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.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

"Issue" is an interesting word for everyone at the table being able to reliably perform with the same degree of competence. I'd call it, "good game design." Call me "the video game generation" if you will, but I'd rather characters be differentiated by what they can do, not what bonus they get to their rolls.

Unless you're suggesting that some characters not attack ever, there are going to be periods where everyone is just doing that. When the fighter swings their sword at +10, and the wizard shoots their fire bolt at +10, it has a very same-y feel. The characters feel interchangeable, because they have the same net effect on the situation. (That one of them is technically magic is just a cosmetic issue, and you've already said that you don't care about magic being rare or special.)

When the fighter swings their sword at +10, and the wizard swings their staff at +7, there's more of a mechanical difference involved. The fighter is in their element - they can do this all day - while the wizard is clearly not. (Later, the wizard will fireball ten orcs at once, and the tables will be briefly turned.) It gives a reason to have different characters, with different strengths and weakness, instead of it simply not mattering because they all contribute identically in every situation.

 

[Charlaquin]

Unless you're suggesting that some characters not attack ever, there are going to be periods where everyone is just doing that. When the fighter swings their sword at +10, and the wizard shoots their fire bolt at +10, it has a very same-y feel.

More same-y than the fighter swinging a sword at +10 and the wizard swinging a sword at +7? Sorry, I just don't agree with that. Again, what the characters do contributes more to how they feel to me than how high their numbers are does.

The characters feel interchangeable, because they have the same net effect on the situation. (That one of them is technically magic is just a cosmetic issue, and you've already said that you don't care about magic being rare or special.)

Sure. An at-will spell that has no functional mechanical difference from shooting a crossbow is boring. But that's an issue with the spell design, not with at-will magic in general. I'd much rather the crossbow and the fire bolt be differentiated in other ways than how likely the characters using them are to hit. Maybe the crossbow does more initial damage and the fire bolt causes some ongoing burn damage or something. Point is, hit bonus is a poor way to make characters feel different from each other.

When the fighter swings their sword at +10, and the wizard swings their staff at +7, there's more of a mechanical difference involved. The fighter is in their element - they can do this all day - while the wizard is clearly not. (Later, the wizard will fireball ten orcs at once, and the tables will be briefly turned.) It gives a reason to have different characters, with different strengths and weakness, instead of it simply not mattering because they all contribute identically in every situation.

Where we disagree is on two points:
a. +10 vs. +7 to hit creating a meaningful difference in play feel
b. both characters having +10 to hit necessarily meaning they must contribute identically in every situation. What happens when each of those attacks hit, both in narration and in mechanical effect, matters significantly more to me than how likely each of those attacks is to succeed.

 

[MichaelSomething]

I think the general idea is that Saelorn wants the fighter and wizard to be different. The Fighter should be playing a beat'em up while the Wizard should be playing a resource management game.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Blasters with endless at-will magical damage. Should be treated more like a warrior swinging his axe all day. These classes gain limited or no access to higher levels of magic. Being able to unleash unlimited amounts of fire (acid etc) is treated as significantly better than ordinary axe swings, even if the numerical damage is similar.

That's the logic, and it'd be amusing to see it applied to casters like that, for real.

What that logic pointedly & persistently overlooks is that there's rarely a need to spew fire or swing axes /all day/. Maybe if you're engaging in slash-and-burn agriculture.
But combats, even in a busy adventuring day, don't add up to all that many rounds, let alone minutes.

For those complaining about the 15 minute work day Wizard, that can be remedied by imposing a "mission must be done by deadline" condition.

Yes, both the complaint and the run-only-one-type-of-adventure solution are well known.

Besides, if Pathfinder 2 turns out to be remotely balanced,

It will be a sure sign of the coming Apocalypse.

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.

Heck, Pathfinder was a brand before it was a 3.5 clone, and could be the same kind of brand, again - selling d20 APs &c set in Golarion for use with D&D.

Sounds like a person who wasn't here during the Edition Wars.

mellored was around for the wars, I think the point is that the objection is invalid, now, just as it was, then.

"Issue" is an interesting word for everyone at the table being able to reliably perform with the same degree of competence. I'd call it, "good game design." Call me "the video game generation" if you will, but I'd rather characters be differentiated by what they can do, not what bonus they get to their rolls.

Hey, I'm over 50, the last video game I played was Asteroids, and we're on the same page as far as that goes...

 

[Ancalagon]

I think the general idea is that Saelorn wants the fighter and wizard to be different. The Fighter should be playing a beat'em up while the Wizard should be playing a resource management game.

I can assure you that even with decent "at will attack cantrips" in 5e, the casters still have to carefully manage their slots. Sure you can send a bolt of fire that's better (for you... a skilled crossbowman will be more dangerous than your firebolt) than a crossbow bolt any time you want... but the really important stuff - the dispell magics, the area controls, the fireballs, the hold person, the "omg I need to get out of here" - all that needs slots.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I think the general idea is that Saelorn wants the fighter and wizard to be different. The Fighter should be playing a beat'em up while the Wizard should be playing a resource management game.

Not exactly, but close. I actually like the AEDU structure, and the way that everyone has similar resources to manage over a time period. I think it's good that both fighters and wizards have special limited-use powers which they can bring out during important moments. (And it can get boring for the fighter, if they don't have any resources to manage.)

It's more that, by giving wizards an at-will ability that keys from Int rather than Strength or Dex, they're both operating at the same efficiency regardless of whether they're using an at-will or a daily. That curve, where fighters are always in top form regardless of what they're doing, and wizards feel less effective because they're forced to rely on a tertiary stat at that moment, is what I was talking about.

But again, that's a secondary complaint which some people had about 4E and 5E. My primary complaint is still that at-will magic makes magic feel boring, and I would prefer if casting a spell was a rare exception rather than the rule. (Which is entirely a matter of preference, etc.)

 

[CapnZapp]

Not exactly, but close. I actually like the AEDU structure, and the way that everyone has similar resources to manage over a time period. I think it's good that both fighters and wizards have special limited-use powers which they can bring out during important moments. (And it can get boring for the fighter, if they don't have any resources to manage.)

I think different classes having different resource games I'd crucial to making them look and feel different when you play.

4e was horrible in that regard: every class felt and played much the same. While this made fighters very fun to play, it meant that playing Wizards felt very bland and... unfantastical.

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

Fighters being whack-a-mole is entirely alright in a game with Paladins, Rangers, Warlock and others. (Or, in 5e, play a EK or BM)

 

[Charlaquin]

I think different classes having different resource games I'd crucial to making them look and feel different when you play.

I agree with you on this, which is why I prefer Essentials over traditional 4e.

4e was horrible in that regard: every class felt and played much the same.

Ish. Each class in 4e actually played quite differently - while every pre-Essentials class had the same resources to work with, what each could do with those resources did produce very different results, especially between classes of different combat roles. However, resource management has a big impact on how a class feels to play, and while the classes may have objectively behaved differently in combat, for many people (myself included), they still felt subjectively same-y. At least until the PHB 3, where they introduced the Psionic power source, which actually had a different resource game despite using the AEDU scaffolding. Essentials further expanded on that and gave each power source a different resource game.

While this made fighters very fun to play, it meant that playing Wizards felt very bland and... unfantastical.

Yeah, lots of folks felt that way.

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

I disagree. Call me an optimist, but I believe it is possible to design classes in such a way that different classes use different resources, but are well-balanced and are all engaging to play.

Fighters being whack-a-mole is entirely alright in a game with Paladins, Rangers, Warlock and others. (Or, in 5e, play a EK or BM)

Acceptable, sure, but should the designers settle for acceptable, or strive for exceptional?

 

[Sunseeker]

Acceptable, sure, but should the designers settle for acceptable, or strive for exceptional?

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?

Like, "Soldier" in the Mass Effect series is arguably one of the most fun classes to play. Sure, you don't shoot "magic" or hack stuff, but when you hit things, it stays hit. You get to run around the battlefield yelling "I'm the Juggernaut *****!"

Why can't that be the Fighter's thing?

 

[Charlaquin]

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?

Like, "Soldier" in the Mass Effect series is arguably one of the most fun classes to play. Sure, you don't shoot "magic" or hack stuff, but when you hit things, it stays hit. You get to run around the battlefield yelling "I'm the Juggernaut *****!"

Why can't that be the Fighter's thing?

Precisely. We know how to do fun martial characters, we’ve seen plenty of them in PF1 and other systems, there is no excuse for the fighter to remain boring when we have the design technology to make him interesting.

fortunately, they seem to be doing just that in PF2 - after the additional fighter details from the mox gauntlet charity event, it’s looking like the Fighter will be picking up some elements from the Brawler, which sounds very cool to me. Stances worked great for me in Essentials, and Opening and Closing moves seem interesting, though I don’t think I have enough of the picture to fully understand them yet. But one way or another, the fighter is actually looking interesting for a change.