I've been thinking about how to solve this, as it's been nagging at me. I don't have much of a problem with wizards and sorcerers being able to cast in armor, in PF2e, but my problem is with how it seems to be so much stronger than the other options that it obsoletes the classic unarmored wizard/sorc options, so I've been thinking about ways that this could be changed to make it less appealing:
Idea 1) Mage armor becomes a cantrip. Mage Armor gets buffed by +1 AC. Bracers of armor still use old scaling
Pros:
-Mage Armor now doesn't cost one of your highest level spell slot, or require you to buy a 1-level-delayed Bracers of Armor, at about 30% markup (not counting the fact that you can transfer potency between armor, but not with BoA), compared to real armor.
-Mage Armor is now as good as Light Armor, so anything that only improves proficiency one step doesn't have any real draw to it.
Cons:
-Sort of unbalances WBL
-Might have the inverse problem of Wizards multiclassing Fighter/Paladin for armor, in Monks multiclassing Wizard for Mage Armor as a cantrip
-Divine and Primal Sorcs don't benefit.
Idea 2) Mage Armor gets buffed by +1 AC. Bracers of armor use new scaling, and are priced/leveled as actual armor
Pros:
-Bracers of armor are equivalent to light armor, so much of the same benefits as mentioned above.
-Monk now doesn't have Bracers of Armor and Handwraps of the mighty Fist at the same level of treasure.
Cons:
-Bracers of armor are now as good as light armor, and don't have a dex cap, so high level dex characters will go armorless. (Is this a Con? It's certainly an unintended side effect, but is it that bad? Based on potency runes being able to be transferred, I can't see this obsoleting light armor except at high levels, where the dex cap comes in.)
Idea 3) No changes to Mage Armor, but it now costs a (class?) feat for Wizards and Sorcerers to cast in armor.
Pros:
-Solves the wizards seeking out Heavy Armor Problem (... Maybe?)
-For all non-wizards/sorcerers it behaves more cleanly with the expected math of the system, than other potential fixes.
Cons:
-Does it really solve the issue though? It puts a speed bump in it, certainly, but I'm not convinced it actually would solve the issue.
-Disincentivizes legitimate Armored mage concepts, like your Gishes.
So, what other ideas do people have, or opinions on my listed pros/cons for any of the ideas I've given? I think I personally like #2 the most, but it's also somewhere that I feel I'm missing some major negative that I just can't see.
I feel like "Bracers are as good as light armor" is only really a con when it comes to classes who never advance their light armor proficiency, since frankly it's pretty hard to hit the dex cap for leather armor.
One thing I've thought of is what if there were non-magical bracers who started at +1 AC and later got potency runes, since there really isn't anything to spend your money on as a monk at level 1, and level 1 monks are incredibly squishy relative to what they will become.
|
Any increase to the AC bonus of the bracers makes the high level dex monk the highest AC character in the game. As it stands now, the high level dex monk is on par with the heavy armor paladin without considering the level 20 bracers (the level 20 bracers make them the best).
So... you'd need to address that in any change.
EDIT: Admittedly, I didn't read this post too closely. Regardless, Bracers of Armor, as they are written now, put the monk in a very specific place. Reducing or increasing them will change that place.
You do realize that the untrained penalty has been increased from -2 to -4, right?
You do realize that the untrained penalty has been increased from -2 to -4, right?
Assuming you're talking to me? Yes I realize this, but it's not hard to get heavy armor proficiency in PF2e, even with the changes to archetypes (and even assuming you don't go Paladin MC). If you're human, you can get it as early as lv 5, and even non-humans can easily wind up in medium armor by level 3, without having to give up much.
I don't mind this, for certain characters, but as I mentioned above, I think it's important that going armorless is the ideal/viable for the majority of wizards/sorcs, which generally means that either armor proficiency is harder to get/use or the non-armored solutions need to be more viable. I don't think the former is all that effective a solution, so I'm trying to come up with ideas for how to increase unarmored effectiveness for wizards/sorcs, without, as swordchucks brings up, likewise unbalancing monks (which is why at least my first solution didn't change bracers of armor, though I did note that it had issues with potentially being too desirable for multiclassing into)
I find it far more believable that anyone would choose to wear actual armor instead of a set of robes when heading into danger.
This.
I feel like one of the big differences between Pathfinder and DnD is that Golarion is a lot grittier than the Forgotten Realms. This, combined with mundane healing actually being good, creates a really interesting world, where even those with magic power still rely on more "mundane" solutions to some of their problems.I'd draw the line at weapons. I don't want my Wizards needing magic crossbows to contribute, but I'm fine with armor being the way most people in the world protect themselves.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess the real question is what costs are there for arcane spellcasters wearing armor?
D&D 3.0 through PF1 had specific arcane spell failure that applied whether or not you were proficient with the armor in question. In those games, arcane spellcasters would either wear no armor or limit themselves to armor types with little or no arcane spell failure chance, along with similarly limited armor check penalties if they were not proficient with armor.
D&D 4e had intelligence as an alternative to dexterity in calculating armor class, so the best option for a wizard (once an appropriate unarmored defense feat became available) was to wear only cloth armor (that game's version of "no armor").
In D&D 5e, the only limitation seems to be proficiency. To wear armor in either of that game, a sorcerer or wizard (who by default is not proficient with any armor at all) would have to be a mountain dwarf, expend several feats for armor proficiency, or multiclass into a class that gains proficiency with armor, and the general idea seems to be that most players would find these options to be too expensive.
PF2 is similar to D&D 5E in this regard, except that now a sorcerer or wizard can become proficient with any sort of armor at the cost of a single (multi-)class feat. I think the general critique here is that a single feat is too low a cost for an armored arcane spellcaster.
The -4 untrained penalty from Update 1.3 puts the kibash on untrained armor usage pretty well IMO.
That isn't to say that there's still a problem with acquiring training, but the "1st level wizard in plate" issue isn't really an issue any more (+2 AC, -2 TAC).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
easiest way IMO is just to bring back Arcane spell failure chance.
I'm hoping for a "choose your own proficiency" model with magical defenses being an option to advance. Every armor is converging on around the same mechanical benefits eventually, we should just give up and embrace letting people choose what flavor of armor they're wearing.
It would need to have magic defenses actually keying off of proficiency, but that in itself could be pretty cool.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don’t see what the problem is. Excluding the Paladin mc (which I think is problematic) it takes three feats for a caster to get heavy armor, and their proficiency never improves. Definitely balanced against the melees, and has a steep enough cost not to be essential.
easiest way IMO is just to bring back Arcane spell failure chance.Then you would have to un-nerf spells. They really aren't worth having right now. (Except healing and some buffs)
I feel your exaggerating quite a bit.
So, you're playing a Gish and you gain benefit from hitting stuff with your weapon.
I see that as working as intended, not as a problem.
So a fighter that takes Sorcerer dedication would be hitting stuff with spells more than his sword?
Remember that the argument cuts both ways. If the dedication benefits are "better" than the default (or worse), then swapping the two should result in the same comparison.
Our sorc went with bard dedication and I don't think he did a single attack the whole adventure.
Given that a lot of spells are crap and the bardic benefits aren't about hitting stuff anyway...
The fighter who takes bard dedication would be doing bard things too?
What about the bard that takes fighter dedication?
I think multiple tweaks to several areas would be in order here.
* Light armor increases by +1 AC, medium armor increases by +2 AC, and heavy armor increases by +3 AC, WITHOUT increasing monster attack bonuses. Wearing armor should be better than mage armor since actual armor involves weight and restrictions and requires proficiency, and heavier armor needs something to compensate for it having worse penalties and restrictions than light armor and unarmored.
* Mage Armor should be a cantrip, so it doesn't eat a spell slot.
* Bracers of Armor should be available at every level the base and heightened versions of said cantrip become available. So, there is a level 1 version that gives +1 AC and is affordable to a level 1 character. It doesn't have the penalties and restrictions of armor, but that's fine, because armor is now tweaked upward. A wizard or etc has incentive for either form of Mage Armor - the cantrip lets them save money and an item slot, the bracers let them free up a cantrip and can (should) accept runes.
* Bring back a form of spell failure for everyone. If you are proficient in the armor you are wearing, you don't have spell failure. If you are not proficient, you have to make a flat DC 5 check when casting a spell or lose the spell. This applies to clerics, power-users like monks, and everyone else as much as it does to wizards.
The wizard not being aloud to wear armor was a way to balance power with the fighter.Since they significantly reduced wizard spell power, they might not need to further balance wizards by restricting armor. I think they should be allowed to wear armor and I would start them with light armor proficiency.
I agree
And on a related note, wizards and sorcerers are in a bad enough spot that they need to be stop being punished with worse saves and lower hit points as well.Their squishiness also is really a problem in the face of how hard monsters hit, and few ways of stopping them from just walking up and smashing. Particularly since a lot of monsters are faster than PCs.