I think Sorcerers should get increased proficiency with Unarmed Attacks


Homebrew


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Draconic & Demonic specifically) get focus powers at level 1 that grant them natural weapon unarmed attacks. Now, a melee sorcerer build isn't what one usually expects, but it's possible.

However, when Sorcerers get a bump in weapon proficiency to Expert at 11th level, that bump only affects simple weapons. Now, there are options for Sorcerers who want to use other weapons to increase their proficiency to do so via multiclassing or ancestry feats, but none of those feats apply to unarmed attacks since those are not technically weapons. This means that if an 11th level Draconic Sorcerer ever finds himself in melee combat, it's better for him to draw a dagger instead of using the claws he can only use because of his bloodline.

That feels... unthematic to me. This is why I feel like Sorcerers when sorcerers get Expert proficiency in Simple weapons at 11th level, this increase should also apply to unarmed strikes. Or at least, it should to those Sorcerers whose bloodlines grant them unique natural weapon unarmed strikes.


I agree, but then again I do find the whole proficiency system a little bit restraining.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Sounds like an oversight to me. Perhaps it will be added to future updates.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I suspect many home games will use some variant of homebrew rule to 'fix' this, but I am hopeful for a more broad errata to fix it for Society play.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, this definitely seems like it should be a thing.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Truthfully, I think it would be easier just to have unarmed strikes in simple weapons and not muddle around with all the exceptions. This isn't a good ruleset for 'yes, but/or/if.'

A lot of the usability vanishes which it goes vague or uncertain.

Also it isn't just sorcerers. Wizards run into to the same problem in places, as do clerics and champions (especially of Irori, which has some specific exceptions for unarmed, but not universally or consistently)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

This is also an issue with many, many forms of investment into Armor Proficiency at 13th level, due to the way scaling armor proficiencies work.

This seems to be a running trend in 2e: characters getting screwed out of increased proficiencies at higher levels due to the way proficiencies scale.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Colette Brunel wrote:

This is also an issue with many, many forms of investment into Armor Proficiency at 13th level, due to the way scaling armor proficiencies work.

This seems to be a running trend in 2e: characters getting screwed out of increased proficiencies at higher levels due to the way proficiencies scale.

This seems separate from armor which is something you choose to invest into. I would keep that discussion to that thread rather than bring it here.

Personally, I'm going to be house-ruling for sorcerers to get access to expert proficiency with their unarmed strikes if they have the focus spell for it.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Colette Brunel wrote:

This is also an issue with many, many forms of investment into Armor Proficiency at 13th level, due to the way scaling armor proficiencies work.

This seems to be a running trend in 2e: characters getting screwed out of increased proficiencies at higher levels due to the way proficiencies scale.

These are different situations (though objecting to both is certainly reasonable). There's clearly a general rule that if you get an attack/armor Proficiency outside your Class your Class does not raise it.

This, however, results in Sorcerers getting actively worse with abilities they get directly from their Class. That's almost unheard of (the only other example is Warpriests getting Martial weapons and then never increasing them). The two are not really equivalent situations.


It does seem like the least they could do to compensate the one class without a master save.


Wonder why Paizo keeps adding these powers that result in suicide half the time. Sorcs aren't hitting with them, just putting themselves in danger.

They're not really better at them than in PF1 with low BAB and having low ability score, it was a well known issue that these cool powers were so unusable for 10 years. They are very evocative abilities and I wish there was a way they weren't pretty much a "trap". Wish they got improved proficiency or enchants with these to make up for the difference.

It's not even that they're bad at lv11 like the thread title indicates, they are already bad at level 1, and at low levels it's pretty much their only "sorc" power... 11 is just another nail in the coffin, if you somehow didn't forget this ability existed by then.

Is their purpose to only be used by multiclassed monks and fighters?


Xenocrat wrote:
It does seem like the least they could do to compensate the one class without a master save.

Did we ever find out if the book or sheet was wrong I recall someone saying the sorcerer character sheet had master will saves at level 17 like a wizard which would make way more sense.


Yeah in PF1 they kept giving sorcerer melee abilties that get them killed if sorcerer going to have melee focus spells then atleast they can do is allow unarmed to go up to expert at lvl 11.


Honestly almost all 1st level bloodline spells are obsolete at 6th level.


Xenocrat wrote:
Honestly almost all 1st level bloodline spells are obsolete at 6th level.

Which really shouldnt be the aim in my opinion at least elemental bloodlines is a consistently useful 3 action for further burst on a non attack spellcast turn.


ChibiNyan wrote:
Wonder why Paizo keeps adding these powers that result in suicide half the time. Sorcs aren't hitting with them, just putting themselves in danger.

I feel like the idea is "this is a backup option if a sorcerer finds themselves up close and personal". But the issue is that with AoOs much less common this go around, the better option is usually "move away and cast something."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
Wonder why Paizo keeps adding these powers that result in suicide half the time. Sorcs aren't hitting with them, just putting themselves in danger.
I feel like the idea is "this is a backup option if a sorcerer finds themselves up close and personal". But the issue is that with AoOs much less common this go around, the better option is usually "move away and cast something."

Also, my understanding is that focus spells are supposed to be something you'd want to use often. You basically get one per encounter, and you should want to cast it.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Staffan Johansson wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
Wonder why Paizo keeps adding these powers that result in suicide half the time. Sorcs aren't hitting with them, just putting themselves in danger.
I feel like the idea is "this is a backup option if a sorcerer finds themselves up close and personal". But the issue is that with AoOs much less common this go around, the better option is usually "move away and cast something."
Also, my understanding is that focus spells are supposed to be something you'd want to use often. You basically get one per encounter, and you should want to cast it.

Which is why it's amusing that in every sorcerer I've stated up so far, I always found a better option to take than the other focus spells, and I could easily see myself never using the one focus spell I was automatically given.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Houserule: Natural weapons, such as claws/bite/gore/etc matches your highest proficiency gained from class or archetype for the duration of the spell/ability used to gain those.

Or something like that?
This way you don't have expert kung fu wizards running around without building for it.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
Wonder why Paizo keeps adding these powers that result in suicide half the time. Sorcs aren't hitting with them, just putting themselves in danger.
I feel like the idea is "this is a backup option if a sorcerer finds themselves up close and personal". But the issue is that with AoOs much less common this go around, the better option is usually "move away and cast something."

I'm pretty sure if a Draconic sorcerer finds herself in melee and is not specifically built to take advantage of the claws, "cast shocking grasp or flame blade" is what she should be doing.


I do wish that the dragon claw was instead "Dragon scales", working like Vibrant Thorns of the nature domain that causes damage when something attack the sorcerer and the damage increase when casting a spell of the same element than the dragon bloodline.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

maybe they are intended to be used with your spell attack roll when you have then active?


Also another bloodline that should affected is Aberrant one as that seems to focus on being close.


Gamerskum wrote:

maybe they are intended to be used with your spell attack roll when you have then active?

This would be really good and make them valuable. CHA to hit would go a LONG way! Maybe should make this a House Rule.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Adding my support to the suggestion. It honestly feels like an oversight, since there's no way for sorcerers to get expert unarmed, even through multiclassing.


Another vote; everyone should be able to get at least Expert in any weapon and/or armour.

Sovereign Court

Yeah this seems like a mistake.


I'm not sure that making everyone an Expert in unarmed (eventually) is the correct solution. That might have unforeseen consequences. However, I think any scaling power (or cantrip) that gives you an unarmed attack, should boost proficiency in that attack up to the proficiency you have for simple weapons. That means that they will always remain viable (which seems to be the point of these scaling spells/powers).

Edit: it could be as simple as stating they are simple weapons for the purpose of profiency. This language would be similar to some ancestries that grabs weapon access/proficiency, I believe.


Iff wrote:
I'm not sure that making everyone an Expert in unarmed (eventually) is the correct solution. That might have unforeseen consequences.

Like? Unarmed is a fairly underwhelming weapon if you don't have some specific enhancements to upgrade them and if you do have specific enhancements you probably should have training in them anyways.

I have to agree with some of the others in this thread, it feels almost like an oversight that a class that can grab innate unarmed enhancements in class never get a proficiency buff.

Though to be honest, I think it might be an oversight just how hard it is to advance unarmed training period. It almost feels like when Unarmed got taken off the simple weapons Paizo forgot to include ways to bump proficiency. Like, surely it can't be intended that a rogue, ranger or champion MCing into monk is going to end up two proficiency bumps behind if they try to use stances.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Homebrew / I think Sorcerers should get increased proficiency with Unarmed Attacks All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.