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.

 

[Yaarel]

There needs to be at least two warrior classes. Maybe make one the straightforward ‘fighter’, and the other the more complex ‘knight’.

The knight works best as a chassis for:
• paladin (white knight)
• eldritch knight (wizard)
• black knight (necromancer)
• faerie knight (green knight, druid)
• cavalier (nonmagic, ‘champion’)
• scoundrel (nonmagic, roguish, villain-ish knight)

And so on. The knight concept emphasizes Intelligence for tactics and Charisma for morale, diplomacy, and intimidation. The flavor features formal military education, urban, and elite. Some of these knights are spell casters, some are martial.

Especially the nonmagic cavalier knight can be the fighter that has a more complex design.

 

[Yaarel]

I like playing wizards. I like magical flavor. And once I tasted cantrips. I will never go back to a crossbow again. Ever. I would rather not play a game that tries to force my wizard to be nonmagical. I appreciate that some other players prefer a different flavor. So I want there to be options. Choose magic cantrips or mundane weapons. But I will never use the nonmagic option. Ever.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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!

If you're using the Staff as an Implement in your off-hand, and the Sword as a primary-hand weapon, that worked fine in 4e, and 5e went ahead and made the staff a one-handed weapon...

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.

Having the same number/power-level of resources doesn't make classes play the same. Just look at the Cleric & Wizard (or, heck, magic-user back in the day), same spell progressions, but they play differently - different spell lists (not even 100% different, as they were in 4e), different class features.

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

I think that sums it up. If they're 'playing the same,' how is one fun and the other bland? What you're describing isn't playing the same, it's class balance, and, yes, it was a lot more fun to play a balanced fighter in 4e than a marginalized one in any other edition, and a lot less 'fun' (if your 0-sum definition of fun requires dominating play) to play a balanced wizard than an OP one.

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?

As a baseline for other classes to be better than. It's like Syndrome in the Incredibles: if everyone is 'fun' or 'exciting,' then no one is.

(If that sounds reasonable, remind yourself that you're nodding and agreeing with a sociopathic villain.)

I like playing wizards. I like magical flavor. And once I tasted cantrips. I will never go back to a crossbow again. Ever. I would rather not play a game that tries to force my wizard to be nonmagical. I appreciate that some other players prefer a different flavor. So I want there to be options. Choose magic cantrips or mundane weapons. But I will never use the nonmagic option. Ever.

I think part of the disconnect is the distinction between 'feeling magical' in the sense of representing something supernatural - you shoot fire from your outstretched hand! magic! - and something being exceptionally powerful - you automatically kill every orc in a 20' radius! (but only once/slot) magic!

You're happy with the first definition of magic - a 4e scorching burst (attack REF for 1d6+INTmod) is as magical as a 1e Fireball (6d6, save for half damage & die anyway, orcs); Reign of Steel (auto damage to all adjacent enemies every round) + Come & Get It (attack WILL to pull enemies adjacent) is just as non-magical as a 1e battleax (attack AC for 1d8+STRmod).

For others, magic isn't magic unless it's strictly, overwhelmingly, superior (and nominally rare/limited in some routinely manageable way) - to them, Come & Get It (goading enemies to charge you) is magical and Scorching Burst (conjuring fire from nothing) is not.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Want to make magic rare? Fine. Every time you make a charater, roll a d100. If you get a 100, your character can become a Wizard. Done.

 

[Ancalagon]

Want to make magic rare? Fine. Every time you make a charater, roll a d100. If you get a 100, your character can become a Wizard. Done.

You laugh... but in warhammer you don't choose your starting career (i.e., "class"). Most parties have *no* spellcasters at all.

 

[MichaelSomething]

You laugh... but in warhammer you don't choose your starting career (i.e., "class"). Most parties have *no* spellcasters at all.

Does that make magic feel rare though?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Want to make magic rare? Fine. Every time you make a charater, roll a d100. If you get a 100, your character can become a Wizard. Done.

So, like 1e Psionics, then? I remember how 'rare' that was...

 

[TheCosmicKid]

It's like Syndrome in the Incredibles: if everyone is 'fun' or 'exciting,' then no one is.

(If that sounds reasonable, remind yourself that you're nodding and agreeing with a sociopathic villain.)

Remind yourself that the context of the line is said sociopathic villain planning to make everyone 'fun' and 'exciting'. Maybe not the best choice of example here?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Remind yourself that the context of the line is said sociopathic villain planning to make everyone 'fun' and 'exciting'.

Everyone in the world, yeah. It wouldn't've done what the villain wanted, but it would've screwed the world over pretty hard...

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Everyone in the world, yeah. It wouldn't've done what the villain wanted, but it would've screwed the world over pretty hard...

Ergo, not everyone in the world should have 4E class features. Q.E.D.