| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Might not even be worth the feat since you are equally untrained in unarmored and armored you might as well wear some light armor at least for the item bonus.
I get that my point was that the only penalty for being untrained is the -2 AC (no arcane spell failure) which is a penalty you seem to always have as a sorcerer so I am saying if you want to up your AC you can just wear the armor. The feat would give you another +2 AC (or remove the -2 same difference) which may or may not be worth it to you.
EDIT: Said another way you are equally untrained in all armor types so if you want more AC you can always just suit up in full plate too.
It seems clear that on the Gear Section, it's meant to say everyone is trained in Unarmored Defense – "If you’re not wearing armor, substitute your proficiency in unarmored defense."
It seems clear that on the Gear Section, it's meant to say everyone is trained in Unarmored Defense – "If you’re not wearing armor, substitute your proficiency in unarmored defense."
That doesn't say you're trained, though. It just says to use your unarmored proficiency rather than your proficiency modifier for any armor or shield you are using.
The first part of the paragraph is referencing proficiency modifiers. 'Substitute' just means use your unarmored proficiency instead, it doesn't tell you what it is.
----
Though I do agree, going by Ezran's pregen, somewhere the game is assuming everyone is trained in unarmored defense. It just isn't in the book.
It seems clear that on the Gear Section, it's meant to say everyone is trained in Unarmored Defense – "If you’re not wearing armor, substitute your proficiency in unarmored defense."
I agree strongly that should be the intent, but there needs to be a clearer discussion of proficiencies in a centralized place in the book. I think something like this slipped through because proficiencies are not talked about very clearly in one place and thus only the Monk gets proficiency higher than Untrained in Unarmored combat until they issue a FAQ or Errata.
It seems clear that on the Gear Section, it's meant to say everyone is trained in Unarmored Defense – "If you’re not wearing armor, substitute your proficiency in unarmored defense."
I disagree, that is in no way a clear indication that everyones proficiency is trained. Substituting your proficiency in unarmed defense would be an equally valid rule whatever that proficiency level is, untrained though legendary.
I think a dev mentioned that everyone was trained in unarmored defense at some point in the build up to the playtest release but that is not RAW in the rulebook.
One other thing points to everybody is trained in unarmored defense is the armor proficiency.
ARMOR PROFICIENCY FEAT 1
You become trained in light armor. If you already
were trained in light armor, you gain training in medium
armor, and if you were trained in both, you become trained
in heavy armor.
Special You can select this feat more than once. Each time
you select this feat, you become trained in the next type of
armor as appropriate (first light armor, then medium armor,
then heavy armor).
There is no general feat for unarmored defense so if you went by rules as written then either everybody is either trained in unarmored defense automatically or only monks can possibly get unarmored defense.
That might be RAI but RAW is that everyone is untrained in unarmored defense and there is no way to become trained unless you are a monk.
The point though is that the devs need to make an errata since I think they intended everyone to be trained in unarmored defense and the book doesn't say that anywhere.
Also the monk points to this as well. They are listed as untrained in all armor. One of their class abilities is unarmored defense proficiency starts at expert. So clearly the listed armor proficiencies is not including their unarmored defense.
One other thing points to everybody is trained in unarmored defense is the armor proficiency.
ARMOR PROFICIENCY FEAT 1
You become trained in light armor. If you already
were trained in light armor, you gain training in medium
armor, and if you were trained in both, you become trained
in heavy armor.
Special You can select this feat more than once. Each time
you select this feat, you become trained in the next type of
armor as appropriate (first light armor, then medium armor,
then heavy armor).There is no general feat for unarmored defense so if you went by rules as written then either everybody is either trained in unarmored defense automatically or only monks can possibly get unarmored defense.
That doesn't point to anything. The monk class specifically is "untrained in all armor" and has a first level class feature setting his 'unarmored defense proficiency.' It's also why the AC calculation in the armor section is worded the way it is.
Unarmored defense is treated as a distinct category from armor proficiency.
Also the monk points to this as well. They are listed as untrained in all armor. One of their class abilities is unarmored defense proficiency starts at expert. So clearly the listed armor proficiencies is not including their unarmored defense.
Yes, and anything not listed in a class is untrained. That's mentioned twice. (pages 9 and 43)
The monk thing contradicts your previous idea about the general feats- it clearly isn't treated as armor proficiency.
But as Bardarok says, this isn't an interpretation issue. We both agree that unarmored trained probably should be the default, but it simply isn't present in the rules. Neither of your pointers actually say 'unarmored defense defaults to trained for all characters.' I don't even agree they infer it- they call it out as a distinct proficiency.
The default for everything is specifically untrained.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
the Ezren pregen character clearly does not have a -2 to his AC from proficiency (or he has some +2 AC bonus that is otherwise completely unaccounted for), so it does seem like a non-issue as far as intent...
BUT, the developers told us to playtest the rules as written and not house rule stuff for our feedback. Bardarok's point abut how we will need a fairly responsive Errata or FAQ is a good one because the data on wizards and sorcerers is going to be unusable if half the testers play with the assumption that Unarmored proficiency is trained and the other half play with it as untrained.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems clear what the intent is but it really should be spelled out specifically. Because if one got really picky about it not only is nobody but monks trained in it but nobody but monks CAN be trained in it.
Yah if it were a normal game I would just say RAI, everyone is trained. but it's a playtest so that's RAW only.
Was very confused by this while trying to build a wizard and looking at the Mage Armor spell.
Hope it's just an oversight and we'll get a clarification after GenCon.
Everything seems to point to the idea that everyone is 'trained' in 'unarmored defense'. It is obvious that it is an oversight of SOME part, as there is no-one that is trained in it by current RAW. Not fighters, not barbarians, not rogues, etc - The monk is Expert (then Master, then Legendary), and the animal companion is Expert. The fact that nowhere does it grant Trained to anyone, nor is there a feat to gain Trained, certainly makes me thing the intention is that everyone already is.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
FWIW, the Monk Preview blog DID state that "everyone else" is Trained in Unarmored Defense.
The base assumption that unarmored defense is the default for every class is already wrong. That's not written anywhere. RAW also means you don't get to add things yourself.
p.16: To calculate her AC, add 10 plus her Dexterity
modifier (up to her armor’s Dexterity modifier cap), plus
her proficiency modifier with her armor, plus her armor’s
item bonus to AC and any other bonuses and penalties
that always apply.
You add proficiency with armor. Not with unarmored defense. Otherwise this would have been listed.
Unarmored defense is just used in context with the monk and needs to be treated as such.
|
The base assumption that unarmored defense is the default for every class is already wrong. That's not written anywhere. RAW also means you don't get to add things yourself.
p.16: To calculate her AC, add 10 plus her Dexterity
modifier (up to her armor’s Dexterity modifier cap), plus
her proficiency modifier with her armor, plus her armor’s
item bonus to AC and any other bonuses and penalties
that always apply.You add proficiency with armor. Not with unarmored defense. Otherwise this would have been listed.
Unarmored defense is just used in context with the monk and needs to be treated as such.
I think it might be clearer to explicitly state that in the formula you mention. Deducing that something does not apply because it is not mentioned in one part of the rules (ie, being implicit) is something I wish would be much reduced from PF1 considering all the rules debates that start on this "obvious" implicit things that are not that clear to many people out there
Someone on reddit said a GenCon panel confirmed that it was an error not to explicitly list that everyone is trained in unarmored defense.
Someone on reddit said a GenCon panel confirmed that it was an error not to explicitly list that everyone is trained in unarmored defense.
Paizo needs to say something.
I have no problem running this playtest under the assumption that non-monks not wearing armor are screwed in combat. If this isn't what they intended then they need to say something.
There's more than a few things that need to be addressed. Soon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Someone on reddit said a GenCon panel confirmed that it was an error not to explicitly list that everyone is trained in unarmored defense.Paizo needs to say something.
I have no problem running this playtest under the assumption that non-monks not wearing armor are screwed in combat. If this isn't what they intended then they need to say something.
There's more than a few things that need to be addressed. Soon.
They will.. they've been a bit preoccupied at GenCon. I wouldn't be surprised if after their return they get to work on the first 'errata' document for the Playtest.
From previous play tests, I suspect there will be a developer post in a few days with errata and clarifications. But we wouldn’t expect them to do much, if any, work on the weekend. So it probably won’t happen till Tuesday at the earliest.
From previous play tests, I suspect there will be a developer post in a few days with errata and clarifications. But we wouldn’t expect them to do much, if any, work on the weekend of the biggest gaming convention of the year. So it probably won’t happen till Tuesday at the earliest.
Fixed that. It's not an ordinary weekend even.
From previous play tests, I suspect there will be a developer post in a few days with errata and clarifications. But we wouldn’t expect them to do much, if any, work on the weekend of the biggest gaming convention of the year. So it probably won’t happen till Tuesday at the earliest.Fixed that. It's not an ordinary weekend even.
Sorry, no sympathy.
A playtest this important, that had errata, misspellings, and other issues reported SECONDS after release? Yeah, I expected someone to be on hand Day One engaging the public. This is not an unreasonable expectation. It's just good PR. This is not some small indie company, nor has it been in quite some time.
Most of us don't have a lot of time to game anymore. Life, finds a way, , , to interfere in everything. If 4 out of the 6 of us have kids (two with fresh ones and a third with one on the way) then our time together is very precious and if we're going to be spending it improving a product we'll eventually be plunking down money on, then I expect a bit more effort than I'm seeing.
As Murtock would say, "I'm getting too old for this [bleep]"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I doubt there’s much of an expectation of people playtesting this soon anyway. The books need time to be absorbed by the average group. This is probably going to be a long playtest, likely with a second pass.
There still needs to be a feat to allow a player to increase unarmored proficiency. Many a Barbarian or Druid might want to run around skyclad, and it might fit other character concepts, too.