I feel like I am missing somethings, but character creation feels a little more confusing than I thought it would be (at least for now). Part of that is because I thought there would be a universal advancement chart, but it seems like that is not the case (at least not for first level) and some things, like "Initial Proficiencies" don't really seem to be explained very well.
I am starting by trying to make my Mejack Missall goblin wizard who memorizes magic missile in every slot that it can go in.
But to the title of the post, my first question is:
Wizards are not trained in any armor proficiency right? So unarmored they get 10+dex-2(untrained) as a base?
This seems to imply that there is no reason not to wear armor as a wizard, because they are no less proficient in any other armors, but that seems incredibly counter intuitive, so I feel like I must have that wrong.
a second thought:
Goblins with a high dex are going to be quite lethal with the produce flame cantrip. At least it takes two actions, so it won't be multi-attack spammable, but getting that extra damage, plus extra persistent damage on a crit is going to be pretty rough,
I have done a second careful check and it really does seem like the wizard would be considered untrained in unarmored proficiency. This seems like it has to be a mistake. rather than an intentional decision. As it stands, the wizard gets no benefit from casting mage armor over using leather armor, and depending on whether they are going to be trying to sneak around or do a lot of acrobatics or athletics, might even want medium or heavy armor as a default option.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Good catch. The book seems to be missing text somewhere that says "All characters are considered Trained in Unarmored Proficiency unless specified otherwise."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I was just looking for this. The class section on proficiencies (p43) states "If a mechanic isn't listed in your character's class entry, her proficiency rank in that mechanic is consider untrained unless she gains training from another source."
No class lists unarmored, monk gets it as a class feature- unarmored defense proficiency rank is expert.
Searching for unarmored and unarmored defense through the document, no 'other sources' give training in unarmored.
The Armor section (p176) specifically says to use unarmored defense proficiency if not wearing armor, and the mage armor spell uses unarmored proficiency.
Animal companions get training in unarmored defense, but nothing seems to give PCs training in unarmored defense.
---
I think its an oversight, but as written at the moment, everyone but monk has an AC and TAC of Level + Dex -2 if they're out of armor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yep, wizards and sorcerers seem to be missing unarmored: trained. Also, should list Armor: "Expert in unarmored" for monks in that proficiency sidebar.
Not just them. Everyone.
Monk has it as a class feature, so the fact that it isn't in the proficiency list doesn't matter much.
Goblins with a high dex are going to be quite lethal with the produce flame cantrip. At least it takes two actions, so it won't be multi-attack spammable, but getting that extra damage, plus extra persistent damage on a crit is going to be pretty rough,
Your second level spells will want to be Acid Arrow for the same reason.
You're basically getting the 1d4 (Produce Flame) or 2d6 (Acid Arrow) damage every round, for free (non-stacking), that will last (essentially) forever.
"nat20 or die, biatch."
Persistent damage is something I will now be keeping a close eye on. It looks very powerful.
As far as I can tell there is no reason for Wizards (and Sorcerers) to not just wear armor. Even if they correct the oversight of not being trained in not wearing armor, you might as well still wear something heavier, hide armor at character creation is as good as having Mage Armor (just with a check penalty, but you save a spell slot).
At higher levels you could spend a higher level spell slot on Mage Armor (and get a nice Saving throw bonus admittedly) or you could spend more money on heavy armor and take a movement penalty, which seems fine since it doesn't look like wizards will want to move much anyway (at least not if they want to use metamagic, or summon things).
I saw no reference anywhere to arcane spell failure chance, and a minus 2 penalty to +5 armor before adding runes seems worth it to save your top level spell slots.
Goblins with a high dex are going to be quite lethal with the produce flame cantrip. At least it takes two actions, so it won't be multi-attack spammable, but getting that extra damage, plus extra persistent damage on a crit is going to be pretty rough,Your second level spells will want to be Acid Arrow for the same reason.
You're basically getting the 1d4 (Produce Flame) or 2d6 (Acid Arrow) damage every round, for free (non-stacking), that will last (essentially) forever.
"nat20 or die, biatch."
Don’t forget Reach Spell on Shocking Grasp if you’re facing armored opponents.
As far as I can tell there is no reason for Wizards (and Sorcerers) to not just wear armor. Even if they correct the oversight of not being trained in not wearing armor, you might as well still wear something heavier, hide armor at character creation is as good as having Mage Armor (just with a check penalty, but you save a spell slot).
Don't underestimate that check penalty, especially if you don't train in the relevant skills. Particularly at low levels, -3 is going to give you a hard time with a lot of really basic tasks.
I'm left wondering why wizards went from one of the most skilled characters in the game to one of the least. They have fewer skill points than fighters, for Pharasma's sake. Granted, wizards will probably have a higher INT than fighters, but they'll still only have about 3 more skills trained. This pretty much eliminates the "wise old sage" character trope.
Wizards have much better spell options than other casting classes, they seem to pay for that by not having many skill options. Sharply limited signature skills, and few to splash out on training in a broad array.
|
I would also like to see wizards have another signature skill. Maybe this could be linked to the specialist schools. Something like Abjuration (Acrobatics or Athletics, or possibly a shield or armor proficiency), Conjuration (Survival), Divination (Lore {ideally, several lores}), Enchantment (Diplomacy or Society), Evocation (Intimidation), Illusion (Stealth), Necromancy definitely Intimidation), Transmutation (Deception), Universalist (player's choice ?).
I would have put Necromancy as Medicine, all healing spells are Necromancy, so why not give the Necro (who spends more time with bodies) the heal skill as sig.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As to the untrained unarmored thing, errata was released on Monday that gave training in unarmored defense to everyone. So unarmored AC = 10 + lv + Dex.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm left wondering why wizards went from one of the most skilled characters in the game to one of the least. They have fewer skill points than fighters, for Pharasma's sake. Granted, wizards will probably have a higher INT than fighters, but they'll still only have about 3 more skills trained. This pretty much eliminates the "wise old sage" character trope.
the Wizard only had 2+Int in PF1, and there are fewer skills you need to take in PF2. The bigger issue is the Wizard's abysmal signature skill list (Wizards went from potentially being experts at every knowledge skill to knowing nothing other than Arcana) but that's kind of an issue for everyone.
In a system where on higher level the average intelligence stat is way higher for every class, it seems bad designchoice to keep the int class at low starting skills. Starting skills should be increased to 3 for wizards for balancing reasons.
they also reduced the number of skills and it is a lot easier for wizards to cover "all" the knowledge now, as they only need nature occult, arcana and religion for most things.
Nature and religion are wisdom based and wizards can never raise society or occultism beyond expert. Seems extremely hard to know everthing as a wizard.
Note that I'm not complaining about that, just pointing it out.
I also agree that wizards should have 3 skills + int modifier per level, and that they should have more signature skills (including all lore skills).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also agree that wizards should have 3 skills + int modifier per level, and that they should have more signature skills (including all lore skills).
Lore skills are always a signature skill, and are also always a terrible thing to invest skill improvements into unless you're really dedicated to your Legendary farmer concept.
I am guessing that signature skills are going to be tossed out in the next Errata or two. They really are not a necessary gate because, with the exception of the rogue, no one gets enough skill increases by the time they get to master and legendary skill proficiencies to have more than 2 or 3 skills raised beyond expert anyway. A wizard with a good INT can cover most of the basic knowledge skills easily enough. With an 18 Int the wizard has 6 skills? Craft, Arcana, Occultism, Religion, Nature leave one slot open for either society or some other specific character concept skill. That is a plenty of skill support for the caster with the best spell list and widest access to that spell list in the game.
A wizard with a good INT can cover most of the basic knowledge skills easily enough. With an 18 Int the wizard has 6 skills? Craft, Arcana, Occultism, Religion, Nature leave one slot open for either society or some other specific character concept skill. That is a plenty of skill support for the caster with the best spell list and widest access to that spell list in the game.
The point is that with the new system every class gets way more ability stats then in PF1, including int. In the previous edition other classes didn't invest in int later on. Now they do. That's why there is an imbalance between the wizard and other classes right now the higher the level progresses when it comes to skills which just makes no sense.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with Wizards and skills is that in relation to other classes they have not advanced as every other class has.
Consider the Cleric went from 2 to 5.
The Sorcerer went from from 2 to 5.
The Fighter went from 2 to 3
The Alchemist, Barbarian, Druid and Monk went from 4 to 3.
So why did some classes get more skills and others less. You can make the argument that there are fewer skills so they get fewer points because then giving more to other classes makes no sense.
Furthermore, by giving more skills to other classes and keeping the Wizard at only 2 you are devaluing the Intelligence stat. Instead of giving you more skills for Int based classes they are penalized in the number of trained skills because of their use of Intelligence. You don't see the Charisma classes being given fewer Resonance points because Charisma is their primary stat, why are Wizards and Alchemist losing skills because Intelligence is theirs.
With the exception of the Druid, all classes get a number of trained skills equal to their number of signature skills. Therefore not only does the Wizard need at least one more skill (as honestly do the Fighter, Alchemist, Monk, Barbarian and Druid) they also need another signature skill. I suggest one based on their school would make the most sense. I think people have suggested some of that above.