BlessedHeretic's page

I expect it to be more powerful or useful than simply casting or striking separately.

Power Attack isn't bad by any means though? It's biggest strength is overcoming resists or trying to get bonus damage when your follow up attack is VERY unlikely to hit (i.e. not a fighter.)

Feats that are terrible with or without power gaming mindset are things like Eschew Materials.

Functionally useless things are things that need to be removed or heavily reworked.

The big difference between the Barbarian and the Magus as it currently stands is that the Barbarian gets their bonus power automatically applied.

If they hit something, they get Rage damage.

For the Magus, the issue lies that in order to get their cool, special thing, not only do they need to hit with a weapon, but they also need to hit with a spell.

Having multiple points of failure to do your cool thing makes for an unreliable and potentially frustrating ability.

This also makes me laugh because people want to combo Striking Spell with Disintegrate, pushing it to 3 checks to do a thing.

Issue with this being you are counting on shifting staves to be valid to cast from.

We have no clarification so this build is currently DM fiat. Without true strike you also no longer have crit fishing potential outside the norm.

I feel like the Magus focus spell that gran a weapon property rune will be handy if you run into monsters with either a big resistance to the property rune currently on your weapon or into a monster with a decent vulnerability to a certain damage type making the Recall Knowledge feats a little more useful.

I'd rather it stack with the weapon runes already. As is, it's hard to justify.

The saddest part of all TRPGs that use a class and level system like this is that you will be unlikely to fully play an envisioned character unless it comes online by lvl 1-6. with level 6+ being gravy on top.

For an example of this I really, really love the Wizard's Combo spell ability. But I have yet to play in a campaign to hit level 20 to really see the sheer awesomeness that it sounds like. And even when I do, I am level 20 so honestly how long do I have to play with this feature? Probably not too long.

2e has made APs go to 20, and the simplified rules *can* carry us there, if schedules and interest in the game don't shift too much. But at the end of the day most of the fun interesting build ideas require some pretty high level stuff so I am unsure even with APs that support it, if this trend of 'game ends around lvl x' will change - simply because people can't do what they want.

I think if dedicating into a MC would grant a lvl 1 feat specifically of that Dedication, we could not view them as a tax. The new round of APG archtypes work around this a bit, and they are extremely attractive due to this method.

That said, Kelesus' definition is pretty solid.

Caster's wife/husband - Magic edition.

The utility of this ability is questionable, but definitely has some interest tie ins with mascot and other things from familiar master.

Gameplay wise i'm unsure what the benefit of making your magical buddy being a much bigger target (if it's resizing them to the caster's size). If it's being a humanoid of the creature size, first and foremost - cute, but this lacks much function.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

That one extra slot isn't some wide swath that can't be made up for with other abilities like focus spells as good as Tempest Surge or Invoke Disaster along with an animal companion.

Wizard's base spell slots are 3 per level plus 1 for a school or 1 use of drain focus. That amounts to 9 extra spells per day, 10 if a DM allows you to use it for a 10th level slot.

I thought wizards get 1 spell per level from school AND 1 use of drain focus. That would mean that on odd levels for the highest spell slot, a specialist wizard would get 2 spells base, 1 spell from school, and 1 spell from drain bond vs a druid who gets 2 spells from base, right?

Pretty sure it's listed spell per level + 1 if specialist. The drain bond is effectively +1 casts, but not tied to amount of spells per level.

The only time it works as 3 slots + 1 drain per level is if you're universal, i.e. lack of school.

Unicore wrote:

It would be kinda cool if this thread was actually a list of major arguments amongst wizards in Golarion. Probably there are a lot of wizards confused right now about what has happened to their magic in the last two years and they debate whether this is a massive cosmic shift, or if they are all just collectively misremembering how things used to work.

I know what I see as the problem with a wizard:

1. Class abilities are not interesting and don't feel particularly powerful in game play. Focus spells are weak suffering from a weak effect or bad action economy. Feats aren't particularly interesting and don't improve action economy or spell power.

Thesis are not great as they provide the following:

A. More spell slots or varied spell slots for spells that are designed weaker than martial attacks.

B. Metamagic variability for weak metamagic feats that don't improve action economy or substantially improve magic.

C. A familiar not even as strong as an animal companion with limited usefulness.

2. Damage output is low, support abilities are weak, and cannot heal. So they don't have seem to have a real role in a group that stands out. Their contribution is only as good as the spells they cast and those spells at low level are often underwhelming.

3. Low level is more painful than other classes without the higher level power boost they experienced in PF1. You were pretty weak as as a low level wizard in PF1, but the power at high level made the weaker lower levels tolerable.

Whereas in PF2 you are weak at lower levels only to eventually become relatively equal to other classes, especially other caster classes who you are competing against for a role in a group.

Basically, wizards don't have much of a role in the group structure. They're not a damage dealer. They're not a defensive class like Champion. They're not a support class like a bard. They can't heal like a cleric. They don't have a powerful combination of abilities that make them stand out like a druid...

Agree with pretty much all this, and even the new thesis isn't making Wizard a competitive option vs the Witch as a Arcane Prepared caster now.

There is a simple reason why the immortality stuff isn't top priority publishing in a new edition. It is neato role-playing stuff that most people ignore entirely. You can level to 20 in less than a decade of a characters life, age has no mechanical relevance in 2e and the fact that your monk is immortal probably just means they become an NPC when the rest of the party dies anyway.

The main benefit from agelessness in practice has been immunity to rapid aging death traps/effects. And if you can cast a spell or obtain this kind of immunity immortality suddenly does just become a roleplay mechanic - you know unless you have a game you plan to have people die off from old age naturally to begin with.

Immortality might allow a crafter to finally get some advantages, mind.

Master/Master

Light/medium/heavy Master

Class ability : STR or DEX

Casting ability : INT prepared (Spellbook)

maximum 2 spell slots per level - caps out at lvl 9.

Focus spells and cantrips

D8 class HP

-

Exactly what you'd expect from a wizard who half studied and trained.

More than 2 spells isn't needed, and before anyone who says this is exactly like taking a class and MCing - the difference is you don't pay any class feats and can do other things instead and the progression can be far faster in comparison, and can get to lvl 9 slots.

-

With an array of class feats to specialize them in either self buffs, spell striking, ect and class feats to unlock focus cantrips/spells. Just feels the best way to do it for the 2e system.

I have asked and asked for clarifications on this spell and every time I bring it up it gets ignored.

It's ultimately up to GM Fiat for it's utility and usages, which is awful.

It has no restriction for the size of a container.

It has no statements made for how long the spell is disarmed for the people whom have said the password. A minute? 5? forever?

if forever that means you can now haul it with you. This makes it useful, if not, makes it too niche.

The wording suggests it triggers instantly on anyone who touches it. Not if they try to open it. Does this allow throwing it at people to be a spell-caster made bomb?

The spell is either extremely useful and strong, or useless due to no proper expectations from the spell.

Honestly the most I can hope out of a Magus is the following:

D8 die for health

Master Weapon and Armor

Hopefully Light/Medium/Heavy.

Magus in 1e was a heavy armor user, the problem was it came so late you didn't see many STR magus early on. But late campaigns STR magus could start pulling ahead. I'd really find it distasteful for Magus to lose Heavy Armor, especially now that heavy armor is rewarding and no longer inferior to lighter DEX based ones. No more scimitar dancing cheese builds for dex to damage/crit chance frees up the less popular concepts like the 2 handed estoc magus, or reach magus.

Rather than being a traditional caster, being an arcane champion with Focus Cantrips that are dealt via weapon seems to work with the new system better. Maybe a spell-strike like feature built in that works with it's own cantrips but can apply to any spell it casts within limitations.

Allow the archtyping into traditional casters to act as the method of picking up a particular spell list and with the limited casting you'd expect.

I think trying to get the whole magus package as it was in 1e is a poor way of looking to get the class.

I'd assume no since the Wall of Stone spell just shapes stone and afterward they are not exactly magical themselves, or held in form by magic.

Recently I've played a Wizard and have found them to be excellent was with a home-rule that Wizards can load a single meta magic that can be used infinitely per day into their spells at the beginning of each day.

Effectively making it the only class that can either have a action economy advantage by having a meta magic built in - or doubling up and doing 2 types of meta magic.

Typical spells that are 3 actions long and can't be meta-magic'd are now possible only within the wizard class line. The augmentation is strong, but not game breaking and stays within the focus of the class, which is versatile classing. (Reach with summons to place them a bit further away, Bond con so next turn you are casting a damage spell or control one used previously.)

Meanwhile spells that cost 2 actions can now have 2 meta magic traits applied and grant a large variety of ways to be used. (Overwhelming + widened cone of cold.)

It has significantly changed my stance and really revealed why Wizards were feeling a bit wronged. I'd suggest trying it out a bit. But the heck do I know, I usually have bad takes.

Doubt this is a cure all, since this effectively means meta-magic is no longer an optional part of being a Wizard, but even if you only take 1 type of meta magic it can significantly alter how the wizard handles because of it.

Note this doesn't solve any issues, it's just high lighting that the smallest edition to the class can make it infinitely more interesting. The issue is, the class as current doesn't have a modifier like this outside 1 thesis, and that is spell blending.

Which is more gambling than normal for a higher front loaded nova, and at least from the times i've tried to use it ends up with more bad feelings than good when you invest in that gamble.

Even when new feats hit from the APG and the new thesis, I highly doubt any of it will cover the over all lack of functional expertise the wizard is suppose to have.

Right now all a wizard is, is casting MORE.

I mean people have pointed out why Wizards feel pretty horrible to play. It isn't because they are invalid or bad, it's that they are boring.

The biggest shame is most of the things that make them look unique or interesting to play are exceedingly high level feats.

Combo magic for example.

Sometimes an elf is just an elf, and a gnome is just a gnome. Introspection is usually great but this thread is proof that it can be taken too far IMO.

Honestly this. I was about to write a rather large reply but this sums it up perfectly.

This also came up in my group and we generally figure it would go #2.

Justification: The deadly die, while it is caused by a critical hit, is a weapon damage die and benefits from Jousting. Jousting is not damage that is caused by a critical hit, so would be doubled, despite the deadly die being rolled after doubling occurs.

Essentially, the deadly die counts as a weapon die when calculating your Jousting damage or the benefit from the Horse Support action.

It would be different if the Deadly die were added to your damage calculation after doubling, but it isn't. It's only rolled after doubling. It is present when you figure out your Jousting damage, so the Jousting damage should be doubled.

Edit for clarity.

I do not believe this would be the case. Picks for example don't add the FATAL die to their crit specialization last time I checked, so it's probably wise to use that order of operations.

You joust and hit - you total your damage with the bonus jousting damage added - you then double this and then add Deadly.

But if you can find sources that suggest FATAL/DEADLY die count towards this, I would happily concede and enjoy a new found love of such specs.

Grankless wrote:

Eldritch Knight. And, you know, Magus.

Didn't know nor the eldritch knight ( except as 5e path ) neither magus.

So the eldritch knight was a hybrid one too ( full caster progression but 1 lvl, and full attack progression ).

I am pretty sure we won't see this one either, give how dedications and hybrids .

Gonna search for the magus.

Magus is it's own thing.

It is a arcane martial caster built on the chassis of the Bard from 1e.

It's mechanically very different than Wizard in 1e, even their spell selection.

It's often considered a way of tossing out the need to go Wizard/Fighter into EK and just have it all in 1 neat package.

I highly doubt Magus will be an archtype, though this is speculation. It's play style in 2e would be more akin to a Arcane Champion, rather than Wizard with Multi-class things.

Temperans wrote:

KrispyXIV wrote:

The draft occurrence of Spellstrike in an AP points toward magus being a spellcaster archetype, possibly school Agnostic.

Magus is more than just the ability to use spellsrike.

Sure there where like 4-5 classes that had abilities that worked the same or similar to spellstrike. But Magus is not just spellstrike.

Also this discussion is not about the Magus. And even if it were, Magus are different from Wizards in the fact they are able to actually use martial weapons as well as any other martial class.

Wizards having simple weapons does not step on the toes of the Magus. Because a Magus is all about making their weapons, armor, shields, and/or body better at combat using magic. They are not about casting spells and maybe using a simple weapon as 3rd action.

And what Wizards would be even with SWP?

A full caster with an array of weapons the same as any other caster, that is different due to their class features, but with the same degree of versatility to archtype and use ancestry feats just as well as any other class, now without a feat tax.

Alternatively, a wizard that can focus on Weapon spells - Such as Hand of the Apprentice (Their exclusive focus spell.) and Weapon storm - without sacrificing a class feat or 2 generals to obtain what anyone else could in 1.

The only difference between wizards we have now, and a wizard with SWP is that they no longer have a feat tax.

Unless you can cite a source that new classes will also have a lack of SWP as their baseline, you are straight up saying this one class deserves to suffer on a baseless assumption that another *might*.

It's not flavor, it's not balance, it's just straight up punishment for picking one class over another.

NECR0G1ANT wrote:

Aratorin wrote:

NECR0G1ANT wrote:

dmerceless wrote:

The spellbook limitation is a balancing factor (if it is necessary or not, that's another discussion, but it is taken into account for the game's balance). The simple weapon thing, however, is just a holdover from previous editions that makes Wizards absolutely terrible at taking Archetypes for no reason other than "but muh tradition". It's something I really hope to see gone as well.

What is the spellbook limitation balancing against, exactly? Druids share many spells with the wizard, but they don't need spellbooks.

Wizards get more slots and a better list.

Let's assume that the Arcane list is better for the sake of argument.

Why do arcane sorcerors have better weapon proficiencies than wizards?

Well, sorcerers can have arcane traditions as well for other traditions.

They also don't spend time studying stuff, since they have innate powers.

Seems like their extra time, which wizards use to study arcane magic, is used somewhere else ( which also includes simple weapon proficiency ).

Which is not represented anywhere in their class features. They lose having simple prof for what gains exactly in comparison to other casters with it? Definitely isn't thesis or school. That's comparable to bloodlines and the other built in modular parts of the other classes. I do concede wizards are a bit more modular, but that's strictly from Schools.

Wizards use the weakest casting stat in the game. Int. It provides them with basically no benefits outside being trained in some skills, which is hardly a boon because they also get the least amount of skills to make up for the fact they have high int.

Charisma casters can easily stack into intimidation and deception - both strong in this edition, intimidation especially.

Wisdom casters get the benefit of their core stat also being used for a Save and Initiative!

Int barely does anything, and the things it does do, don't really make you contribute that much.

So we got a chassis on par with all the other casters, that has less weapon selection, a greater DEMAND for weapon selection, and a feat tax to obtain a better selection that others don't.

It's tradition is not exclusive (Sorcerer/Witch)

It's spell collection no longer exclusive and style not. (Witch is prepared and learns them too.)

What does the wizard have that makes it so strong, it deserves a feat tax to reach the same baseline as any other caster for WEAPON selection, a thing on the caster that is seldom used anyway since Casters even with the selection are generally awful with the weapons, and at best are using them as a catalyst for a spell?

------------

In terms of things I hope to see in the errata

An official way of how Glyph of Wardings work. - if they are mobile, how long they are disabled if you say the safe word, what counts towards triggering them - it's all very subjective and makes it's power balance go from being asinine overpowered to overly niche and useless.

Eschew materials - Either removed or made half way decent. This is the golden standard of a feat that is useless.

Shifting Staves - are weapon shifted staves capable of casting or not definitively answered.

My only experience with Foundry for playing thus far ended in a TPK. However, the speed at which we got to that TPK because everything on the UI was so well done and the enjoyment for exploration and such. Just, Foundry all the way.

Rysky wrote:

HumbleGamer wrote:

Rysky wrote:

You’re inflicting lethal damage/possibly death on someone just to find out their Alignment. That’s torture.

For absolutely no gain or progress in an investigation.

Well, if your main concern is that the people could be killed ( didn't get you were referring at this until now ), that's if we follow RAW there could be way harder consequences ( but in primis there won't be this possibility at all, even at lvl 1 ).

But, if explained the idea the dm would allow you to deal 1 good damage, then there won't be any death or torture.

"I know I can use a cantrip, but could i use it with less power just to see if a person is evil or not? I don't intend to kill anybody, as you can imagine, but this could semplify things"

As for the progress, we simply disagree ( I partially agree with you, as I stated before, since your is a valid outcome. Guess "but what if..." would be what I'd be wondering interrogating myself about using that or not. I'd consider the possibility to lower the victims by doing that, while you are sure that you could achieve the same result without such a system ).

Well, I guess everything is now clear for me ( I also think your answers cover for probably all other users which pointed out what you claim ).

Moving the goalposts by bringing in houserulings, but not by much. You're still inflicting lethal damage (for superfluous information), that's torture.

just a question ( to understand if i got it right )

If you can't trust me because you think I could be a demon in disguise ( something let you think that you could be right ), and I offer myself to be tested, because I want you to trust me, what would be your answer?

You wouldn't test me even it is me that is ask you to do so, wouldn't you?

Ps: you could also not doing that because you could have being even more suspectful towards me ( what's with his request... he's plotting something for sure... ), indeed, but let's leave this possibility...

Except the thing here is - Characters don't know their alignment. So saying you want to be tested like that really is a risk you can take, but if you're EVIL without knowing, you take damage, well now they definitely don't trust you and you get lynched.

Let alone the entire concept we're arguing is tantamount to meta-gaming, in a serious way.

Ultimately it shouldn't be an issue if someone is evil or not. Unless you're being a fanatic in which case, your actions are evil even if you're doing them for the 'greater good'.

There are better ways of testing if someone is a fiend, such as holy water. Now if someone is both a fiend and doesn't know it, that's an amazingly weird thing. But knowing when you're dealing with a FIEND is more important than knowing if it's EVIL.

But ultimately, I believe the OP has been answered. He can divine lance an evil player, probably hurt them and get them lynched.

It's definitely a dick move though, since as we've pointed out, Evil people are not villains by virtue of their alignment, at least in pathfinder.

But the player they are lancing in question are not, so all that will happen is the intended desire for plot. Unless that player is evil, in which case - this whole debate.

Honestly if you use divine lance as a method of trying to alignment check, you'll get a result. The fact remains if you have done this to an innocent person whom is evil, you are now committing evil yourself.

Assuming your good aligned, this should definitely be a threat to shunt you neutral and lose whatever goodies you have from being within your alignment.

Is it valid? sure. But it's not a harmless method, and even telling someone, someone else is 'evil' but not guilty will result in bad things.

The bigger issue here is Evil beings can achieve Good results. They might even intend to do so, they'll just be doing selfish, cruel and such methods to achieve them.

I don't think having an evil party member in an all good party is bad, it's their intent and actions that might cause issues. But the alignment itself shouldn't cause people to freak out, be a bit suspicious sure.

If this person is speaking about killing children and other actions that don't serve the party interest and cause strife for no reason, that's awful and the player is misusing being an evil character for certain, but that's not an alignment problem, it's a person problem. Good or Evil players like that cause issues.

I often convince people to let me bring in an Evil character, because the selfish and pragmatic nature of Evil aligned characters is fun to role play. I'll save the village, i'll do it for free even. But my end game is growing my power and influence or striving to obtain good connections for a greater personal goal.

I may propose a questionable actions to the party, but my overall rule is I'll cooperate with the party until a large enough divide of interests hits. That's when X character may bow out, and I'll swap to an alternative or take the fun journey I had with the character.

Edit:

Although, in those games I don't have what amounts to the 'lawful stupid' paladin/cleric trying to lynch me strictly because my history of personal actions lead me to be a more evil person than good or neutral.

This is pre-judging my character and directly attacking me and using your own character as an excuse. It's just as bad as an evil person doing chaotic stupid things because 'lolz alignment.'

This is one of my issues as well. I am often the token human in a party, and the party especially gets cross with me in situations where we need to sulk in the dark.

At low levels there isn't much I can do about it, and i'm more upset there is a nag for me to obtain potions of dark vision just to be on the same level as the rest of my party. I am definitely in favor of those who have strong dark vision suffering in the bright light though, as that would at least balance it out for me having a situation where i'm not just "PC with a handicap." in terms of my physical attributes.

Dark vision also kind of makes a lot of spells that involve with illumination pointless, but worse, the amount of lightning that is hands free and requires no effort is a problem in my opinion even if we did fix dark vision.

The Light Cantrip or Dancing Lights outright removes the need to worry about light getting snuffed out and being ambushed in the dark, for example. Though these come with the penalty that the party is easier to find, it still makes Torches a very niche item, and lanterns more.

If see invisibility and invisibility spells aren't meant to use the counteract rules, that seems like a very significant oversight since it enables a 2nd level spell (see invisibility) to defeat the effect of a directly-opposed and higher-level spell (invisibility heightened to 4th level, or invsibility sphere, for example).

In the majority of cases, "You are invisible, and see invisible lets the other guy sees invisible characters.

See Invisibility isn't attempting to remove your invisibility status." is a distinction without a difference.

Except it doesn't defeat the effect. YOU ARE STILL INVISIBLE. The person who cast it can see your outline and still suffers a dc5 check to target you, the rest of his friends do not see you, you are invisible to them.

A lot of lower level spells now have utilities into late game, see invisibility is one.

By your reasoning, does a lvl 1 truestrike not work on an invisible target? Or is that not "counteracting"?

I'm unsure Counteracting would come into play here though. Neither spell are in opposition.

You are invisible, and see invisible lets the other guy sees invisible characters.

See Invisibility isn't attempting to remove your invisibility status.

Non-Detection would counteract see-invisibility however.

At least that's how I think it'd work?

BlessedHeretic wrote:

If this is intentional design, that's pretty weird.

Weird? Yes. Intentional? Probably.

Re: Unconventional Weaponry, the feat Unconventional Expertise only even does anything at all for Wizards and Fighters. I think that pretty clearly shows intent, at least in that regard.

Now why Paizo thinks it's a necessary balancing measure to require a Wizard to spend three (one general two ancestry) feats on something everyone else (including Witches and Sorcerers) can do for one is another question entirely.

Or, in the case of the clan dagger, two class feats instead of zero.

Untrue.

It works for rogues who can get master prof with advanced weapons.

But it's still super niche.

I made a post about this before, but Wizard's lack of Simple prof causes issues with the design of specific feats and items.

Pretty sure the Clan Dagger is one of the many things where the assumption is you'll have simple prof because, well it's a simple weapon. Everyone has training in that! Save one class. And only that class.

The human ancestry feat Unconventional weaponry also, doesn't grant training with your selected weapon. Why? Because by a design standpoint you can't pick weapons that are outside of your supposed to be , natural training!

If you're any class aside from wizard, if you pick a katana, it becomes a simple weapon and you can use it. Or you pick up a uncommon simple weapon, you're already trained for those as well.

You're a fighter/barb/champion? Well grats you get the upgraded unconventional weaponry that can snag you a Advanced weapon and make it martial, again right in your training allowance!

But suddenly, as a wizard, you pick up the katana/nunchucks/whatever - it becomes a simple weapon. **And you still can't use it well.**

Well until you feat tax yourself to pick up simple prof. Lovely feeling.

If this is intentional design, that's pretty weird.

Midnightoker wrote:

BellyBeard wrote:

Atalius wrote:

Like the Captain stated earlier the problem is you can walk through it on your turn and exit it without any ill effects.

This is severely restricting their turn, to making a single Strike action and spending two actions a round to avoid the effects of your spell, which is a win in my book.

It doesn't cost two actions unless the caster is also staying inside the area, and they would be subject to their own Black Tentacles (as would any of their allies).

Most of the time, at best it would cost them a single Stride a turn unless they attempted to walk along the diameter.

I agree, but picture stacking Grease and tentacles in a narrow corridor.

I did a narrow 2x passage with tentacles and then wall of flamed the entire thing with several enemies stuck in the tentacles.

Since the tentacles are not creatures, they don't get burned off by the wall of fire.

However, we didn't make the tentacles try to grapple new people, so they just ran through the tentacles unless they ended their turn in them and that was kinda lame.

On the upside, those caught suffered, a lot.

Wall of Fire produced concealment, while the grappling produced issues with manipulates which was causing double 20% chance of fails or fun watching the GM fail to roll an attack roll to wack the tentacles or escape out of them.

I have played only a handful of wizards that managed to get to the point where Bond Conversation was accessible, but on my universalists where I thought it'd be extremely strong I noticed it seems to be rather restricted, to the extent that I can't really utilize it and am considering other benefits for lvl 8 instead.

Any good examples would be warmly welcomed.

It definitely feels wonky. It's good battlefield control even as it is, but it not grappling when things move around inside it and only at the end does significantly limit it. It's crushing damage also isn't that great.

I have used it to great effect in any campaign I have casted it because being grappled isn't as mundane as people think. Spells like Wall of Fire pair well with it, but that's me dropping a lvl 5 and 4 spell in hopes I get some amazing crowd control against many lesser targets.

I think this is a difficult thing that's different from table to table. I for example, would only really recall knowledge on creatures I have not seen commonly in other APs.

I don't expect my adventurer to be entirely ignorant of the world. Trolls are common threats, if not rumors and their weakness to fire would be stuff of local fables.

Same thing with Fey disliking Cold Iron, and maybe werewolves disliking silver.

However, I am definitely going to recall knowledge when I encounter something that seems particularly odd or uncommon as an enemy.

I'd rather not be punished for having a good memory. I'd be EXTREMELY concerned if the more rare monsters weaknesses were known by players just out of the blue however.

Again, Trolls are common enough. But if someone knows the big bad's elemental or material item weakness just because and specifically yoinks it out....

Alchemist Goggles and Quicksilver Mutagen should put her above the Ranger in ranged attacks at this level; with them both having Expert in Weapon Proficiencies. (+1 item, +2 status)

How do you get +2 status? Quicksilver Mutagen is item bonus to attack and skills isn't it?

if they know where you are, they still suffer a DC11 flat check to target you. That's a 55% chance of failure. on top flat footing them against you, it's significant.

I think lore wise it makes sense they dont have.

Sorcerers dont need to study have time to do other things
Clerics dont need to study they need faith
Witches- dont need to study
Oracles - dont need to study
Bards have always been a blend of martial and magic
Druids dont need to study, faith again
Wizards are studying they have no time to be studying all simple weapons and training in them.

Regardless if you think it makes sense by lore, mechanically it is punishing the class for no good reason.

If you try to use that as justification mind you, when would a oracle/witch/cleric ever really practice using EVERY simple weapon? They'd generally have no incentive to usually, so clearly they should pick 1 of the simple weapons to be proficient at and lose the rest.

It's also notable that the wizard is not proficient using a spear, the most basic braindead easy weapon to use in all of history.

Initial proficiencies have a much stronger effect on multiclassed characters in PF2 than they did in PF1, as you gain later class features that automatically improve only your initial armor and weapon proficiencies.

In PF1, a wizard who multiclassed with nearly any other class was very likely proficient with all simple weapons, and a single-classed wizard could gain that level of proficiency for a single general feat. (And now that I think about it -- I don't think Simple Weapon Proficiency was a prerequisite for Martial Weapon Proficiency anyway.)

If you were right, you'd have a point. But the feat strictly calls out not being proficient in simple weapons forcing you to pick it up twice to get martial training.

-------------

You become trained in all simple weapons. If you were already trained in all simple weapons, you become trained in all martial weapons. If you were already trained in all martial weapons, you become trained in one advanced weapon of your choice.

Special You can select this feat more than once. Each time you do, you become trained in additional weapons as appropriate, following the above progression.

------------

- But this is strictly just punishing wizards. The most likely classes who would not have had simple weapons were in fact, the witch and oracle - if they had a restricted weapons selection as well it would have changed my mind.

But it is currently a position that wizards must pay double to quality, and that's entirely asinine considering how valuable feats are in this edition.

It is a legacy from 1st edition. Wizards were the only spellcasters not proficient with all simple weapons in that edition, and that was carried over to the new edition.

Which isn't a good reason to keep it. The "tradition" here is causing a feat tax for no benefit which only causes frustration.

They are also the most flexible of the spell caster and vieweded as the most academic. There is no reason for them to have it. Other casters there is a class theme. It is true with some martial and spells. Let me be more specific then. Fighters should get simple spell use as part of the class and not have to take an archetype. Of course this should not be the case, but the same could be said for Wizards and weapon proficiency.

You had a potential chance to be right until Oracle and Witch dropped.

Their background lore doesn't justify the utility, because if you try to say wizards are untrained with simple weapons, what justification do you have to give cloistered clerics, witches and oracles theirs?

By lore, Clerics should only be good with their deity weapon. Witches rely on their hexes and probably just daggers and spells. List goes on.

Dave2 wrote:

But, otherwise there is no class reason for it.

There's no reason not to let them have it either, though. Not giving them full simple weapon proficiencies just adds feat taxes and what else? What value? None, really.

Quote:

Martial classes do not get simple spell proficiency.

Not strictly true. Any way to gain spells gives you proficiency in them by default, archetype or no.

It's also a terrible analogy because the OP isn't comparing Wizards to martials. They're comparing Wizards to every other spellcaster.

This is on point. I'm comparing wizards to other casters, not to martial classes. Right now Wizards are the only class that lacks what would be considered a universal basic and I am not understanding for what purpose. They are being strictly feat taxed and for no good game play reason.

As a very objective look from Casters multiclassing into fighter, it's a weak option. Insanely weak and generally not profitable as character design unless you are doing it as pure flair.

Simply put, the Fighter has no feats that are worth it for Casters, they can't land hits and generally don't have the action economy to use things like knock down and such.

The extended weapon selection is easy to replace with ancestry pick ups, or just general training.

However, already martial classes do get some fantastic options classing into fighter. Lunge, Knockdown, Stances are all strong options to help improve specific fighting niches.

So I disagree that fighter is a weak dedication, it's just niche to specific martial builds.

Champion however - Not that weak. If you have intent to use focus points and wear armor, it has particularly strong archetype benefits in fact! The problem is it's strictly limited to good characters right now, which makes it a limited option.

It also suffers from picking picking it up for strictly armor training, of which i can say : Please god release a non champion armored fighter archetype.

The debuffs people mention also work for people striking with weapons so I don't see how you can declare "oh but if you debuff your spell attack will be better."

You are discounting that those conditions make the martial attacks that much more deadly, and that martial attackers can impose quite a few of them with single actions. Anything that can apply to BOTH Spell Attacks and Physical ones should be discounted. **INCLUDING TRUE STRIKE** as this isn't entirely a pure caster thing, gishes can pick this up and make martial attacks that much more accurate.

Compare a 2 action spell with a 1 action attack with the same proficiency, both do null damage if they miss. But one has the ability to keep up with the increasing accuracy requirements, because higher tier monsters DO account for item bonus. The spells can not obtain these, making them 5-15% less accurate despite having much more investment in terms of action points.

I use it pretty commonly when dealing with presumed unwise enemies, as well as when I believe mental damage will work. The critical fail helps my group a lot, but even if that doesn't trigger, a rarely resisted damage type is always great.

Combined with the long range of it and non lethal nature, it's fantastic.

So I have been bothered by this since the earlier parts of play tests. All the other casters have simple proficiency and ultimately also are not really bothered by it because pure casters, well, cast.

However, archetypes and their requirements for having martial weaponry sometimes, such as hell knights (of certain orders, not everyone wants to be order of the gate.), cause a unique issue strictly that only the wizard suffers.

Because Wizard is the only class that doesn't have simple weapon proficiency, EVEN after the APG playtest has been dropped, it has to pay double on feat taxes to qualify for martial training.

This is beyond asinine and seems to go against the nature of how 2e has been evolving. I also have seen no one justify why this SHOULD be the case, mechanically.

I can only imagine this getting worse as time goes on as more archetypes come out with requirements for specific weaponry.

How long does a Glyph of Warding remain inert to a person that has given a keyword or trigger?