of its fanbase and buyerbase invests in the Golarion-tied APs.

At the same time, the Pathfinder SRD is good for making core rules available in a setting-neutral way.

Pathfinder 2 can write a rulebook that tweaks the rules for the Golarion setting flavor. I would prefer they call it the ‘Golarion Guide’.

(Similarly, I wish 5e called the Players Handbook, the ‘Forgotten Realms Handbook’, so when other settings come out, there would also be an ‘Eberron Handbook’ and ‘Dark Sun Handbook’. All these books should be able to refer to the same core rules, even if there are tweaks here or there specific to a setting.)

The trick to setting neutrality is to compartmentalize options, so it is easy to swap setting options in or out, like Lego bricks.

 

[Yaarel]

The polytheism is not an actual problem.

Polytheism doesnt have to be a problem. If it is easy to swap it out, then no problem.

Just make the cleric class make sense for various kinds of sacred traditions and various kinds of settings. If the DM makes a setting without polytheism, no problem, or with polytheism, no problem. Same cleric class, same rules. Just remove the Great Wheel from the setting − and done! If the player wants to play an adherent of an abstract sacred tradition, great, or an adherent of polytheism that personifies the concept, that is fine too. (Most Non-Western sacred traditions emphasize abstract sacred concepts, so there are good reallife multicultural benefits to diversifying the cleric class. Only Westerners seem to need to worship a personification.) There neednt be a problem.



Unfortunately, 4e and especially 5e made polytheism a problem. These systems bake polytheistic flavor deeply into the cleric class features, the spells, the races, the monsters, the planes, the setting assumptions, it is hard to find a chapter that avoids saturating the mechanics with the unwanted polytheism flavor. Even sections that mention alternatives to polytheism still push polytheism in the most heavy-handed way possible, like recommending to DMs and players who dislike polytheism that they should use polytheism anyway, or use pantheism worshiping multiple gods at the same time.

I know, because in the attempt to try remove polytheism from the rules in the 5e SRD, and I gave up, having lost interest in the amount of time and energy that it takes to remove it. I am sick of polytheism.

In the 3e, I was neutral about polytheism, because the rules let me be neutral. 4e and 5e made polytheism a problem.



Anyway, keep setting assumptions in separate textboxes. For example, for the cleric class have a sidebar that mentions the most prominent sacred traditions in Golarion, how a cleric character might fit within each one of them. A textbox is easy to blot out (even literally). Oppositely, baking something into all mechanics everywhere is hard to ignore.

Compartmentalize flavor options for the same reason that it is useful to compartmentalize mechanical options.

 

[dave2008]

Finally, I hate material components.

Maybe have mouth (verbal), empty hand (somatic), and a concentration (!) be the three spell components.



Material components for 15-minute magic rituals is fine, and makes sense to me.

Please, remove all costly gp components. Instead, limit the frequency, such as once per long rest, or once per week or month (lunar cycle). Using frequency instead of wealth is more reliable for gaming balance, and is more setting neutral, working equally well for wealthy aristocratic characters or moneyless nomadic characters.

I really like this idea. I would give you XP, but I can't on this thread.

 

[mellored]

I would move away from ‘slots’, and during the design process think in terms of ‘spell points’, to ensure points are balanced and simple to implement. The slots can ride on top of the spell system that is calibrated for points.

An issue with spell points is that you often end up spamming the "best" spell. Especially if you take the feats that boost that particular spell.
Slots, while mess to keep track of, force you to do a variety of things.

Maybe some kind of hybrid system.
Like you get spell points, but can only cast each spell once.

Or like the fighter, you can cast any spell at-will, but each time you cast the spell you take a multi-cast penalty (resets at the end of the day).


Or maybe all 4 ideas. Spell points for psions, slots for wizards, spell points and limited spells for sorcerers, and multi-cast penalty for warlocks.

 

[mellored]

Finally, I hate material components.

They mentioned that the majority of spells will only have verbal and somatic.


Also, Magic Missile does not seem to have any GP cost or material implied. Just that it could use the "Materal Casting action".

 

[zztong]

Swing that quarterstaff, Gandalf. Because stick fighting is what being a wizard is really about!

Whoa there, fella. Gandalf dual wields a staff and a sword. He's not half bad at it either, because at 4th level his BAB is still tracking reasonably close to a Fighter. Plus, he's only fighting goblins and orcs.

You also don't hear Gandalf complaining about Vancian magic because he only needs to cast a juiced up "Light" spell or Summon Eagles, call for a Mount, or use a butterfly as an Animal Messenger about once a day.

 

[Xavian Starsider]

As a serious question, what are the alternatives?

Let's put forth that a caster spending actions casting damage all day and a weapon wielder spending actions to attack all day should average out to be about the same. This is grossly unfair - the caster has a lot more flexibility so should really be lower, but let's take this as the absolute best a caster should be doing.

So, if some actions spent by the caster are more powerful than a weapon wielder, then some need to be less powerful. That's the current balance. You can't take away the less powerful without throwing the classes well out of balance.

The alternative is to make the caster the same as the weapon wielder. For things like area of effect that really breaks up the damage tiny - a fireball might do 5-10 points of damage in a 20'r to be on par with one actions worth of melee attack. And that's generous because it compensates some for a weapon able to focus fire.

Would you prefer PF to move from the first to the second? Are there other solutions you see?

Well the obvious answer is look at 5e. A wizard can throw 1d10 fire bolts until the cows come home but that barbarian might be wielding a 1d12 greataxe and +4 strength damage. And then he rages. And we must remember classes are balanced in more than offense. Wizards are squishy high profile targets. Barbarians and fighters not as much.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Finally, I hate material components.

Maybe have mouth (verbal), empty hand (somatic), and a concentration (!) be the three spell components.



Material components for 15-minute magic rituals is fine, and makes sense to me.

Please, remove all costly gp components. Instead, limit the frequency, such as once per long rest, or once per week or month (lunar cycle). Using frequency instead of wealth is more reliable for gaming balance, and is more setting neutral, working equally well for wealthy aristocratic characters or moneyless nomadic characters.

I thought people hated time based cool downs because they were video gamey?

 

[TwoSix]

I thought people hated time based cool downs because they were video gamey?

You name a mechanic, there's a vocal contingent that hates it.