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

[CapnZapp]

As for the Wizard's ability at 1st. Have to agree it's not spectacular. I don't think Wizards have ever really been spectacular at 1st, though.

This last sentence can be read as "all the editions are much the same".

They're not.

About the only other edition that compares to the PF2 experience is really old D&D, where a Wizard is mostly asked to fend off the critters using a stick and 4 hit points.

 

[Campbell]

You can actually make a 1st level wizard that gets close to Raging Barbarian levels of damage you just have to be willing to go into melee to do it.

Saladin
Versatile Human
Martial Disciple
Abjurer

14 Strength 16 Dexterity 12 Constitution 16 Intelligence 10 Wisdom 10 Charisma

Ancestry Feat : Unconventional Weaponry (Elven Curved Blade)
Skill Feat: Quick Jump
General Feat: Toughness
Wizard Feat: Familiar
Thesis: Spell Substitution in case need to be a wizard
Spells Prepared: Mage Armor, Magic Weapon, Magic Weapon
Cantrips Prepared: Electric Arc, Shield, Telekinetic Projectile, Message, Read Aura
Focus Spells: Protective Ward

Enchanted Elven Curve Blade (Forceful) +7 2d8+2 goes up by 2 on each subsequent attack.
AC 17 (18 with Ward)
16 HP

Mage Armor is allows up. If encounter is anticipated can get Magic Weapon up before. Otherwise first turn is casting and getting into position. Might also have to draw weapon. These are fairly normal concerns for Barbarians and Rangers although I need 2 actions compared to their one. If weapon is drawn and we decide to hold a defensive position can put Protective Ward up to give us all +1 to AC. Action to maintain, but can cover the whole party eventually.

Poor Fortitude Defense will be murder in melee though.

This build will hold up better in cases of traditional melee weakness like having to switch to ranged attacks.

Barbarian

• 1 action to shift weapon to one hand.
• 1 action to draw javelin
• 1 action to throw javelin
• 1 action to shift weapon back to both hands if want fight.

Wizard

• 2 Actions to cast cantrip (V,S). Weapon can stay where it is.

I could have gone for more damage by going with 2 general feats and getting proficiency with all martial weapons which would put him at 2d12+2 with magic weapon up, but that would have required dumping more into strength and leaving AC poor. Still same AC as Giant Instinct Barbarian and only 2 damage behind.

 

[RSIxidor]

Poor Fortitude Defense will be murder in melee though.

Could go Canny Acumen instead of toughness to get expert in Fort. If we're only thinking about 1st level, it might go farther than the 1 HP will. Then again, might not see a Fort save all day.

 

[Campbell]

Could go Canny Acumen instead of toughness to get expert in Fort. If we're only thinking about 1st level, it might go farther than the 1 HP will. Then again, might not see a Fort save all day.

Mostly it's a liability for combat maneuvers. Grapple and Shove target Fortitude DC. Hard to cover all your bases. You will generally be weak to something between Demoralize, Grapple, Shove, Trip, and Feint.

 

[kunadam]

my 2cents on the wizard/sorcerer damage at 1st level:
(1) Comparison across editions
Indeed a 1st level wizard is not going to kick ass. But this was always so, or I would say more so than previously.
In AD&D (aka 2nd ed) wizard had 1 spell per day. Yes, one spell. Like a 1d4 magic missile. They they had to go back to darts, sling, dagger or staff.
In 3.x they still had 1 spell (plus some cantrip).
Now come 5e and PF2 and one can have unlimited use of cantrips. They might not be as good as a barbarian's rage, but they can still deal a decent amount of ranged damage!

(2) The perspective from other classes
You should ask they question backward. Can a 1st level barbarian do wonderful stuff like creating water or illusions? If every class can do exactly the same then we are back to 4e and PF1 (as far as I know) was created to cater for those who did not like that philosophy.
So I have no problem with weaker spells. The main damage dealers should be the warriors.

 

[Aldarc]

You're still downplaying.

Try a Wizard against a Ranger and then tell me nothing substantial has changed.

You are right. There is now a reason to take a ranger when you want to be an archer, and a wizard when you need things accomplished that can't be solved by turning a monster into a pin cushion of arrows.

 

[MerricB]

Please, do some research about oD&D and AD&D first-level wizards. Yes, they were mostly useless (my OD&D-playing friends tell me they throw a lot of daggers and darts, even into melee, as the fighters have a high enough AC for them to miss, and they hit the less-armoured opponents!), but the first-level AD&D and OD&D wizard wasn't casting magic missile as their one spell.

They were casting Sleep.

Sleep, which instantly won most combats it got cast in. I don't think that it was a great way of balancing things, but it did mean that when you did cast your spell, you had an impact.

Having effective cantrips means that the effects of first-level spells shouldn't be as powerful as before, but when the cantrip is less than a standard weapon attack, then you want the first-level spell to be more effective than such.

Whether it is or not is something I hope to discover through play soon.

Cheers!

 

[CapnZapp]

You are right. There is now a reason to take a ranger when you want to be an archer, and a wizard when you need things accomplished that can't be solved by turning a monster into a pin cushion of arrows.

You're still hung up on defending the change, it seems.

But what you've missed is that I'm not attacking it. I am merely trying to establish that it indeed has occurred.

I fully sympathize with the desire to change the narrative away from "they ruined my game" to "okay so how do we make the best of this situation".

But I consider it a useful step to first address the OP's concerns head-on. Just skimming over the "you're not missing anything, damage from 1st level spells are relatively useless in comparison" stage of analysis doesn't do him any favors, in my opinion.

Cheers

 

[RSIxidor]

Having effective cantrips means that the effects of first-level spells shouldn't be as powerful as before, but when the cantrip is less than a standard weapon attack, then you want the first-level spell to be more effective than such.

I don't think cantrips compare badly to ranged weapons outside of bows. Action economy is similar, damage is similar. But then class features bring weapon users above that comparison either by being more precise, allowing more attacks, or getting a flat damage boost. Wizards can't do much to improve their cantrips until level 10 when they can reduce the action cost to 1 action. By then they've got a good repertoire of spells anyway, though.

 

[gargoyleking]

Cantrips are actually pretty good in PF2. Most of them start with a d4+Abil on damage and an additional effect on a crit. Electric Arc can hit 2 targets and is a save for half. (Basic save) so even on a success save the targets should take 2-4 damage. I think the best arcane cantrip right now is Tanglefoot which slows, if not imobilizes it's target. No damage fromnthat though. Just pure effect.