I’ve gotten a few comments suggesting that this video is a “hidden ad” so let me just be extra explicit about it. First: this is not just an ad. This is me musing about the Wizard’s design, and it’s a video I planned to release anyways, and it just *happened* to coincide with Wizards+ release, so I asked them if I could promote them over on this channel. The only reason Wizards+ is being mentioned is because I genuinely believe it to be the best third party solution to the Wizard that I have ever seen. I have received no monetary compensation for talking about it either. I have a couple comments asking me why I’m suggesting a third party solution at all instead of providing a solution to official material. I CAN’T provide you with a first party solution because I’m not Paizo. Any suggestions I provide to fix the Wizard will automatically be third party (and will inherit all the problems of having to convince your GM and whatnot). So if I’m suggesting third party fixes anyways I’ll point you to a book designed by a way better team of designers than myself. Future design musings videos (if I make more) will not always involve a specific third party solution. This one just happened to. I hope that makes sense! To those who are hesitant to watch the full video because of comments calling it an “ad”, I am going to ask you to keep an open mind and try anyways. The whole video is timestamped, you can skip whatever you’d like to, but the “ad” is mostly me just gushing about some awesome Feats and explaining how this fixes my problems with the Wizard.
I appreciate you mentioning Wizard+ personally. It offers a well-designed alternative to what Paizo offers officially. I really do enjoy a lot of the content offered on Pathfinder Infinite, and I think it's oft forgotten by members of this community during discussions. I'm not 100% sure if that's due to a sense of brand loyalty to Paizo, or some innate fear of homebrew content because people see 2e as a "well-designed system" (which by the way, I most certainly think it is having come to this system off DnD 5e) but it's something I've observed during discussions in the online 2e community. I also think you make great points about how playing Wizard well, requires you to be really smart about how you choose things (you have to be closer in real life to the character you are playing than you do for many others). This is not really the case for other casters nearly as much. As an example, Cleric fulfills a very different party role, but a Clerics ability to just fall back on their divine font regardless of whatever else you have prepared gives a Cleric player a lot of leeway to experiment with the spells they wish to try. Not to mention, I think there's an argument to be had that the mechanic of Wizards being so much more limited by their spellbook in terms of what they can prepare as compared to a Druid or Cleric works directly counter to that fantasy of the "always prepared" character. I very much so like the concept of letting Wizards fulfill other class fantasies. I would personally rather play a scatter-brained borderline neurodivergent Wizard whose token art is him trying and failing to balance a stack of 25 textbooks .
Really love your videos, but using a paid 3rd party option to "solve" an official class feels like a DnD 5e youtuber. We play Pf2 because we got tired of having to homebrew and search for solution to broken classes every 5min. I'd much rather have you cover ways to design a good Wizard and play with their strengths.
@NodeBoy1337 I already have a video planned on how to play the Wizard well using RAW options, but there’s no reason to demonize third party classes in this game because of a completely unrelated toxic culture from an entirely different game. Using 3pp to round out fantasies for players who didn’t get represented in the base game is almost exactly the whole reason for 3pp to exist.
Honestly just ignore those people. Even if this is an "ad", it is still in line with your channel, and you are making arguments for why you think these things are good/bad. If they think you are running PR, then they should be able to easily dismantle your points.
I'd agree Wizard is powerful enough as is. But I also think it needs a "flavor buff". I think new or improved thesis and schools would go a long way for that. Pathfinder classes have a distinctiveness to them that seem to be missing here. Your example is great because it shows that with the Wizards+ stuff they get that, and build into the fantasy more than the base class.
I kinda do that, i have Homebrew some stuff, grabbed some other, a few more school's and more spell selection in all of those, a new "subclass option" y call it "tools of the craft", the familiar and Staff options are there + some more (give a skill like nature, craft, and skill feats like train animal, specialty craft woodwork). As for feats... I just copied the features from the wizard of 5e 😂, and the druid "order exploration" --- "postgraduate studies" (extra thesis) It doesn't get the wizard to be more powerful, but certainly give more room for fantasy build.
It needs feats too. I would like to see more flavorful feats. Look how much fun witches have while being impactful. It just doesn't feel exciting to play Wizard
I think a cool way to lower the skill floor while preserving a batman fantasy would be adding a spell slot equivalent of the prescient planner feat. You can designate one or two unfilled "predicted" spell slots to retroactively decide are filled with a certain spell as a reaction when you recall knowledge against a creature
Yeah, pretty good points. I completely agree that all the ‘problems’ with the wizard stem from the fact that the class was designed at a time when the balance issue didn't exist, and the idea that more experienced players (and their characters) simply by virtue of knowing the system should gain a big advantage was self-evident. Some sort of balance in the first editions of DnD was achieved by the fragility of wizards and their relative weakness compared to martial classes at early levels. But there was no talk of each class being comparable in strength at any given level with enough player experience and capability at any given level with enough player experience. So these ‘problems’ are part of the same old discussion about "old school" RPGs vs modern RPGs. In my opinion in Pf2e magic users at later levels, although they don't turn into demigods compared to ‘normal mortal martials’, they still have a lot more options for problem solving. The wizard here is still better than any other class at picking the right spell for the moment, performing the necessary ritual, and so on and so forth. But what it really lacks sometimes is the special ‘theme’ that all the other classes have. Sorcerers have a bloodline, witches have a connection to the patron. Wizards, on the other hand, do not feel like they have a theme, even though it is obvious: scholarship. If one were to strengthen wizards' knowledge checks, related abilities, knowledge of languages and so on, it wouldn't give them some huge boost in power on the one hand, but on the other hand it would give the very colouring without which he feels like someone ’bland’. In fact, it's usually quite achievable with archetypes anyway. But as far as desired changes go, this is it. (Besides making the bard back a demicaster, of course :) )
@@Максим-ж4ж9б I’m curious about your opinions about high level magic users not being demigods, because in my experience *everyone* feels demigodlike at those high levels. Like sure the Barbarian can jump across a 40 foot chasm with little difficulty, the Swashbuckler can fall from space, and the Rogue can practically disappear into thin air. But also also my Wizard permanently has things like Tailwind, See the Unseen, Elemental Sense, Carryall, Pet Cache, etc boosting her as well as plenty of options like Gentle Landing, Gecko Grip, Water Breathing, Ant Haul, etc, making sure that she always feels superhuman too.
@Mathfinder-aaa Yeah, you're right. I worded that wrong. I meant that a wizard at later levels no longer feels like a demigod in compare (!) to the martial classes of the respective levels. I'll clarify what I mean by that. Back in the days of 1st and 2nd edition (which is where I started), a fighter at later levels simply got tougher and swung his iron more effectively. But all of his ‘’fantasy-ness‘’ was only defined by the magical items on him. Otherwise, he was a fairly normal fellow and felt the same. And for a range of classes: fighter, rogue, barbarian, ranger, there wasn't any qualitative difference between how a character felt at early levels and late levels except for their "experience and mastery". It was both about the vibe and the gaming possibilities. There were classes that became more fantastic as they grew in levels, like the monk. But magic users and especially the wizard ahead of everyone else were different. Because he wasn't just becoming more fantastic, but was getting more and more game capabilities that "casual fighters" never got to see. So, If at first you have a capable fighter and a man in a funny hat who can cast a magic arrow a couple of times a day, then by the end you have on one side a dude who has learnt over the years to swing an axe very well and many times a round, and on the other side someone who can teleport, get to other worlds, fly, summon dragons, turn into dragons, pour fire all around and change reality at will. He also has some special spell for every occasion. He also doesn't really need a fighter, because he can replace him with certain spells. In this sense, wizards used to become demigods compared to warrior classes. (Although, to be fair, I personally never saw anyone seriously playing first editions DnD companies until such late levels, this problem was more ‘theoretical’). This situation was inherited in both 3rd edition and Pathfinder 1e. In some ways, it has been weakened by some game-mechanical balance tweaks, like the universal save throw system, but not fundamentally. Because of this, there was a well-known talk about character tiers based on their capabilities. But Pathfinder2e changed that situation in a very big way. Firstly, as you rightly point out, all classes become ‘fantastic’ as they grow in levels. Not just through class abilities, but also through skill feats and ancestary feats. And a high-level fighter now doesn't just feel like a dude who swings an iron particularly well, but like a demigod who can jump a couple of floors high and take down a dragon in flight. Secondly, Paizo basically reworked spells that made other classes' skills unnecessary (such as “knock”). Now the proficiency is valuable and irreplaceable. So, a wizard can sometimes slightly replace an experienced thief, or someone with advanced survival or climbing skills, but can never compete with them. Third, magic has continued to be weakened due to conception of "tight" balance. Direct damage from spells is now relatively lower than before and wizards need someone extra to deal direct damage. Also the strongest spells have been nerfed or made rituals. And also everyone has access to this "gamebreaking" rituals now. So, because of all this, the wizard no longer feels particularly unfairly powerful compared to the others. But it still has the widest utilitarian capabilities and versatility in the game. This is still a class with a "suitable spell for every occasion", still a class that can organize teleportation, flight, mass invisibility, disguise and protection from a specific danger, and so on. By and large, he now feels like a "nerd in the team." And I actually think that's a good thing. So, any changes in class characteristics that emphasize this "nerd" trait of the wizard, make him more thematically defined, I consider a step in the right direction. P.S. Unfortunately, since I live in Russia, I can't buy a Wizard+ book. But as far as I understand from the preview in the video, exactly such options have been presented there. It is very good. I hope that Paizo is looking at the opinion of the community and 3d party materials before creating the third edition.
The Wizard is also very GM and campaign dependent, when you think about it. How else are you supposed to prepare but base it on information you have? And information you have depends on your GM and campaign. A spontaneous caster is solid when it comes to strongly themed campaigns and situations changing by the *second* , but a prepared has a HUGE edge in campaigns with situations changing by *day* and military operation level scouting and briefings. They use information differently. But should that even be a thing to differentiate classes by? I personally don't think it's good design to put so much power budget and class identity into things that are not only out of the player's control but out of the player's consideration.
I've seen this in other comments in this and other discussions, but I think the biggest problem is that vancian casting is just terrible. For a new player, it doesn't represent any classic fantasy of wizardry except for Jack Vance novels and some fiction that is deliberately including dnd mechanics. Many dnd based novels ignore it as well. I'm not a game designer, I don't have an innovative new solution. I don't know how difficult a mana system or something else would be to balance, but spell slots just feel like the worst mechanic to base your magic on. That's just my perspective from 30 years in this hobby, off and on.
I really liked your video and I agree with your reasoning about why the wizard is 'bad.' A friend of mine already bought Wizards+, but I haven't read it fully yet. Since some of the comments are discussing more HB or RAW solutions instead of a third-party option, you could mention things like the variant rule they have for Spell Substitution or the Spell Blending Thesis as separate options for all wizards (since those two are arguably the best thesis and also help with the issue of having useless spells for the day) or the option of selecting a second thesis at level 11. There isn't really an official solution for the high skill floor of the wizard aside from Paizo releasing pre-made spell lists for different playstyles so that newer players can start without needing to read through hundreds of spells.
It's been refreshing having an enthusiastic wizard player doing analysis on the system. Thank you for continuing your efforts. I also struggled with the class fantasy, because I do like being the prepared player. Currently doing this on an alchemist.
oh I've been looking for a review on wizards+ that usually doesn't get much coverage. so that was a nice surprise. and yea I agree. one point on the prepared batman fantasy sure you can pack a bunch of stuff "just in case", but that's not really being prepared for what's coming up. For that.. there's really nothing. spell substitution kinda, but even that might not be enough. That just so much depends on the GM to properly foreshadow or let you figure out what's ahead. And sure, a good GM might do that. But we shouldn't put that burden on the GM. Do wish there was a way to swap out spells on the fly. Maybe link it to spell substitution, maybe limit it to not your max rank slots, and maybe make that a focus spell, idk.
I disagree with his opinion that wizard class fantasy is to be a tactical genius. It's to be a scholarly mage. But most scholars are not tactical geniuses and intact might be too impractical Clumsy etc to perform well as a field tactician. It would be a mistake it infuse the class with some kind of "be tactical" abilities. It should just be the case that a wizard who is tactically minded is fearsome to behold. Just like fighter can be, but doesnt have to be, a skilled tactician.
What's a Batman fantasy? Nice video! Lots of good points, except the not needing to be Strong to play a Barb but needing to be tactical to play a Wizard imo. PF2e is a more tactics oriented TTRPG so everybody benefits from being tactical. Not saying Wizard is easy, but this point feels in bad faith. I do agree Wizard needs something to elevate it beyond smart man with spells, preferably something iconic. I think some Wizard-unique spellshapes would be pretty fun and go well with the idea of somebody that mastered magic through study.
Maybe I should have Wizard+ a go. I had some really bad experiences with the wizard, first time was exploring a cave, this doesn’t tell me anything at all of what to prepare. I asked to RK, was told to roll a Nature check which I do not have. Fail got told nothing. Spells are useless, the story wouldn’t let me rest and recharge, leaving me basically just standing in the corner twiddling my thumbs for the whole session. It’s so GM dependent, the floor is basically a pit. It was a very disappointing 3 hours.
As I've stated in the past. Ivory Tower Game Design basically only still exists with PF2e with Spell Slot Spells. The fact that Leveled Spell Slots is one of the few things from the original D&D that is still around shows how archaic it is. I wish removing Leveled Spell Slots as a magic system could be done, replaced with something more streamlined and boosted the skill floor (like if you replaced all the spells into what exploit feats are) But at least patches like Wizards+ and the stuff Paizo has done with all the other magic classes do help a decent amount.
I think the cleanest solution here is allowing retroactive spell preparation. Based on the character’s intelligence level, a certain number of their prepared spells remain flexible. At the appropriate time per day, the player can “lock” one of their flexibly prepared spells and declare that their character had prepared a known spell of their choosing at the beginning of the day
:/ I am a passionate PF2e wizard player, and I agree and disagree. While people argue that many of the wizard's feats or other in-class options are bland, I agree. But, I don't find it to be a problem given how the system works as a whole. Instead, I would suggest that the wizard is a chassis that is ready to be fleshed out with any number of themes or RP that you desire. Simply put, the wizard class is an amazing chassis to archetype with. So I would counter that there is nothing 'wrong' with the wizard. Merely that the player is lacking creativity and system mastery. Which gets into the system mastery to use wizard. I have zero problems with this. I find it actually refreshing to have a class that rewards system mastery. It gives those of us puzzle lovers a toy to play with. I would change pretty much nothing about the current wizard.
@@joejohnson9499 I’m not sure how to respond to this, because I feel like I’ve addressed your second paragraph pretty thoroughly. I *also* think a class that rewards system mastery is a good thing. That’s why I keep saying leave the ceiling unchanged, just buff the floor for those who have no interest in system mastery, leave the ceiling for those like myself that like it.
Firstly leading that this was a very thoughtful video! It was nice to see that you addressed the concerns of the Wizard, particularly post-Remaster, and provided genuine feedback for what would be good for solutions =] Now, as any good Wizard-stan, I'll follow with a small essay in the rest of the comment xD Fully agreed that the Wizard really needs to lean into Recall Knowledge a LOT more! I love the "Knowledge is Power" feat brought in with the Remaster, but it needs more support. I'd love there to be a feat chain similar to the Ranger's Monster Hunter tree, allowing the Wizard to be the spellcasting version to the Ranger's martial-focused bonus! I also agree that just upping the DC's of the Wizard would be a massive overcorrection, but I do like the idea of the Wizard being the "Fighter" of Spellcasters. For me, I think the solution is very simple for that: make Wizards get their Proficiency increases soon than other Spellcasters! By like 2 levels, 5th, 13th, and 17th respectively, so it doesn't feel outrageously outpacing but it does feed into the fantasy of a character who truly understands the fundamentals and mechanics of magic better than any other profession. And in general there needs to be a LOT more support to the Wizard's fantasy in their class feats and features. I'm playing a Wizard in our group's current campaign and I am having a LOT of fun with it, but most of my class feats are being / will be used for Multiclassing into Psychic and later Time Mage to build out my "Chronomancer" fantasy beyond just spell selections. So my wishlist for Wizards in 3E would definitely include the following: -Assuming the retention of the Proficiency system, make Wizards gain their increases earlier than other casters -Assuming something similar to Vancian casting, make Spell Substitution a core part of the class rather than an optional Thesis, and give the Wizard a limited means to change their spells on the fly (maybe a Focus Spell all Wizards get access to? Swap a spell and make a Recall Knowledge check as part of the same action/s, or a once-per-minute two or three action activity) -Give Wizards a way to dabble in other Curricula, like the Druid with Order Explorer or Bard with Multifarious Muse. Call it Extracurricular Studies, BAM, good to go! -Give Wizards a means to dabble in other Traditions! Make it limited in what rank they can do it up to, but it would be awesome to allow a Wizard to add spells from other Traditions into their spellbook and get some use out of them (the Human Ancestry feat Adapted Cantrip comes to mind, maybe let Wizards do something similar and grant access to higher-rank spells with other feats) That fantasy is already there to a lesser degree by the Unified Magical Theory feat for Legendary Arcana, so let 'em really lean into it! -Give them more Recall Knowledge feats and abilities that reward the Wizard and their teammates for the nerd doing nerdy stuff! -More of the Arcane Array feats, there's only two and one is completely redundant if you have a Bard in the party (we do xP) and can benefit baddies, which doesn't feel great. -Those Exploit feats you describe from Wizards+ sounds really cool and harken back to what I loved most about playing the Arcanist in 1E! Allowing them to repurpose particular spells for different effects seems like such an active bit of magical reengineering that now I desperately want that for my class fantasy xP And that could be another Thesis, where you have the one that grants you bonus Spellshape feats, a "Exploit Expertise" Thesis could give you bonus feats for Exploits!
Imagine being a high INT caster class and not having acess to Hypercognition. Or not having RK feats... Just give me a spellshape that lets me RK on the monster. Wizard is really powerfull, 4 slots and the thesis can be very powerfull, but in the other hand -> Sorcerer. Wizard is just not worth to spending your time, you can just make a Arcane Sorcerer with Arcane evolution. Now Wizards+ (that is not a must that you GM gonna accept) are what wizards want, wizards have really really really bad class feats, Strok Chin is nice kinda better than Cognitive Crossover. Exploit is really nice, specially in high levels because you have spell slots not used. In the end IMO, the problem is Vancian casting, I will always hit this nail and trowing out Vancian casting out of the window is always the answer. Is easier to balance the game without it.
@@ratfckr I have a milder version of your Vancian casting take! IMO the problem is that we have nearly half the classes in the game interacting with Vancian or pseudo-Vancian casting. It creates a huge balancing problem because anyone can dip into any of their 1000 ish slotted spell options, and the game has to be balanced for that possibility. If there were only, say, 3 or 4 Vancian casting classes (like say, Wizard is Prepared, Bard is Spontaneous, and a couple others) and the rest all had their own bespoke magic systems there’d be more power budget freed up to make the classes better.
@@Mathfinder-aaai would love that. Like I enjoy how Animist is handled. Sorcerer should be a “spell point” system, I could see Bard preparing “concertos” being lists of spells that they have to cast in a specific order, but gain specific benefits based on the content etc. Druid I feel could gain a lot of benefits akin to Geomancers for “power from the land” emphasis.
@@Mathfinder-aaa thank you! I quite literally came up with it after a short think of your thought of too many vancian casters. With a second thought, “concerto” is arguably too music based seeing as Bards can do several different performance types, so I’ll definitely do some brainstorming
@@tyrusdaletyou could call them recitals! That fits pretty much every art form. It could be focused on creating a set of recitals that you have prepared that are spells in a specific order, must be used within 10 minutes of starting or something, and then have a few slots of single spells for utility or emergency (called encores? Interludes? Intercessions?) It would be neat bc they could be dances, grand tales, songs, poems, whatever, and would really tie bard casting thematically to their arts (ex. Maybe a tale called the Hero's Journey starts with Heroism, Runic Weapon, Fear, Biting Words, etc) Edit: leveling up would grant you access to more recitals, longer recitals, and/or more flexibility in your recitals, based on subclass. Maybe you can't repeat spells in it unless you take the "repetitive performance," and maybe enigma bards could change one of the spells of their recital as they create an unexpected twist, Maestros could skip the next spell as they're experts in reading their audience, Polymath could include skill checks and get a bonus on those skill checks, and warrior muse could do the same with strikes
I think the batman-fantasy of the wizard was just easier to do back in the day cause you had more powerful ways of finding out what you might be up against or what would be good to have in your back pocket. I also think that people forget how many options you have when it comes to magical items such as scrolls and wands and such (something that has always been a part of a wizards identity too imo).
Back in the day wizards were actually best described as the parties insurance policy. In AD&D wizards began as profoundly weak. Clerics and martial classes truly ruled the early levels. But if your wizard survived until level 5+, that was when it became the absolute powerhouse that could carry the party. It was the power fantasy of 'You were basically the easiest thing in the world to kill, now you're the terror'. At high levels, the thing you wanted to have in the party to deal with an enemy wizard, was your own. Otherwise it could wipe a party like it was nothing.
@@atremious1671 “actually best described as the party’s insurance policy” Funny you say that, because I have an upcoming video on the role of spellcasters which will be saying something very similar. 👀
I played a wizard until level 6. (which is unfortunately the highest level character I've ever had in Pathfinder) Preparedness: This requires that the party can scout at least a day in advance, or the wizard needs the Thesis Spell Substitution. If you're heading into a dungeon - you're likely going in hoping that whatever spells you have prepared will do. A wizard is a 6 HP caster with 3 or 4 spells per rank. The School spells are often situational and thus seldom useful. Drain Bonded item is awesome, though, even better than a highest rank spell, as one can use it for crucial low level utility spells,if needed. ... Theses are not balanced. Spell Blending is very powerful. Spell substitution will make preparing the right spells much easier. ___ Wizards shine on lore, craft, recall knowledge and other int skills.
With newfound focus on Class Archetypes I hope that runelord gets more than just fresh coat of paint (i sorta dig the polearm angle for a gishlike light armor caster but thats a fantasy of its own) or that the more specialised fantasies get one as well that would raise the floor for the price of ceiling. Something to take off the cognitive load of having to know the entire arcane spell list even after filtering out the "bad ones"
A big issue I have with PF2e coming from 5e is not feeling like my Wizard is a specialist in some field of magic. I really like Illusion Wizard in 5e, and the subclass features lean into that very well. It helps me feel like I am playing an Illusion Wizard, not only casting the spells, but also using my subclass features in conjunction with them. PF2e does have some features - mainly Convincing Illusion - but it's not enough. There's not much that makes me feel like I am playing some other than a generic spellcaster. There's nothing baked into the class to help me feel like I am playing a person who studied Mentalism magic and wields than any other casting class.
The big thing I wish was brought up is flexible casting. How strong is it? What does the way it was balanced or designed say about Wizards? How does it influence the class fantasy of the Wizards that take it? To what extent does it influence the ceiling and the floor of the class?
People complain about Vancian and I'm inclined to agree. The corpse of the sacred cow has rotted in the well long ago. Yet the system designers keep drawing from the bad water.
@@MagnificentMelkior This is an unproductive comment. I *love* playing around with Vancian casting and can still acknowledge that (a) it has problems with bloat and skill floors that need fixing, and (b) there's no reason for *11* out of 27 classes to directly use it and have their power budget affected by it. There is room for both.
As an anecdote, my GM decided to port our ongoing campaign from 5e to PF2e, and I was playing a Wizard there. After exploring my options in PF2e, I REALLY didn't like what my feat options and overall fantasy of the class was looking like. It felt just like a blank template with just selecting spells and preparing them... I will look into the Wizards+ and see if that changes my perspective and hopefully it gets my GM approval lol. The few feats you presented look much more interesting that the current official ones
my main complaint about wizard is that i never see a reason to play it over arcane sorcerer(or witch if the party really needs an int class) and that's even assuming we need an arcane caster. i find occult does everything i want out of arcane except for damage spells, and primal does everything i want out of arcane except for shutting off reactions it's just really gm dependant whether preparing spells even matters when buying scrolls and handing them to your familiar is an option(manual dexterity + independent) and 90% of situations can be solve with a sorcerer's spell pool size anyway. the pros dont outweigh the cons for me, and spellsub+boundary feels almost mandatory to be a cool wizard imo, the other subclasses suck
michael seyre's comment also misses the fact that versatility and consistency is a strength. prepping 1 slow, 1 3rd rank fear and 1 fireball is not the same as having those 3 spells on a lvl 6 sorcerer and being able to pick any one to use as needed sure, you wont be able to prep some other random good 3rd level spell (roaring applause for example) but again, scrolls exist and party coordination makes me never feel like im missing a vital spell to deal with a particular type of foe even at its best, the wizard just has to hope to never be caught off guard by anything ever.
@@ferrisffalcis I have to strongly disagree with Occult being able to do everything Arcane does. It has middling damage, sucky control, worse defensive buffing, and while it’s ahead for debuffing in some narrow ways (like Synesthesia) it’s worse for debuffing in several other ways (no Ignite Fireworks, for example). All in all I consider Occult to be a much more offensively limited spell list, but it trades off for that by being the single best buffer in the game by a very wide margin. Primal IS a lot closer to Arcane, I’ll agree with you there. I consider Primal to generally be the best jack of all trades list, but that doesn’t mean it’s better than Arcane. Arcane still brings plenty of things to the table that Primal can’t (and vice versa). As for your example of Prepared being worse, Prepared will always look worse if you just take a snapshot of 3 generically good spells because that’s not what Prepared is meant to do. If all you’re doing is preparing the same 3 spells you cast as a Sorcerer, you’ll perform worse yes. Where Prepared’s strength comes in is that it doesn’t have to prepare Fireball + Fear + Slow every single day. One day you know you’re fighting wisps for some of your encounters and you change that to Force Barrage + Force Barrage + Fireball. One day you know you’re mainly facing animal-type enemies (who tend to have poor Will and high Fortitude) and change your list to Fear, Agonizing Despair, Fireball. One day you know you’re getting in a boat and suddenly have Air Bubble prepared. Prepared casters aren’t about using 3 spells again and again day after day. They’re best used for switching your spell list up in small but significant ways every single day. And to be clear I do consider this to be somewhat of a problem. You need to play a Wizard really well to use your preparations well. Wizards need features like Cleric’s Font to offset the downside of poor preparation (though ideally not as potent as the Font).
overall: not a fan of trying to sell team+ products as part of your videos, i prefer talking about the things i can actually play in my tables. i prefer doing my own homebrew if need be, and while i appreciate some of these wizard changes i look forward to another video analysing when to use/not use certain RAW features or even discussions of fully minmaxed character builds
@@Mathfinder-aaa I agree with your assessment; There are ways in which a prepared caster will succeed and pop off, I just don't often find them happening in my tables but maybe that's just a skill issue, or GM difference Like even if I were to know I'm fighting a bunch of wisps, it's likely one of my signature spells is good enough to handle it, or a couple scrolls will do the trick, and so on. But most times what ends up really happening is that my party fights similar creature types most of the campaign (i.e. the bbeg is a devil, so lots of devil enemies) or the amount of information is insufficient to prepare what feels right for the day. "you will be going to an ancient mausoleum in a desert" might get you prepping to fight mummies and constructs but you never quite know what specific amounts you'll need, etc the skill ceiling thing feels more like a "The DM needs to spoon feed me too much info or i die" and even then arcane witch still does the wizard better, as a prepped spellcaster, if that's what I'm going for
You can still batman from playing alchemist or buying items, especially scrolls even if Wizard was deleted. imo it even feels better to commit permanent resources to batmanning because that feels more batman. Other thing I wonder about, though. Most people seem to consider Recall Knowledge as part of a Wizard's power budget. Should it be? And if so, should the ability to pick up lores (like undead lore) be? Should the ability to craft be? The fact that it's an Int class puts these things in the class's power budget, like it or not. But should they be?
@@pirosopus9497 I have a feeling the designers rate Intelligence fairly highly within a class’s power budget. Potentially higher than they rate Charisma, perhaps tied with Strength and Constitution? Now whether they “should” is… a complex question. The designers generally balance with the assumption that if the players can potentially achieve something, the game needs to be balanced even when they achieve it. But for things like Recall Knowledge it can be… complicated. Take Knowledge Domain Cleric Archetype for Scholarly Recollection, take a Familiar to scout ahead. Now you try to make all your Recall Knowledge checks out of combat. Does the game “expect” this? I don’t know for sure, but I don’t *think* it does. All that to say, it’s hard to balance a class that can have such high variability when Intelligence can be used both in and out of combat to gain an advantage. IMO the best solution is simply what Wizards+ did: give people ways to spend their Actions on easy and powerful effects (both in and out of combat) that would compete with the play patterns you’re talking about, so it raises the floor but not the ceiling.
The only chance I'd make to the wizard class is giving them their advanced school spell for free without paying a class feat. Otherwise, they are good.
Hmmm how broken would it be if i as the Gm just gave my wizard 2 extra 2nd highest level spell slots per level? so for example level 3 they would have 5 level 1 spell slots and 2 level 2 spell slots. This would thus give them more tools in their toolbox and allow them to prep more silver bullet spells like laughing fit.
In my opinion, it would be way too strong to give the Wizard that many 2nd-highest rank spells. In fact Scroll Adept pretty thoroughly tells us that it is not okay to give the Wizard 2 additional spell slots unless they are at least 2 ranks lower than the max, if not more.
Very good video and food for thought. As the other comments, I am ok with you stating clearly that you are going to promote a 3rd party ad right from the start. If it's you promoting 3pp, I am totally ok with that, as I trust your judgement and wouldn't otherwise be subscribed to a MATH youtuber haha.
Good video, but I think it should have been more clear that half the video is about third party material. I was hoping to see how to be a better wizard with official material
@@vamshiaruru5494 I think pointing to third party products that have extremely good implementations of the Wizard is honestly the best way to push the conversation forward. Like I could talk for hours about homebrew ideas but… the sort of homebrew that the Wizard needs to solve its problems is *well* beyond the scope of a simple house rule or two (and in fact plenty of commonly suggested house rules like giving all Wizards a +2 to their DC or Spell Sub will mess up the game).
@@PadishahArmin It is “sponsored” in that I have a free copy and a discount code for y’all. But make no mistake, they didn’t approach me, I approached them. I had a friend get me into their playtest process, and then asked if I could promote their book because I genuinely believe they’re one of the ONLY solutions to the Wizards’ problems that actually addresses my major problems.
@@Mathfinder-aaa I'm glad I read this before getting to the Wizards+ part of the video, because otherwise I would have assumed it was an ad. In the future, being explicit with exactly your relationship with the products you extensively mention (like "I'm not recieving compensation for talking about this, I just like it" rather than "I was a playtester") could help clear that up and keep us informed how potentially biased the video may be. I _personally_ don't have a problem with people taking sponsorships, but I want it to be clear if what I'm watching had been paid for.
I think most people who complain about wizards don't actually want to play a wizard, they want to play a magus or a sorceror or a bard. That said, more ways to flexibly use your spell slots would be cool, especially ones that are more generic and rudimentary and I really like all the Wizards+ content showcased here, it's really flavourful and fun stuff.
@@DemonBlanka I think to *some* extent I agree. There are a surprising number of people I see comments from who just very much dislike the most basic parts of a Wizard (sometimes right down to casting spells at all, like demanding that Wizards become just like Kineticists). Obviously that’s not a crowd that Paizo should listen to at all. Classes should be designed for people who want that fantasy, not as an 11th option for people who have 10 other ways to hit their fantasy. In the video I largely try to address what I believe are reasonable complaints from people who like the idea of the Wizard but feel it’s missing something in the implementation.
Yes, I mean I want to play the thematics of a wizard but not their mechanics. But I freely admit that an Intelligence-based sorcerer or a way to make the wizard a spontaneous caster would work for me. It's why I loved how they did it in Starfinder 1e of having every caster be spontaneous and make prepared casting a variant rule, so every caster could be both.
WIzards+ seems cool, and I fully recognize that this is an insanely nitpicky take, but the content shown off had some obvious errors that make me a bit skeptical. I have a hard time taking a paid product seriously if they're gonna pluralize monsters as "monster's" lol More materially, the text was written awkwardly and ambiguously at times, and some shown mechanics (e.g. "You ended an encounter in the last hour") seem to depart from PF2e design conventions in ways that might cause rules adjudication weirdness. The designs are interesting for sure, but the roughness around the edges gives me doubts as to whether the content is balanced and well-designed enough to rival official content
I’ve gotten a few comments suggesting that this video is a “hidden ad” so let me just be extra explicit about it.
First: this is not just an ad. This is me musing about the Wizard’s design, and it’s a video I planned to release anyways, and it just *happened* to coincide with Wizards+ release, so I asked them if I could promote them over on this channel. The only reason Wizards+ is being mentioned is because I genuinely believe it to be the best third party solution to the Wizard that I have ever seen. I have received no monetary compensation for talking about it either.
I have a couple comments asking me why I’m suggesting a third party solution at all instead of providing a solution to official material. I CAN’T provide you with a first party solution because I’m not Paizo. Any suggestions I provide to fix the Wizard will automatically be third party (and will inherit all the problems of having to convince your GM and whatnot). So if I’m suggesting third party fixes anyways I’ll point you to a book designed by a way better team of designers than myself.
Future design musings videos (if I make more) will not always involve a specific third party solution. This one just happened to. I hope that makes sense!
To those who are hesitant to watch the full video because of comments calling it an “ad”, I am going to ask you to keep an open mind and try anyways. The whole video is timestamped, you can skip whatever you’d like to, but the “ad” is mostly me just gushing about some awesome Feats and explaining how this fixes my problems with the Wizard.
I appreciate you mentioning Wizard+ personally. It offers a well-designed alternative to what Paizo offers officially. I really do enjoy a lot of the content offered on Pathfinder Infinite, and I think it's oft forgotten by members of this community during discussions. I'm not 100% sure if that's due to a sense of brand loyalty to Paizo, or some innate fear of homebrew content because people see 2e as a "well-designed system" (which by the way, I most certainly think it is having come to this system off DnD 5e) but it's something I've observed during discussions in the online 2e community.
I also think you make great points about how playing Wizard well, requires you to be really smart about how you choose things (you have to be closer in real life to the character you are playing than you do for many others). This is not really the case for other casters nearly as much. As an example, Cleric fulfills a very different party role, but a Clerics ability to just fall back on their divine font regardless of whatever else you have prepared gives a Cleric player a lot of leeway to experiment with the spells they wish to try. Not to mention, I think there's an argument to be had that the mechanic of Wizards being so much more limited by their spellbook in terms of what they can prepare as compared to a Druid or Cleric works directly counter to that fantasy of the "always prepared" character.
I very much so like the concept of letting Wizards fulfill other class fantasies. I would personally rather play a scatter-brained borderline neurodivergent Wizard whose token art is him trying and failing to balance a stack of 25 textbooks .
Really love your videos, but using a paid 3rd party option to "solve" an official class feels like a DnD 5e youtuber. We play Pf2 because we got tired of having to homebrew and search for solution to broken classes every 5min. I'd much rather have you cover ways to design a good Wizard and play with their strengths.
@NodeBoy1337 I already have a video planned on how to play the Wizard well using RAW options, but there’s no reason to demonize third party classes in this game because of a completely unrelated toxic culture from an entirely different game.
Using 3pp to round out fantasies for players who didn’t get represented in the base game is almost exactly the whole reason for 3pp to exist.
Honestly just ignore those people. Even if this is an "ad", it is still in line with your channel, and you are making arguments for why you think these things are good/bad.
If they think you are running PR, then they should be able to easily dismantle your points.
I'd agree Wizard is powerful enough as is. But I also think it needs a "flavor buff". I think new or improved thesis and schools would go a long way for that. Pathfinder classes have a distinctiveness to them that seem to be missing here. Your example is great because it shows that with the Wizards+ stuff they get that, and build into the fantasy more than the base class.
I kinda do that, i have Homebrew some stuff, grabbed some other, a few more school's and more spell selection in all of those, a new "subclass option" y call it "tools of the craft", the familiar and Staff options are there + some more (give a skill like nature, craft, and skill feats like train animal, specialty craft woodwork).
As for feats... I just copied the features from the wizard of 5e 😂, and the druid "order exploration" --- "postgraduate studies" (extra thesis)
It doesn't get the wizard to be more powerful, but certainly give more room for fantasy build.
It needs feats too. I would like to see more flavorful feats. Look how much fun witches have while being impactful. It just doesn't feel exciting to play Wizard
I think a cool way to lower the skill floor while preserving a batman fantasy would be adding a spell slot equivalent of the prescient planner feat. You can designate one or two unfilled "predicted" spell slots to retroactively decide are filled with a certain spell as a reaction when you recall knowledge against a creature
That would be lowering the skill floor
@@MagnificentMelkior my b that's what I meant
That would be neat. It might help counterspell be more viable, too.
Yeah, pretty good points.
I completely agree that all the ‘problems’ with the wizard stem from the fact that the class was designed at a time when the balance issue didn't exist, and the idea that more experienced players (and their characters) simply by virtue of knowing the system should gain a big advantage was self-evident. Some sort of balance in the first editions of DnD was achieved by the fragility of wizards and their relative weakness compared to martial classes at early levels. But there was no talk of each class being comparable in strength at any given level with enough player experience and capability at any given level with enough player experience. So these ‘problems’ are part of the same old discussion about "old school" RPGs vs modern RPGs.
In my opinion in Pf2e magic users at later levels, although they don't turn into demigods compared to ‘normal mortal martials’, they still have a lot more options for problem solving. The wizard here is still better than any other class at picking the right spell for the moment, performing the necessary ritual, and so on and so forth. But what it really lacks sometimes is the special ‘theme’ that all the other classes have. Sorcerers have a bloodline, witches have a connection to the patron. Wizards, on the other hand, do not feel like they have a theme, even though it is obvious: scholarship. If one were to strengthen wizards' knowledge checks, related abilities, knowledge of languages and so on, it wouldn't give them some huge boost in power on the one hand, but on the other hand it would give the very colouring without which he feels like someone ’bland’.
In fact, it's usually quite achievable with archetypes anyway. But as far as desired changes go, this is it. (Besides making the bard back a demicaster, of course :) )
@@Максим-ж4ж9б I’m curious about your opinions about high level magic users not being demigods, because in my experience *everyone* feels demigodlike at those high levels.
Like sure the Barbarian can jump across a 40 foot chasm with little difficulty, the Swashbuckler can fall from space, and the Rogue can practically disappear into thin air. But also also my Wizard permanently has things like Tailwind, See the Unseen, Elemental Sense, Carryall, Pet Cache, etc boosting her as well as plenty of options like Gentle Landing, Gecko Grip, Water Breathing, Ant Haul, etc, making sure that she always feels superhuman too.
@Mathfinder-aaa
Yeah, you're right. I worded that wrong.
I meant that a wizard at later levels no longer feels like a demigod in compare (!) to the martial classes of the respective levels.
I'll clarify what I mean by that. Back in the days of 1st and 2nd edition (which is where I started), a fighter at later levels simply got tougher and swung his iron more effectively. But all of his ‘’fantasy-ness‘’ was only defined by the magical items on him. Otherwise, he was a fairly normal fellow and felt the same. And for a range of classes: fighter, rogue, barbarian, ranger, there wasn't any qualitative difference between how a character felt at early levels and late levels except for their "experience and mastery". It was both about the vibe and the gaming possibilities. There were classes that became more fantastic as they grew in levels, like the monk. But magic users and especially the wizard ahead of everyone else were different. Because he wasn't just becoming more fantastic, but was getting more and more game capabilities that "casual fighters" never got to see.
So, If at first you have a capable fighter and a man in a funny hat who can cast a magic arrow a couple of times a day, then by the end you have on one side a dude who has learnt over the years to swing an axe very well and many times a round, and on the other side someone who can teleport, get to other worlds, fly, summon dragons, turn into dragons, pour fire all around and change reality at will. He also has some special spell for every occasion. He also doesn't really need a fighter, because he can replace him with certain spells. In this sense, wizards used to become demigods compared to warrior classes. (Although, to be fair, I personally never saw anyone seriously playing first editions DnD companies until such late levels, this problem was more ‘theoretical’).
This situation was inherited in both 3rd edition and Pathfinder 1e. In some ways, it has been weakened by some game-mechanical balance tweaks, like the universal save throw system, but not fundamentally. Because of this, there was a well-known talk about character tiers based on their capabilities.
But Pathfinder2e changed that situation in a very big way.
Firstly, as you rightly point out, all classes become ‘fantastic’ as they grow in levels. Not just through class abilities, but also through skill feats and ancestary feats. And a high-level fighter now doesn't just feel like a dude who swings an iron particularly well, but like a demigod who can jump a couple of floors high and take down a dragon in flight.
Secondly, Paizo basically reworked spells that made other classes' skills unnecessary (such as “knock”). Now the proficiency is valuable and irreplaceable. So, a wizard can sometimes slightly replace an experienced thief, or someone with advanced survival or climbing skills, but can never compete with them.
Third, magic has continued to be weakened due to conception of "tight" balance. Direct damage from spells is now relatively lower than before and wizards need someone extra to deal direct damage. Also the strongest spells have been nerfed or made rituals. And also everyone has access to this "gamebreaking" rituals now.
So, because of all this, the wizard no longer feels particularly unfairly powerful compared to the others. But it still has the widest utilitarian capabilities and versatility in the game. This is still a class with a "suitable spell for every occasion", still a class that can organize teleportation, flight, mass invisibility, disguise and protection from a specific danger, and so on. By and large, he now feels like a "nerd in the team." And I actually think that's a good thing. So, any changes in class characteristics that emphasize this "nerd" trait of the wizard, make him more thematically defined, I consider a step in the right direction.
P.S. Unfortunately, since I live in Russia, I can't buy a Wizard+ book. But as far as I understand from the preview in the video, exactly such options have been presented there. It is very good. I hope that Paizo is looking at the opinion of the community and 3d party materials before creating the third edition.
The Wizard is also very GM and campaign dependent, when you think about it. How else are you supposed to prepare but base it on information you have? And information you have depends on your GM and campaign. A spontaneous caster is solid when it comes to strongly themed campaigns and situations changing by the *second* , but a prepared has a HUGE edge in campaigns with situations changing by *day* and military operation level scouting and briefings. They use information differently. But should that even be a thing to differentiate classes by? I personally don't think it's good design to put so much power budget and class identity into things that are not only out of the player's control but out of the player's consideration.
I've seen this in other comments in this and other discussions, but I think the biggest problem is that vancian casting is just terrible. For a new player, it doesn't represent any classic fantasy of wizardry except for Jack Vance novels and some fiction that is deliberately including dnd mechanics. Many dnd based novels ignore it as well.
I'm not a game designer, I don't have an innovative new solution. I don't know how difficult a mana system or something else would be to balance, but spell slots just feel like the worst mechanic to base your magic on. That's just my perspective from 30 years in this hobby, off and on.
Skill issue
I really liked your video and I agree with your reasoning about why the wizard is 'bad.' A friend of mine already bought Wizards+, but I haven't read it fully yet. Since some of the comments are discussing more HB or RAW solutions instead of a third-party option, you could mention things like the variant rule they have for Spell Substitution or the Spell Blending Thesis as separate options for all wizards (since those two are arguably the best thesis and also help with the issue of having useless spells for the day) or the option of selecting a second thesis at level 11.
There isn't really an official solution for the high skill floor of the wizard aside from Paizo releasing pre-made spell lists for different playstyles so that newer players can start without needing to read through hundreds of spells.
It's been refreshing having an enthusiastic wizard player doing analysis on the system. Thank you for continuing your efforts. I also struggled with the class fantasy, because I do like being the prepared player. Currently doing this on an alchemist.
oh I've been looking for a review on wizards+
that usually doesn't get much coverage. so that was a nice surprise.
and yea I agree. one point on the prepared batman fantasy
sure you can pack a bunch of stuff "just in case", but that's not really being prepared for what's coming up.
For that.. there's really nothing. spell substitution kinda, but even that might not be enough.
That just so much depends on the GM to properly foreshadow or let you figure out what's ahead.
And sure, a good GM might do that. But we shouldn't put that burden on the GM.
Do wish there was a way to swap out spells on the fly. Maybe link it to spell substitution, maybe limit it to not your max rank slots, and maybe make that a focus spell, idk.
I disagree with his opinion that wizard class fantasy is to be a tactical genius. It's to be a scholarly mage. But most scholars are not tactical geniuses and intact might be too impractical Clumsy etc to perform well as a field tactician. It would be a mistake it infuse the class with some kind of "be tactical" abilities. It should just be the case that a wizard who is tactically minded is fearsome to behold. Just like fighter can be, but doesnt have to be, a skilled tactician.
What's a Batman fantasy?
Nice video! Lots of good points, except the not needing to be Strong to play a Barb but needing to be tactical to play a Wizard imo. PF2e is a more tactics oriented TTRPG so everybody benefits from being tactical. Not saying Wizard is easy, but this point feels in bad faith.
I do agree Wizard needs something to elevate it beyond smart man with spells, preferably something iconic. I think some Wizard-unique spellshapes would be pretty fun and go well with the idea of somebody that mastered magic through study.
Maybe I should have Wizard+ a go. I had some really bad experiences with the wizard, first time was exploring a cave, this doesn’t tell me anything at all of what to prepare. I asked to RK, was told to roll a Nature check which I do not have. Fail got told nothing.
Spells are useless, the story wouldn’t let me rest and recharge, leaving me basically just standing in the corner twiddling my thumbs for the whole session. It’s so GM dependent, the floor is basically a pit. It was a very disappointing 3 hours.
As I've stated in the past. Ivory Tower Game Design basically only still exists with PF2e with Spell Slot Spells. The fact that Leveled Spell Slots is one of the few things from the original D&D that is still around shows how archaic it is.
I wish removing Leveled Spell Slots as a magic system could be done, replaced with something more streamlined and boosted the skill floor (like if you replaced all the spells into what exploit feats are)
But at least patches like Wizards+ and the stuff Paizo has done with all the other magic classes do help a decent amount.
Validating to hear someone else have the same complaints about wizards, cool as hell to use your platform to promote small, third party projects :)
I think the cleanest solution here is allowing retroactive spell preparation.
Based on the character’s intelligence level, a certain number of their prepared spells remain flexible. At the appropriate time per day, the player can “lock” one of their flexibly prepared spells and declare that their character had prepared a known spell of their choosing at the beginning of the day
:/
I am a passionate PF2e wizard player, and I agree and disagree.
While people argue that many of the wizard's feats or other in-class options are bland, I agree. But, I don't find it to be a problem given how the system works as a whole. Instead, I would suggest that the wizard is a chassis that is ready to be fleshed out with any number of themes or RP that you desire. Simply put, the wizard class is an amazing chassis to archetype with. So I would counter that there is nothing 'wrong' with the wizard. Merely that the player is lacking creativity and system mastery.
Which gets into the system mastery to use wizard. I have zero problems with this. I find it actually refreshing to have a class that rewards system mastery. It gives those of us puzzle lovers a toy to play with.
I would change pretty much nothing about the current wizard.
@@joejohnson9499 I’m not sure how to respond to this, because I feel like I’ve addressed your second paragraph pretty thoroughly.
I *also* think a class that rewards system mastery is a good thing. That’s why I keep saying leave the ceiling unchanged, just buff the floor for those who have no interest in system mastery, leave the ceiling for those like myself that like it.
@Mathfinder-aaa I apologize that I did not make it clear. It was intended as a critique of critiques. Not a critique of you.
Firstly leading that this was a very thoughtful video! It was nice to see that you addressed the concerns of the Wizard, particularly post-Remaster, and provided genuine feedback for what would be good for solutions =]
Now, as any good Wizard-stan, I'll follow with a small essay in the rest of the comment xD
Fully agreed that the Wizard really needs to lean into Recall Knowledge a LOT more! I love the "Knowledge is Power" feat brought in with the Remaster, but it needs more support. I'd love there to be a feat chain similar to the Ranger's Monster Hunter tree, allowing the Wizard to be the spellcasting version to the Ranger's martial-focused bonus!
I also agree that just upping the DC's of the Wizard would be a massive overcorrection, but I do like the idea of the Wizard being the "Fighter" of Spellcasters. For me, I think the solution is very simple for that: make Wizards get their Proficiency increases soon than other Spellcasters! By like 2 levels, 5th, 13th, and 17th respectively, so it doesn't feel outrageously outpacing but it does feed into the fantasy of a character who truly understands the fundamentals and mechanics of magic better than any other profession.
And in general there needs to be a LOT more support to the Wizard's fantasy in their class feats and features. I'm playing a Wizard in our group's current campaign and I am having a LOT of fun with it, but most of my class feats are being / will be used for Multiclassing into Psychic and later Time Mage to build out my "Chronomancer" fantasy beyond just spell selections.
So my wishlist for Wizards in 3E would definitely include the following:
-Assuming the retention of the Proficiency system, make Wizards gain their increases earlier than other casters
-Assuming something similar to Vancian casting, make Spell Substitution a core part of the class rather than an optional Thesis, and give the Wizard a limited means to change their spells on the fly (maybe a Focus Spell all Wizards get access to? Swap a spell and make a Recall Knowledge check as part of the same action/s, or a once-per-minute two or three action activity)
-Give Wizards a way to dabble in other Curricula, like the Druid with Order Explorer or Bard with Multifarious Muse. Call it Extracurricular Studies, BAM, good to go!
-Give Wizards a means to dabble in other Traditions! Make it limited in what rank they can do it up to, but it would be awesome to allow a Wizard to add spells from other Traditions into their spellbook and get some use out of them (the Human Ancestry feat Adapted Cantrip comes to mind, maybe let Wizards do something similar and grant access to higher-rank spells with other feats) That fantasy is already there to a lesser degree by the Unified Magical Theory feat for Legendary Arcana, so let 'em really lean into it!
-Give them more Recall Knowledge feats and abilities that reward the Wizard and their teammates for the nerd doing nerdy stuff!
-More of the Arcane Array feats, there's only two and one is completely redundant if you have a Bard in the party (we do xP) and can benefit baddies, which doesn't feel great.
-Those Exploit feats you describe from Wizards+ sounds really cool and harken back to what I loved most about playing the Arcanist in 1E! Allowing them to repurpose particular spells for different effects seems like such an active bit of magical reengineering that now I desperately want that for my class fantasy xP And that could be another Thesis, where you have the one that grants you bonus Spellshape feats, a "Exploit Expertise" Thesis could give you bonus feats for Exploits!
Imagine being a high INT caster class and not having acess to Hypercognition. Or not having RK feats... Just give me a spellshape that lets me RK on the monster.
Wizard is really powerfull, 4 slots and the thesis can be very powerfull, but in the other hand -> Sorcerer. Wizard is just not worth to spending your time, you can just make a Arcane Sorcerer with Arcane evolution.
Now Wizards+ (that is not a must that you GM gonna accept) are what wizards want, wizards have really really really bad class feats, Strok Chin is nice kinda better than Cognitive Crossover. Exploit is really nice, specially in high levels because you have spell slots not used.
In the end IMO, the problem is Vancian casting, I will always hit this nail and trowing out Vancian casting out of the window is always the answer. Is easier to balance the game without it.
@@ratfckr I have a milder version of your Vancian casting take!
IMO the problem is that we have nearly half the classes in the game interacting with Vancian or pseudo-Vancian casting. It creates a huge balancing problem because anyone can dip into any of their 1000 ish slotted spell options, and the game has to be balanced for that possibility.
If there were only, say, 3 or 4 Vancian casting classes (like say, Wizard is Prepared, Bard is Spontaneous, and a couple others) and the rest all had their own bespoke magic systems there’d be more power budget freed up to make the classes better.
@@Mathfinder-aaai would love that. Like I enjoy how Animist is handled. Sorcerer should be a “spell point” system, I could see Bard preparing “concertos” being lists of spells that they have to cast in a specific order, but gain specific benefits based on the content etc.
Druid I feel could gain a lot of benefits akin to Geomancers for “power from the land” emphasis.
@ Yo, you’re *cooking* with that concertos idea, if you ever have the time it’d be a fun little thing to publish on Pathfinder Infinite.
@@Mathfinder-aaa thank you! I quite literally came up with it after a short think of your thought of too many vancian casters. With a second thought, “concerto” is arguably too music based seeing as Bards can do several different performance types, so I’ll definitely do some brainstorming
@@tyrusdaletyou could call them recitals! That fits pretty much every art form. It could be focused on creating a set of recitals that you have prepared that are spells in a specific order, must be used within 10 minutes of starting or something, and then have a few slots of single spells for utility or emergency (called encores? Interludes? Intercessions?)
It would be neat bc they could be dances, grand tales, songs, poems, whatever, and would really tie bard casting thematically to their arts (ex. Maybe a tale called the Hero's Journey starts with Heroism, Runic Weapon, Fear, Biting Words, etc)
Edit: leveling up would grant you access to more recitals, longer recitals, and/or more flexibility in your recitals, based on subclass. Maybe you can't repeat spells in it unless you take the "repetitive performance," and maybe enigma bards could change one of the spells of their recital as they create an unexpected twist, Maestros could skip the next spell as they're experts in reading their audience, Polymath could include skill checks and get a bonus on those skill checks, and warrior muse could do the same with strikes
I think the batman-fantasy of the wizard was just easier to do back in the day cause you had more powerful ways of finding out what you might be up against or what would be good to have in your back pocket. I also think that people forget how many options you have when it comes to magical items such as scrolls and wands and such (something that has always been a part of a wizards identity too imo).
Awesome stuff as always- A deep dive on game systems would be great
Back in the day wizards were actually best described as the parties insurance policy. In AD&D wizards began as profoundly weak. Clerics and martial classes truly ruled the early levels. But if your wizard survived until level 5+, that was when it became the absolute powerhouse that could carry the party. It was the power fantasy of 'You were basically the easiest thing in the world to kill, now you're the terror'. At high levels, the thing you wanted to have in the party to deal with an enemy wizard, was your own. Otherwise it could wipe a party like it was nothing.
@@atremious1671 “actually best described as the party’s insurance policy”
Funny you say that, because I have an upcoming video on the role of spellcasters which will be saying something very similar. 👀
I played a wizard until level 6. (which is unfortunately the highest level character I've ever had in Pathfinder)
Preparedness: This requires that the party can scout at least a day in advance, or the wizard needs the Thesis Spell Substitution.
If you're heading into a dungeon - you're likely going in hoping that whatever spells you have prepared will do.
A wizard is a 6 HP caster with 3 or 4 spells per rank. The School spells are often situational and thus seldom useful.
Drain Bonded item is awesome, though, even better than a highest rank spell, as one can use it for crucial low level utility spells,if needed.
...
Theses are not balanced. Spell Blending is very powerful. Spell substitution will make preparing the right spells much easier.
___
Wizards shine on lore, craft, recall knowledge and other int skills.
With newfound focus on Class Archetypes I hope that runelord gets more than just fresh coat of paint (i sorta dig the polearm angle for a gishlike light armor caster but thats a fantasy of its own) or that the more specialised fantasies get one as well that would raise the floor for the price of ceiling. Something to take off the cognitive load of having to know the entire arcane spell list even after filtering out the "bad ones"
Man I already bought the PDF though lmao.
I love all Mathfinder videos!
A big issue I have with PF2e coming from 5e is not feeling like my Wizard is a specialist in some field of magic. I really like Illusion Wizard in 5e, and the subclass features lean into that very well. It helps me feel like I am playing an Illusion Wizard, not only casting the spells, but also using my subclass features in conjunction with them.
PF2e does have some features - mainly Convincing Illusion - but it's not enough. There's not much that makes me feel like I am playing some other than a generic spellcaster. There's nothing baked into the class to help me feel like I am playing a person who studied Mentalism magic and wields than any other casting class.
The big thing I wish was brought up is flexible casting. How strong is it? What does the way it was balanced or designed say about Wizards? How does it influence the class fantasy of the Wizards that take it? To what extent does it influence the ceiling and the floor of the class?
People complain about Vancian and I'm inclined to agree.
The corpse of the sacred cow has rotted in the well long ago. Yet the system designers keep drawing from the bad water.
Then don't play it. Some of us like it
@@MagnificentMelkior This is an unproductive comment. I *love* playing around with Vancian casting and can still acknowledge that (a) it has problems with bloat and skill floors that need fixing, and (b) there's no reason for *11* out of 27 classes to directly use it and have their power budget affected by it. There is room for both.
@@MagnificentMelkior I'm happy for you that you like it.
Sorry if my comment offends you.
As an anecdote, my GM decided to port our ongoing campaign from 5e to PF2e, and I was playing a Wizard there. After exploring my options in PF2e, I REALLY didn't like what my feat options and overall fantasy of the class was looking like. It felt just like a blank template with just selecting spells and preparing them... I will look into the Wizards+ and see if that changes my perspective and hopefully it gets my GM approval lol. The few feats you presented look much more interesting that the current official ones
my main complaint about wizard is that i never see a reason to play it over arcane sorcerer(or witch if the party really needs an int class) and that's even assuming we need an arcane caster.
i find occult does everything i want out of arcane except for damage spells, and primal does everything i want out of arcane except for shutting off reactions
it's just really gm dependant whether preparing spells even matters when buying scrolls and handing them to your familiar is an option(manual dexterity + independent) and 90% of situations can be solve with a sorcerer's spell pool size anyway.
the pros dont outweigh the cons for me, and spellsub+boundary feels almost mandatory to be a cool wizard imo, the other subclasses suck
michael seyre's comment also misses the fact that versatility and consistency is a strength. prepping 1 slow, 1 3rd rank fear and 1 fireball is not the same as having those 3 spells on a lvl 6 sorcerer and being able to pick any one to use as needed
sure, you wont be able to prep some other random good 3rd level spell (roaring applause for example) but again, scrolls exist and party coordination makes me never feel like im missing a vital spell to deal with a particular type of foe
even at its best, the wizard just has to hope to never be caught off guard by anything ever.
@@ferrisffalcis I have to strongly disagree with Occult being able to do everything Arcane does. It has middling damage, sucky control, worse defensive buffing, and while it’s ahead for debuffing in some narrow ways (like Synesthesia) it’s worse for debuffing in several other ways (no Ignite Fireworks, for example). All in all I consider Occult to be a much more offensively limited spell list, but it trades off for that by being the single best buffer in the game by a very wide margin.
Primal IS a lot closer to Arcane, I’ll agree with you there. I consider Primal to generally be the best jack of all trades list, but that doesn’t mean it’s better than Arcane. Arcane still brings plenty of things to the table that Primal can’t (and vice versa).
As for your example of Prepared being worse, Prepared will always look worse if you just take a snapshot of 3 generically good spells because that’s not what Prepared is meant to do. If all you’re doing is preparing the same 3 spells you cast as a Sorcerer, you’ll perform worse yes. Where Prepared’s strength comes in is that it doesn’t have to prepare Fireball + Fear + Slow every single day. One day you know you’re fighting wisps for some of your encounters and you change that to Force Barrage + Force Barrage + Fireball. One day you know you’re mainly facing animal-type enemies (who tend to have poor Will and high Fortitude) and change your list to Fear, Agonizing Despair, Fireball. One day you know you’re getting in a boat and suddenly have Air Bubble prepared.
Prepared casters aren’t about using 3 spells again and again day after day. They’re best used for switching your spell list up in small but significant ways every single day.
And to be clear I do consider this to be somewhat of a problem. You need to play a Wizard really well to use your preparations well. Wizards need features like Cleric’s Font to offset the downside of poor preparation (though ideally not as potent as the Font).
..rudimentary perfectionism feels like it breaks force barrage beautifully in unintended ways, huh
overall: not a fan of trying to sell team+ products as part of your videos, i prefer talking about the things i can actually play in my tables. i prefer doing my own homebrew if need be, and while i appreciate some of these wizard changes i look forward to another video analysing when to use/not use certain RAW features or even discussions of fully minmaxed character builds
@@Mathfinder-aaa I agree with your assessment; There are ways in which a prepared caster will succeed and pop off, I just don't often find them happening in my tables but maybe that's just a skill issue, or GM difference
Like even if I were to know I'm fighting a bunch of wisps, it's likely one of my signature spells is good enough to handle it, or a couple scrolls will do the trick, and so on.
But most times what ends up really happening is that my party fights similar creature types most of the campaign (i.e. the bbeg is a devil, so lots of devil enemies) or the amount of information is insufficient to prepare what feels right for the day.
"you will be going to an ancient mausoleum in a desert" might get you prepping to fight mummies and constructs but you never quite know what specific amounts you'll need, etc
the skill ceiling thing feels more like a "The DM needs to spoon feed me too much info or i die"
and even then
arcane witch still does the wizard better, as a prepped spellcaster, if that's what I'm going for
You can still batman from playing alchemist or buying items, especially scrolls even if Wizard was deleted. imo it even feels better to commit permanent resources to batmanning because that feels more batman.
Other thing I wonder about, though. Most people seem to consider Recall Knowledge as part of a Wizard's power budget. Should it be? And if so, should the ability to pick up lores (like undead lore) be? Should the ability to craft be? The fact that it's an Int class puts these things in the class's power budget, like it or not. But should they be?
@@pirosopus9497 I have a feeling the designers rate Intelligence fairly highly within a class’s power budget. Potentially higher than they rate Charisma, perhaps tied with Strength and Constitution?
Now whether they “should” is… a complex question. The designers generally balance with the assumption that if the players can potentially achieve something, the game needs to be balanced even when they achieve it. But for things like Recall Knowledge it can be… complicated. Take Knowledge Domain Cleric Archetype for Scholarly Recollection, take a Familiar to scout ahead. Now you try to make all your Recall Knowledge checks out of combat. Does the game “expect” this? I don’t know for sure, but I don’t *think* it does.
All that to say, it’s hard to balance a class that can have such high variability when Intelligence can be used both in and out of combat to gain an advantage. IMO the best solution is simply what Wizards+ did: give people ways to spend their Actions on easy and powerful effects (both in and out of combat) that would compete with the play patterns you’re talking about, so it raises the floor but not the ceiling.
The only chance I'd make to the wizard class is giving them their advanced school spell for free without paying a class feat. Otherwise, they are good.
Hmmm how broken would it be if i as the Gm just gave my wizard 2 extra 2nd highest level spell slots per level? so for example level 3 they would have 5 level 1 spell slots and 2 level 2 spell slots. This would thus give them more tools in their toolbox and allow them to prep more silver bullet spells like laughing fit.
In my opinion, it would be way too strong to give the Wizard that many 2nd-highest rank spells. In fact Scroll Adept pretty thoroughly tells us that it is not okay to give the Wizard 2 additional spell slots unless they are at least 2 ranks lower than the max, if not more.
Do you wanna see the wizard class in the ttrpg we’re home brewing?
@@richardrdotson Sure! Does… this platform have private messaging or will you have to link it to me elsewhere?
@@Mathfinder-aaa if you have an email in your contact information, or link a page with contact information I can send a link.
Very good video and food for thought. As the other comments, I am ok with you stating clearly that you are going to promote a 3rd party ad right from the start. If it's you promoting 3pp, I am totally ok with that, as I trust your judgement and wouldn't otherwise be subscribed to a MATH youtuber haha.
Good video, but I think it should have been more clear that half the video is about third party material. I was hoping to see how to be a better wizard with official material
The video started off strong, but turned into a hidden ad for a 3rd party product. Not sure if this video is sponsored or not.
@@vamshiaruru5494 I think pointing to third party products that have extremely good implementations of the Wizard is honestly the best way to push the conversation forward.
Like I could talk for hours about homebrew ideas but… the sort of homebrew that the Wizard needs to solve its problems is *well* beyond the scope of a simple house rule or two (and in fact plenty of commonly suggested house rules like giving all Wizards a +2 to their DC or Spell Sub will mess up the game).
@@PadishahArmin It is “sponsored” in that I have a free copy and a discount code for y’all.
But make no mistake, they didn’t approach me, I approached them. I had a friend get me into their playtest process, and then asked if I could promote their book because I genuinely believe they’re one of the ONLY solutions to the Wizards’ problems that actually addresses my major problems.
@@Mathfinder-aaa I'm glad I read this before getting to the Wizards+ part of the video, because otherwise I would have assumed it was an ad. In the future, being explicit with exactly your relationship with the products you extensively mention (like "I'm not recieving compensation for talking about this, I just like it" rather than "I was a playtester") could help clear that up and keep us informed how potentially biased the video may be.
I _personally_ don't have a problem with people taking sponsorships, but I want it to be clear if what I'm watching had been paid for.
I think most people who complain about wizards don't actually want to play a wizard, they want to play a magus or a sorceror or a bard. That said, more ways to flexibly use your spell slots would be cool, especially ones that are more generic and rudimentary and I really like all the Wizards+ content showcased here, it's really flavourful and fun stuff.
@@DemonBlanka I think to *some* extent I agree. There are a surprising number of people I see comments from who just very much dislike the most basic parts of a Wizard (sometimes right down to casting spells at all, like demanding that Wizards become just like Kineticists). Obviously that’s not a crowd that Paizo should listen to at all. Classes should be designed for people who want that fantasy, not as an 11th option for people who have 10 other ways to hit their fantasy.
In the video I largely try to address what I believe are reasonable complaints from people who like the idea of the Wizard but feel it’s missing something in the implementation.
Or maybe they disagree with the way the Wizard is portrayed as in Pathfinder? The mechanics that after the remaster make it feel lacking?
Yes, I mean I want to play the thematics of a wizard but not their mechanics. But I freely admit that an Intelligence-based sorcerer or a way to make the wizard a spontaneous caster would work for me. It's why I loved how they did it in Starfinder 1e of having every caster be spontaneous and make prepared casting a variant rule, so every caster could be both.
WIzards+ seems cool, and I fully recognize that this is an insanely nitpicky take, but the content shown off had some obvious errors that make me a bit skeptical. I have a hard time taking a paid product seriously if they're gonna pluralize monsters as "monster's" lol
More materially, the text was written awkwardly and ambiguously at times, and some shown mechanics (e.g. "You ended an encounter in the last hour") seem to depart from PF2e design conventions in ways that might cause rules adjudication weirdness. The designs are interesting for sure, but the roughness around the edges gives me doubts as to whether the content is balanced and well-designed enough to rival official content