Pathfinder 2E Low-level Wizards in PF2 - are they still underpowered?

[CapnZapp]

Do you even play 5E? Firebolt, the 5E wizard's cantrip of choice, does 1d10 damage.

And of course, 5E offers the possibility of making 1d10+5 cantrip attacks at range (that deal irresistible force damage to boot).

Sure, this doesn't help the Wizard specifically. But it does mean you have options as a low-level spellcaster that's simply unheard of in PF2.

By the way, are you satisfied with the answers to your thread title question?

 

[CapnZapp]

I'm not sure that a radical of a change has occurred though. If you were playing 3e or PF1, then your first level wizard attacks were crossbows, which would have involved a lot of attack and reloading actions. Now in PF2, they are doing magical cantrip attacks with comparable damage. The difference is that it scales with every half level, does elemental damage, uses the mages' favorable attack stat, and often provides useful secondary effects.

Not talking about cantrips.

I'm talking about low level damage dealing spells.

It is really really simple. Fighters have been given three attacks instead of one. Spells like Burning Hands remain much the same.

It is obvious and self-evident this represents a shift. In the greater whole, hopefully not a big one.

But to a level 1 caster it sure is huge.

All I'm saying is that the OP needs to adjust his expectations and change the way he approaches playing his level 1 Wizard. I am not saying this is necessarily bad (though I can understand if someone would think so).

 

[Fanaelialae]

Not talking about cantrips.

I'm talking about low level damage dealing spells.

It is really really simple. Fighters have been given three attacks instead of one. Spells like Burning Hands remain much the same.

It is obvious and self-evident this represents a shift. In the greater whole, hopefully not a big one.

But to a level 1 caster it sure is huge.

All I'm saying is that the OP needs to adjust his expectations and change the way he approaches playing his level 1 Wizard. I am not saying this is necessarily bad (though I can understand if someone would think so).

That isn't entirely accurate. You're not accounting for MAP.

A 1st level fighter probably has around a +9 bonus to hit (+4 strength, +4 expert proficiency, +1 level).

A 1st level creature appears to have around a 17 AC (admittedly, this is based on a brief perusal of the Beastiary, which I just picked up today).

As such, the fighter has a 65% chance to hit with the first attack, 40% on the second attack, and a 15% chance on the third attack. That assumes that he doesn't need to Stride or Raise Shield. Admittedly, there are other possible factors that I've left off for the sake of simplicity, such as use of an Agile weapon.

You've suggested that Burning Hands can hit 3 creatures, which is a reasonable assumption IMO. However, it's important to note that those 3 attacks do not suffer the MAP penalty. The wizard can use this 3-4 times a day. That's not bad.

I'll grant you that wizards aren't going to be dealing more damage over the course of the day than melee classes, but I don't think the difference is unreasonable, even before without considering the wizard's utility.

 

[gargoyleking]

Well, Looking at the 1st level spells today I have to say that while Burning hands looks like it mught have some late-game utility as a short range nuke(max 18d6 assuming you don't get better along the way), it's utility at 1st level is rather unimpressive. Instead, I see a few effect spells which would see better use early on. Color Spray, which even on a successful save causes dazed(which means everything is concealed to it 5+ flat check to hit), is a good example of this. I'd much rather debilitate my enemies to let my allies mop them up more easily than to piss them off with a bit of damage.

 

[CapnZapp]

That isn't entirely accurate. You're not accounting for MAP.

shrug

In other editions, a 1st level character has exactly one (1) attack.

Here, you have up to three.

Other than that, I don't believe the -10 penalty is intended to be encountered in practical play. I simply assume you pick up a way to lessen or circumvent it soon enough.

Compare this to spells, which appears to be mostly or entirely unchanged, and the answer to the OP's concern becomes obvious.

 

[Fanaelialae]

shrug

In other editions, a 1st level character has exactly one (1) attack.

Here, you have up to three.

Other than that, I don't believe the -10 penalty is intended to be encountered in practical play. I simply assume you pick up a way to lessen or circumvent it soon enough.

Compare this to spells, which appears to be mostly or entirely unchanged, and the answer to the OP's concern becomes obvious.

I don't see how a fighter would do so meaningfully at 1st level. I suppose you could use an Agile weapon, but that only changes the hit chance to 65%, 45%, and 25% respectively. But Agile weapons tend to do less damage.

On top of that, those numbers are for the fighter, who ruins the curve so to speak. No other class starts with Expert weapon proficiency. Non-fighters are looking at 55%, 30%, and 5% (55%, 35%, and 15% with Agile) base hit rates. Asserting that they get three attacks is somewhat misleading when the second attack has about a 1 in 3 chance of landing, and the third attack amounts to hoping for a natural 20.

I'll grant that there are a few outliers; the Flurry Ranger with an Agile weapon being the prime candidate IMO. That build will want to attack with all three actions every chance they can get. However, it is reliant on Hunt Prey (which costs an action) meaning that it's closer to two attacks. If the prey is tough enough to take 5 attacks from the ranger to kill, you're still only looking at 2.5 attacks per round even under optimal conditions (you don't need to waste an action to Stride in order to get into melee).

It looks to me like, even being generous, in most circumstances you're looking at one and a half attacks. You might roll three d20s on your turn, but the second attack is unreliable, while the third is a shot in the dark. Effectively, it's closer to one and a half. IMO, optimized play involves finding alternate uses for your third (and possibly even your second) action that don't suffer MAP. That's if you even have the actions available, as melee might need to spend a few actions to get into position. For most builds, using all three actions to attack is likely to be a sub-optimal tactic.

Spells may be largely unchanged (I haven't done a thorough read through of the spells chapter yet and couldn't say). However, the warrior classes generally were only improved from 1 attack to 1.5 from what I can see. On top of that, cantrips were greatly improved. So while the high end of warrior damage at 1st level was increased, the same can be said for the low end of caster damage. Which isn't true parity, but is a rough sort of equivalence.

I agree with you that warrior types are probably in a stronger place at 1st level compared to casters, but I just don't see the difference in power being as large as you seem to be suggesting it is.

 

[CapnZapp]

I'm trying to answer the OP.

That answer is: low-level spellcasters are generally weak, but in this edition, actual damage spells are weaker than ever.

Change your expectations and your playing style accordingly.

 

[gargoyleking]

This. Play for effect spells rather than damage, at least early on.

I'm trying to answer the OP.

That answer is: low-level spellcasters are generally weak, but in this edition, actual damage spells are weaker than ever.

Change your expectations and your playing style accordingly.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Play for effect spells rather than damage, at least early on.

That is true but it's always been the case in D&D/PF, irrespective of edition.

 

[Campbell]

A Wizard does not need to have the ability to eclipse a melee specialist in their specialty in order to provide as much of a contribution to the party. They just need the ability to do different valuable things.

Magic Weapon will improve most melee character's damage by around 10% and then add another d12 to every hit on top of it. Over the course of a fight if a barbarian hits 5 times that is 5d12. That is extremely powerful.

Against a higher level monster Ray of Enfeeblement will reduce the outgoing damage of the monster by 25% on a failed save. That's immensely powerful.

Against a high level monster Fear will reduce incoming damage by 25% and outgoing damage by at least 10% for one round for every other character in the party for one round. The next round you will get about half that effect. This gets better if you stack it with other conditions like Sickened from Goblin Pox.

Grease can knock several creatures prone and help melee bush whack them much more effectively.

When monsters are spread out electric arc allows a wizard to attack two monsters within 30 feet of him. On a failed save he only needs to roll a 2 to kill a goblin warrior or a 3 to kill a kobold warrior.

Against monsters with resistances against physical damage like a Spider Swarm (Creature 0) the single target damage of Shocking Grasp is pretty strong. A wizard's range of damage types also allows them to more effectively capitalize on weaknesses than martial characters can. If a wizard catches two Spider Swarms in a Burning Hands spell they will do 2d6+5 to each thanks to its weakness to area damage while a ranger with two short swords will be dealing 1d6-1 on each hit.

Many of an Arcane Caster's damage spells also have secondary effects. Hydraulic Push moves the target on a successful attack and does 3d6 damage. This can be used to allow melee to do their jobs better.

I will admit area spells are fairly lacking at lower levels. Grim Tendrils is much better than Burning Hands, but potent area effects do not come online until 3rd level spells really.

Spellcasters have plenty of ways they can be excellent and impacting members of the team. They do not need to eclipse specialists to have value. They bring unique abilities and talents that can make hard encounters much easier, can easily get around resistances and are adept at exploiting monster weaknesses.