Unarmored Defense - Untrained?

[Texas Snyper]

From the playtest book it looks like the monk and animal companion are the only ones trained in unarmored defense. Everybody else should be taking a -2 to their AC if they aren't wearing armor. This is further supported by Mage Armor's wording of using the casters Unarmored Defense proficiency on top of the spell's bonus to AC. None of the classes mention being trained in it. This is either an oversight (they are trained but it isn't mentioned anywhere) or Ezren's preview sheet was wrong and his AC should be two lower.

[TheFinish]

The Monk isn't Trained in Unarmored Defense, he's an Expert; but you're right, it's never specified anywhere what kind of proficiency other classes have in Unarmored Defense. I'd assume it's Trained, but it does seem like an oversight; especially since the Class section says:

"If a mechanic isn’t listed in your character’s
class entry, her proficiency rank in that mechanic is
considered untrained unless she gains training from
another source."

Which means that Wizards/Sorcerers are at -2 AC all the time. Especially since I don't think there's a feat to gain Proficiency in Unarmored.

[TheLoneCleric]

That seems like a big oversight. I'd have to houserule it until they fix it.

[Unicore]

TheLoneCleric wrote:

That seems like a big oversight. I'd have to houserule it until they fix it.

Hopefully they do fix it soon. Right now, wizards and sorcerers are in some trouble.

You would probably need to inform them that you made this house rule when you submit your play test feed back though or else it could cause chaos on their reporting.

[Cadynce Delholme]

I would also assume the base for unarmored defense is "trained" as it appears on the armor table without any negative connotations. But you're all correct, it isn't explicitly stated anyways in the core rulebook that anyone is trained in unarmored defense.

[rooneg]

Considering that Paizo's own demos have been playing with everyone being trained at Unarmored Defense I'm not going to lose any sleep over playtesting that way.

[Texas Snyper]

Yea, I'm pretty sure they intended to have everybody to be proficient in unarmored but it doesn't say that anywhere in the PDF. Honestly, I would be fine if they kept wizards and sorcerers as untrained and have anybody who has armor training be trained in unarmored. They should also modify the armor training feat to include unarmored in with light armor.

[Paladinosaur]

From Ezren's character sheet, it seems he is trained in unarmored defense.

[Draco18s]

As it is currently not listed anywhere, other than the general rule that "everything is untrained unless otherwise specified" this means that all classes (besides monk) are untrained in unarmored.

[Corradh]

It does specify in the monk class preview blog:
"Further, they're untrained in armor, but get graceful expertise at 1st level, which gives them expert proficiency in unarmored defense (everybody else is only trained)."

http://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5lkv3?Monk-Class-Preview

[Rholand]

If you are untrained even in unarmored, wouldn't it then always be preferable to wear a leather or hide armor, and most of the time be more than worth it to wear at LEAST a chain shirt even if you are untrained? For no armor, (Level + 0 -2 ) can never compete with (Level +2 -2).
That can't be intended? Am I missing some problem with wearing armor that makes it not worth it?

Is there any good reason for, say, a sorcerer to not just strut around in half-plate right out of the gate?

[Unicore]

It is pretty obvious that something got cut out of the book that made it clear that everyone is supposed to be trained in unarmored defense and it never got put back in (as suggested by the monk blog).

They should have a list, in the same section as where they talk about the basics of proficiencies, where they call out everything that breaks the rule untrained unless otherwise stated. From the looks of things, that would be Unarmed defense and all Saves. There is no reason that it should have to be written out everywhere.

Otherwise, they need to add Unarmored proficiency trained to every class under armor proficiencies.

[TheFinish]

thejaytrix wrote:

It does specify in the monk class preview blog:

"Further, they're untrained in armor, but get graceful expertise at 1st level, which gives them expert proficiency in unarmored defense (everybody else is only trained)."

http://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5lkv3?Monk-Class-Preview

The info in the blogs could be outdated though (for example, Halflings aren't +Cha anymore).

I mean, I'm pretty sure everyone is supposed to be Trained in Unarmored Defense, but it wouldn't hurt to put it under a class' Armor Proficiencies. Like, a Wizard would be:

"Trained in Unarmored Defense, Untrained in all Armor"

Much like how they print all three saves all the time even though nobody is Untrained in any save.

[kaid]

They either need to specify that everybody is trained OR there needs to be an unarmored defense feat like the armor feat so people who want to train it can do so. Right now the problem is not only does nobody but monks start with it but apparently there is no way to train it even if you want to.

[Unicore]

Unarmored defense really needs to be on the character sheet as well, especially since the monk can train it up.

[Linkmastr001]

I tried looking once I noticed this yesterday, but I couldn't find it anywhere that everyone is trained in unarmored. I suspect its simply missing, but things do change in development.

[DDay2021]

Unicore wrote:

Unarmored defense really needs to be on the character sheet as well, especially since the monk can train it up.

This-

I'm just picking up Pathfinder with the Beta testing, we spent an inordinate amount of time today trying to figure out where to document Graceful Expertise / Unarmored Defense on a character sheet. And then we spent more time trying to figure out how to document the Armor Class.

[khadgar567]

we do realy need that unarmored defense problem solved since there is no way wizard and sorc to survive first 2 levels to get trained in armor unless they are human and unarmored training is armor proficiency option.

[Epic Meepo]

I couldn't find a way to mark this thread as a FAQ candidate, so I'm just going to post here to bump the thread.

The whole unarmored defense proficiency question bothered me the whole time I was reading the rulebook.

[David knott 242]

The character sheet does have entries for AC and TAC. If your character normally does not wear armor, the unarmored values would go there.

[DDay2021]

David knott 242 wrote:

The character sheet does have entries for AC and TAC. If your character normally does not wear armor, the unarmored values would go there.

We finally found that in the rulebook. I'd almost like to see an unarmored AC, AC and TAC (unarmored TAC?) . I'm just thinking of the offbeat chance where the character is in a situation where they are not wearing armor (sleeping comes to mind) and are attacked.

[Christian Cruz 35]

Yeah, near as I can tell, but not described anywhere in the current test book, I think most classes would be trained in unarmored defense. I mean despite Sorcerors and Wizards being the glass cannons they always were, it wouldn't make sense to think that anybody that values their own life would train with multiple weapons, learn several proficient skills, and wander into places with monsters and criminals and other things that would mean them harm and just... neglect to learn to physically protect themselves by getting out of the way of things.

Comparing a monk with +4 DEX and expert Unarmored at level 1 suggests an AC of 16, while a theoretically 'untrained' Sorc/Wiz with a liberally measured +3 Dex secondary gets a whopping 12, with maybe a 13 if they Mage Armor, burning one of the impressive TWO spells per day they can cast. While also liberally insinuating that they took Con at a +1, they best HP they can aspire to at Level 1 is 17, provided they chose a Dwarf (That CHA flaw is gonna be real handy as a Sorceror). This power might seem inline with 3.5 PF, but in the 3-action system that allows multiple attacks from level 1 without the grace of the BAB limiter, such a criminally low AC and health is just begging to get destroyed by anything wielding a bow.

14 isn't all that high of an AC, and again, this conservatively assumes the Wizard had the foresight to consider all the dodging it might have to do, and not just live life as a mental skill machine. Zero DEX with a -1 Proficiency registers at a grand ol' 9 AC, 10 with Mage Armor, 11 with Shield as well. Under the 'meets it, beats it' standard, that's a raw 50% chance that anything that wants to Strike at you will just... absolutely brutalize any Level 1 caster before they even get off the ground.

In short, they're probably going to amend this somewhere in the final book under Armor Class, but as multiple people have stated that the demo sheets include the +1 Proficiency for casters and providing this reasoning as to why a -2 on the class with easily the lowest starting AC, you should feel safe just saying all classes are considered trained in being unarmored.

Also +1 to adding a 'no armor' stat block to the finalized sheet, since sleeping in armor fatigue IS still a thing and not even counting that, there's probably numerous circumstances in which a PC can find themselves missing their trusty metal life preservers.

[The Shaman]

Unicore wrote:

TheLoneCleric wrote:

That seems like a big oversight. I'd have to houserule it until they fix it.

Hopefully they do fix it soon. Right now, wizards and sorcerers are in some trouble.

You would probably need to inform them that you made this house rule when you submit your play test feed back though or else it could cause chaos on their reporting.

I don't think they are in trouble, they just get armor ASAP.

What is a bit iffy for me is that by the system, they should wear the heaviest armor they can get away with. They don't lose any AC since they are untrained with unarmored/mage armor either, and it doesn't impact their spells.

[Unicore]

The Shaman wrote:

Unicore wrote:

TheLoneCleric wrote:

That seems like a big oversight. I'd have to houserule it until they fix it.

Hopefully they do fix it soon. Right now, wizards and sorcerers are in some trouble.

You would probably need to inform them that you made this house rule when you submit your play test feed back though or else it could cause chaos on their reporting.

I don't think they are in trouble, they just get armor ASAP.

What is a bit iffy for me is that by the system, they should wear the heaviest armor they can get away with. They don't lose any AC since they are untrained with unarmored/mage armor either, and it doesn't impact their spells.

Yeah, as the rules stand now, Hide feels pretty much like a given for a wizard and chainmail or a breast plate are probably worth it if you are willing to give up every succeeding on any STR or DEX skill.

[amberlink]

Spent forever trying to find this in the book before finding this thread

[Brian Waite 199]

They clarified this at GenCon after being asked about this and said that -ALL- classes are Trained in Unarmored Defense.

[Thedukk]

Brian Waite 199 wrote:

They clarified this at GenCon after being asked about this and said that -ALL- classes are Trained in Unarmored Defense.

Have they posted it anywhere? I keep seeing this and "Alchemists get 3+int skills", but I would feel MUCH better about saying it while testing the system that they built if I could see where they said it.

[Draco18s]

Thedukk wrote:

Brian Waite 199 wrote:

They clarified this at GenCon after being asked about this and said that -ALL- classes are Trained in Unarmored Defense.

Have they posted it anywhere? I keep seeing this and "Alchemists get 3+int skills", but I would feel MUCH better about saying it while testing the system that they built if I could see where they said it.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2vawh?Post-Gen-Con-Update