Sorry Braithewaite, now I have to destroy your post.
In a very small proportion of optimized games, you are right. In the huge majority of cases, you could not be more wrong.
Obviously, you need to back that statement up. Let's see your evidence in turn.
Level 1-4. Wizards made huge gains. In these levels, the added hit points do make a huge difference, as the wizard does not need to live in fear of a stray arrow or an unlucky crit.
I agree more HP are always nice to have though, for any class. Do more HP favor Wizards more than other classes? They certainly gain a larger ratio of HP, but on the other hand, being out of harm's way most of the time means they need them less often. I think it's debatable whether Wizards are the big winners in regards to HP. I have to think Bards or Rogues benifit more.
The skill points are also important here. The change in stats raises all of their save DCs for their save or lose spells, and they have 66% more spells at level 1, 33% more level 2 spells at level 3, etc.
Oh goody. Someone reads Frank Trollman's work, or did this trickle down from someone else who read it.
This is just a fallacy. 3.5 Core Wizards can get a +2 Int too. Grey. elf. Once you move beyond Core, there are multiple +2 Int options including the almighty whisper gnome. The point is that Pathfinder Wizards won't have a higher primary stat than their 3.5 counterparts.
They may however have a higher Secondary stat, since the stats net a bonus now. However, a higher secondary stat doesn't particularly favor Wizards opposed to other classes. Show me how the Wizard gains more from a net+2 to stats (not Int) than another class.
Now, tell me this. My 3.5 Wizard casts Glitterdust, and all within make a save or are blinded for 1 round/level. In Pathfinder this spell has been nerfed so they get an extra save every round to dismiss the effect. There are no other 2nd level spells as good as the original Glitterdust in Pathfinder. Does this not mean a loss in power? If not, how so? Aren't spells the most important part of a Wizards power?
It's not just Glitterdust either. How about Grease, Protection from X, Ray of enfeeblement, Web, Alter Self and more.
How many HP does a Wizard need before weaker spells isn't the biggest factor of the changes anymore?
Level 5-12. Wizards still make big gains. Hit points do still matter for most of this range, if only in not accidently being taken out by a trap or an AOE. Skill points still matter, because it doesn't matter how good your spells are if you get crushed in a surprise round.
Now we are talking about Magic Circle, Dispel Magic, Evard's, Solid Fog (weeps), Polymorph (of course) and more. The staples of the 3.5 core wizard.
Yep, they throw you some extra HP for it, though there are far better defenses against this kind of stuff than HP. WE're of course just debating the possible power-up or power-down for the Wizard at this level. Nevermind comparing him to...oh - you've seen the Paladin now right?
Now a wizard can easily have his level ranks in spot and listen.
So what? So can every class in Pathfinder, even the fighter. Everyone gets more skills now, not just Wizards.
Feats are a big improvement.
Feats are about the same for Wizards, you get more, just like everyone else does, but about the same power wise. No candy for wizards like the Melee characters got with the critical line, or archers got with the Deadly aim solving of the damage problem.
You have 1 free item crafting feat from your bonded item, more feats in general, and the wizards feats weren't gimped like the melee ones.
Melee feats were badly gimped in Beta - in the official they went the other way. I can't think of a single 3.5 core feat that compares with any of the critical feats for example.
Some melee feats were definitely changed, but saying they are worse is debatable. Cleave no longer requires you to kill someone to get an extra attack, Power attack doubled the damage bonus for the to hit penalty, Combat Maneuver feats offer tricks you could never do in 3.5 like having your Bull Rush affect multiple targets, or having your Overrun knock people prone, or having the victim of your trip provoke attacks of opportunity from all adjacent allies.
If you add something and take something away - whether it got better or worse becomes debatable. Personally, I think melee feats that got changed, in general got better. Melee feats that were added are in some cases better than any 3.5 core option that exist for meleers period. Feats like Stunning or Blinding critical.
Your save DCs are still higher.
Still not higher.
By this level, you have a nice large spellbook, so the ability to cherry pick one needed spell per day matters.
Whoops I missed arcane bond! The Wizards achilles heel! Yeah, lets just say it's highly debatable whether this is worth giving up a familiar for. My recommendation is to keep the familiar, but it is certainly debatable.
Level 13+ Wizard loses and it doesn't matter at all. Yes, the extra hp don't matter by this point, and neither do the skills. The bonded item is less important, because the wiz can have all the right spells prepared with good scrying, or can duplicate weaker spells with things like wish or ltd wish. But, this is the least played level range, and it has always been where the wiz dominated.
How does this support the gap getting bigger? "Level 13+ Wizard loses and it doesn't matter at all."?
Let me be clear here. Your burden of proof isn't "High level wizards are tough" since I never questioned that. In fact my post specifically qualified that Wizards were still the most powerful class in the game, only that the gap was narrower than before.
In order to prove me wrong, you must show one of these things:
1) Wizards got more powerful and the non-casters didn't
2) Non-casters got less powerful and the Wizard didn't
3) Wizards gained more or lost less than the non-casters
Saying that level 13+ Wizards are tough even if they lost power overall doesn't prove any of those thngs, or even offer evidence towards any of those things.
Wizards mid-high level strength comes at least as much from his versatility as the strength of his spells. The strength of some, but not nearly all spells are nerfed, but his versatility has only improved. He has more spells (higher casting stat).
You keep coming back to this, which was false. No higher casting stat.
He can pull spells that he didn't know to prepare (Bonded item).
If he gives up his familiar, and you haven't established it as the better option.
If he encounters a situation where he needs to prepare Control Undead, or Contingency, or Charm Monster, he can do so, despite having necromancy, evocation or enchantment as banned schools, or he can use them from spell trigger or completion items.
And if we are comparing core, then 3.5 Wizards couldn't use those items. You have now demonstrated a way that Pathfinder Wizards are better. There is more too. However, you've yet to show how these abilities create power beyond the nerfing of spells, nevermind power beyond the various "swag" that every non-caster got as well.
Prove that the Wizard's zswag is better, or at least provide some evidence that it is, or provide ANY evidence that it is. Then when you are done that, then lets discuss if the difference makes up for weaker spells. You are a long way from showing me wrong here.
For 95% of games, wizards are much stronger. Dismissing that as a rumor is dishonest.
Wizards are still the best class, but the gap is narrower than in 3.5. Much narrower than 3.5 core. This certainly goes against the rumor, but the rumor is based on misleading information.
My assertation was not that the rumor was that Wizards got less powerful (though that was my personal opinion which I shared), the incorrect rumor that I described was that the "Gap" between Wizards and non-casters got bigger.
And I'll do more than dismiss it as a rumor, I'll say that I don't believe the claim.
Any claim that wizards are more powerful for me would be convincing if companied with an increase in the power of casting spells. A decrease in the power of casting spells coupled with more HP just isn't convincing.
