| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I assume you mean you are now converting.
Wizards got school powers, more hit points and more options when it comes to arcane bond.
Concentration increases with caster level so its not too far behind 3.5.
Decipher Script is part of linguistics.
You can get diplomacy as class skill through character traits.
And yes, for pathfinder society knowledge skills can be useful.
|
I assume you mean you are now converting.
Wizards got school powers, more hit points and more options when it comes to arcane bond.
Concentration increases with caster level so its not too far behind 3.5.
Decipher Script is part of linguistics.
You can get diplomacy as class skill through character traits.
And yes, for pathfinder society knowledge skills can be useful.
Thanks Jeffrey,
I was looking at the original post and realized that I didn't remember enough 3.5 to answer his question.
|
Uh... you should go look at traits in the future... this can be found in the free section of this site here... and putting ranks in cross class skills is hardly as punishing as it used to be so I would consider atleast branching out if you are having issues using all of your skill points. And I'd hardly say Wizards got screwed Skill point wise. I converted a 3.5 Wizard to Pathfinder and absolutely loved the outcome.
Keep reading everything, you'll find that it'll work out for the better.
Are you going to play pathfinder society or a home game? Because a lot of character traits are pathfinder society legal.
Decipher Script is covered by Linguistics, which has the added bonus of giving you free languages with every rank.
Concentration is indeed no longer a skill, but it's your level+your casting stat, so unless you had some crazy thing giving you bonuses to the skill (which can almost definitely be converted to something that gives a bonus on concentration checks), the practical upshot is that you just get a free skill point per level out of the deal.
Things you are likely to miss if you're overly familiar with 3.5 and just skimming over the Pathfinder rules looking for changes:
Non-class skills no longer cost you double the skill points. All class skills give you now is a one time +3 bonus to the skill if you have at least one rank in it. So, particularly at higher levels where you have massive skill check overkill going on, it's really not at all a big deal to have non-class skills.
There's this whole "favored class bonus" thing where for each level in your favored class (which works out to just "each level" if you aren't multiclassing) you get a choice of either an extra skill point, or an extra hit point (or some third option based on your specific race/class combo).
Wizards have d6s for HP.
Rather than a familiar you aren't necessarily going to do much with, you can start off with a special magic item that gives you a free wild card spell slot every day. As in, once per day, regardless of what's memorized, you can use it to cast any spell in your spellbook.
You get a set of nifty innate bonuses based on what school you specialize in.
Spells from prohibited schools are no longer prohibited, they just take up two spell slots when memorized.
Well, yeah. If you're looking at it in terms of how each class is improved over its 3.5 equivalent, wizards aren't nearly as well off as most classes, but that's intentional. The prepared casters in 3.5 generally had a noticeable edge in terms of both flavor customizability and general utility, so, there was a bit of playing field leveling going on.
|
So essentially you admit that wizards are improved over their 3.5 version, but because they are not as improved as some other classes you are refusing to convert? And you're complaining about having too many skill points? I'm sorry, but besides this thread being in the wrong forum, it is one of the most ridiculous I have ever read. Please tell me I am missing something.
|
|
So essentially you admit that wizards are improved over their 3.5 version, but because they are not as improved as some other classes you are refusing to convert? And you're complaining about having too many skill points? I'm sorry, but besides this thread being in the wrong forum, it is one of the most ridiculous I have ever read. Please tell me I am missing something.
Okay, "You're missing something."
Indeed, so is the original poster.
Yes, if you aren't casting defensively, and do something stupid like casting while within an enemy's reach, it can be difficult to make that Concentration check.
But there are still plenty of things that can help out in that regard, including feats like Combat Casting and traits like Focused Concentration.
Oh, and the Concentration check for casting a spell when you get damaged is 10 + spell level + damage taken, so it all depends on what level spell you are casting, and how much damage you've taken.
Then again, by the time it gets bad enough to be an issue at 2nd level, you are probably no longer conscious anyhow.
Casting defensively, which is a way to cast without provoking Attacks of Opportunity (AoOs), is 15 + spell level, so 15 for a cantrip or 17 for a 1st level spell. That brings your check back to succeeding on an 11+, not counting feats & traits that can help it.
So, how is this thread PFS related?
|
|
Remember they have all knowledge skills as class skills, so if you have leftover skillpoints, put each one into a knowledge skill. It just doesn't seem like a lot because knowledge skills is 10 different skills. Only wizards and bards get all knowledges as class skills so really wizards have a ton of options, just most of them are knowledges.
Knowledges are very worthwhile if your GM uses them. If your GM ignores the value of them they are worthless but if they are used appropriately they can be some of the most valuable skills in the game especially when used to find the weaknesses of creatures.
@Shinwasha: can you post your Stats so far and what your campaign is progressing as.
@kinevon: shouldn't the level 1 Spell dc to cast defensively be 16 not 17?
@Shinwasha: can you post your Stats so far and what your campaign is progressing as.
@kinevon: shouldn't the level 1 Spell dc to cast defensively be 16 not 17?
Kinevon left out 1 key word. The dc for casting defensively is 15 + double the spell lv, so 17 for 1st lv, 19 for 2nd lv, 21 for 3rd lv, etc.
Oh OK now it makes more sense. I am on my phone and couldn't double check.
I was confused at his math...
I'm going to be honest, I don't think anyone really has the right to say Wizards have been "screwed" in any form of 3.Xe D&D or PF.
I agree. Though it seems more like this Player is more or less upset they have to figure pi it more thematic skills. Hmm, Diplomacy as a Class Skill through a Boon huh. Why not put some of the newly freed up Skill Points into Sense Motive and/or Bluff?
I normally go Martial and end up putting ranks in Acrobatics, Climb, Perception, and Swim before anything else.
So I need a Minimum of 12 INT as a Human or 14 INT if I go another race. And that isn't counting Survival and a few other skills that are nearly always handy to have.
I'm not going to go so far as to say wizards got screwed, but they are definitely one of the classes that got the fewest/least potent new toys, and they received the biggest outright nerfs.
The ability to enchant an item with out the feat(s) required and a 1/day casting of any Spell in your spell book alongside school abilities and school spell slots are pretty nice given what wizards used to have. Now I for one am glad the Save or Die and Save or Suck spells are nerfed. I read someone complaining how wizards lost them and other classes gained them as level 20 abilities. Well look at the difference in that: a 3.5 wizard could get a fairly potent Save or Die effect around level 9 or 10 and have a fairly High DC for it, A PF Rogue gets it at Level 20 and has a fairly moderate DC for it and it still requires the rogue to be able to activate it. Heck, a Paladins only works in a very specific instance. A wizard only needed to have LoS/LoE and the target in a Medium Range for their SoD effect to go off.
I will admit this spell was easy to negate. You simply have to ban the book it was in. But doing that also removed a lot of options from Fighters, Rogues, and other classes that were needed just to make them attractive.
|
I'm going to be honest, I don't think anyone really has the right to say Wizards have been "screwed" in any form of 3.Xe D&D or PF.I'm not going to go so far as to say wizards got screwed, but they are definitely one of the classes that got the fewest/least potent new toys, and they received the biggest outright nerfs.
Lol, such as the Bones Mystery Oracle being what appears to me a better Necromancer than the Necromancer ;)
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have so many skill points now, and I get so many skills maxed for free that I would previously have had to pay for (concentration, multiple 3.5 skills covered by the single Linguistics skill) that I simply don't know what to buy with my vast pile of skills! Oh, woe is me, I am screwed by the system!
(Cross-class skills are right out because my characters have all seen their own character sheets and it is out of character for any of them to spend skill points on skills where they don't receive the +3 class skill bonus because that's how roleplaying works right?)
Fighters can't understand my woes because they aren't burdened with all these extra skill points they probably couldn't use anyhow. Plus, they gained the ability to *have a reduced armor check penalty*, whereas I'm still stuck with my nine-level spellcasting and god-status. Why do the Pathfinder devs hate wizards so much?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Being the best class does not equal "screwed".
Also I realized just now Wizard's get hammered harder now with keeping spells. Take 10 damage and you have a DC of 20. In pathfinder to hold the spell it's caster level plus int mod so for a 2nd level wizard with int of 19 that's 2+4=6. So you have to roll a 15+. In 3.5 Caster Level + Concentration. So for the same wizard having a con of 15 with max concentration that would be 2+5+2 = 9. So you need an 11+.
I don't understand what number you're generating here. Everything I can think of with Concentration in 3.5e would have been a straight concentration roll, not caster level + concentration.
The concentration skill being folded into a standard ability rather than a skill is meant to free-up the skillpoints by basically giving the ability to make the roll decently without it being a skill-point tax that you always have to buy into with caster classes.
It never hurts to spend points into Knowledge skills. In my current campaign, I'm always asking for knowledge checks for the party to know about the creatures they're fighting. Mostly knowledge (religion) really because I use a lot of undead, but we've had knowledge (arcana) and knowledge (local) checks as well. My party really needs to invest more points into knowledge skills.
Class skills are no longer such a big deal anymore. It used to be if it was not a class skill you had no hope of ever being good at it. In pathfinder all you get is a +3 bonus on the skill if you actually spend a skill point on them. You do not get the bonus on skill you have not invested in so a single level of rouge is not going to do much unless you waste points putting a rank into ever rogue skill. This also means that most of the time you are only 3 points behind the character with it as a class skill.
With pathfinder it is possible to have a fighter with a decent perception. Which by the way used to be 3 different skills. There are no longer any skills that are restricted to a certain class or groups of classes. Anyone can take any skill. Class skills now simply give the character an edge on certain skills common to the class.
Such as a Rogue and Disable Device.
My Archery/Finesse Fighter can take Disable Device and be perfectly fine to disable any non-magical trap. The Party Wizard can handle Magical Traps... Heck, a Wizard can deal with Magic Traps better than a Rogue!
Given that a Wizard now only needs what DEX & INT to be truly effective. Especially once they get False Life and other spells. They can become better Skill Monkeys than a 8+INT Skill Point Rogue.
What exactly is so wrong about investing in cross-class skills?
Think of it as, things you've worked on independently, and not as part of your training as a <class>. For example, if you're a physicist, and spend your free time bird watching, maybe you improve your Perception a bit, but not as much as someone who spends the bulk of their time doing so. Then, you get that class skill bonus for multi-classing, because you've changed from spending 8 hours a day doing physics (heh) and 2 hours a day watching birds, to quitting your job and spending 8 hours a day watching birds.
CoDzilla got whacked in the transition to PF. Most of the nerfing to wizards mainly took place in the spell-list which has been slowly negated with new unbalanced spells and feats in various splatbooks.
Make no mistake the wizard is one of the most powerful classes in PF and has received some nice bonuses in terms of durability and class abilities. Is it completely ridiculously overpowered like it was in 3.x? There is still some debate over that but I think that for the most part it definitely survived the transition more or less intact.
The real question is whether other classes managed to keep pace or close some of the powerlevel gap and the jury is very much still out in that regard.
Spell selection meant in the end, wizards trumped clerics for the crown. Wizards got ALL the kewl spells and abusable stuff. Clerics got some of them.
Still the two best classes overall, with Artificer, Druid, and Archivist honorable mentions, and Sorceror bringing up the rear.
For ease of playability at all levels, especially if the DM restricted spells? Cleric and DRuid, all the way.
==Aelryinth
A Party of all wizards will never make it far.
A Party made up of nothing but casters won't make it very far.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Once the party of all wizards has planar binding they can romp.
It's just that low level wizards need meat shields until they can bind their own.
What exactly is so wrong about investing in cross-class skills?
Think of it as, things you've worked on independently, and not as part of your training as a <class>. For example, if you're a physicist, and spend your free time bird watching, maybe you improve your Perception a bit, but not as much as someone who spends the bulk of their time doing so. Then, you get that class skill bonus for multi-classing, because you've changed from spending 8 hours a day doing physics (heh) and 2 hours a day watching birds, to quitting your job and spending 8 hours a day watching birds.
In 3.5 if you had multiclassed as a fighter/rogue, and chose your next level to be a fighter then you had to spend 2 ranks on the rogue skills.
That makes no sense to me if I am already trained in perception. Just because I am making myself better at fighting that does not mean I have to focus on my fighter skillset. With PF you can choose which skills you improve in as you level up which makes it easier to customize your character.Using your physics example, maybe instead of putting ranks in quantum string theory while trying to level up, I decided to put more of a focus on knowledge(birds) for some reason.
A Party made up of nothing but casters won't make it very far.Team CoDzilla begs to differ.
Considering that they can't go all the way from Level 1 to level 20...
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence?
CoDzilla can be used what 2-3 times a day at level 1 and only for a few rounds. They wouldn't survive the ~10 15+ round encounters that typically make up a single quest in my games.
You also didn't provide evidence.
|
|
I disagreed. You then made a fantastic statement without evidence.
Obviously our definitions of CoDzilla are not equal, as I do not consider them good for only 2-3 rounds a day. And what you run has no bearing on the discussion, so I am not sure why you brought it up.
Any DM can ensure a party does not survive his game, depending on what he selects for encounters. But if you think four clerics cannot handle the average game, I must disagree.