Every noble or rich person should be a wizard...


Advice

101 to 150 of 156 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Natan Linggod 327 wrote:

Every single noble family, merchant clan or similar group with sense would shell out whatever's needed to train their kids with at least the basics of magic use. Even if it's only to enable them to defend themselves against others.

Thoughts?

Why would you put all the time and effort into becoming a wizard, when you can just hire one?

Every noble man would have a wizard on staff (and fighters as a guards, possibly a few rogue to spy, and likely at least know a cleric). But no need to work when you can just buy the effects.


Set wrote:
It *might* feel a little more on theme if it was a prepared caster, and not a spontaneous caster, to represent that the noble bard's spellcasting comes from studies, but the inborn magic works just as well if there's any truth to the notion that this spontaneous magic comes from something 'special' in the family cocktail, as with a sorcerer, with the bardic nobles pointing to their innate spellcasting as 'proof' that their noble bloodline is *actually* special.

I can write spontaneous casting off as 'easier'. You don't need to fully understand the theories behind countless magical phenomenon, and you can just learn the few special tricks that you use on a regular basis (such as heroism, haste, etc).

This seems more appropriate for someone that has their attention also divided between swordplay, social standing, and management.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
lemeres wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Random other thought I just had. Rich people and hard work man... I don't think so.
I feel it is a cyclical thing. The first generation builds up a grand house, the second generation gets the benefits of the house without having to work and thus squander it, and then the third generation has to build the now broken house back up from the rubble. Rinse and repeat.

I can see it now.

2nd Generation: The house didn't collapse because of what we did (or didn't do), but because of what YOU did (or didn't do). Your callous generation left us with nothing that wasn't already on the path of ruin, and then you blamed US for it!


Magic is a resource like any other, meaning the nobility has to control it, not directly wield it. But they also have to control money, therefore know business & taxation. And control armies, therefore know war & morale. Oratory for the masses, and land management to maximize output, etc. Magic is useful, but it's a long path from 1st to anything that'll shift the power paradigm.

So as somebody mentioned earlier, Arcana should be a fairly common skill among nobles. They need to understand what's possible. Somebody gave an example of using Pest Form to appear like a cat in a noble's garden. I answered that a noble (or at least his able head of security) will be aware of such low-level espionage magic. That PC would likely end up attacked by guards, or in retrospect, guard dogs.

And yes, if ideologies don't prevent it, nobles probably do want their relatives to marry Sorcerers with amicable bloodlines. The fact Sorcerers have Charisma makes the sales pitch easier. But they have to balance that against the value of adding that bloodline vs. adding a more noble bloodline and the power that brings.

And nobles do want connections with the clergy, much like in real life. And in olden days, that meant sending "excess" children into the priesthood or a convent. In an RPG, that means access to magic as well (probably more important for it aiding the noble's health!)

And some of this assumes that the leaders trust their descendants enough to foster such power within them, power they don't have themselves.

Yet that still means nobles need more children to cover all the mundane sources of power too! So I suspect they attempt to raise children to their capabilities, hoping for a gish (that works!), but settling for anything that aids the power base.

And given the fickle nature of noble children in the fantasy genre...maybe it's best that they have non-magical ambitions.
*cough* Cthulhu *cough*


There's an argument to be made that wizard studies take up so much time (and this is an ongoing, lifelong time sink) that it doesn't leave enough time to do the things that nobility are expected to do (learning social etiquette, history, how to dance, how to sword fight, how to manage finances, laws, language, going to social events, passing judgement on commoners, courting, diplomacy, hunting, etc)

Wizards often seem to be shut ins with poor social skills, which isn't something a noble can be while meeting their many obligations.

Also, nobility in many cases may see wizardry as having a job, something that is beneath them.


Tender Tendrils wrote:

There's an argument to be made that wizard studies take up so much time (and this is an ongoing, lifelong time sink) that it doesn't leave enough time to do the things that nobility are expected to do (learning social etiquette, history, how to dance, how to sword fight, how to manage finances, laws, language, going to social events, passing judgement on commoners, courting, diplomacy, hunting, etc)

Wizards often seem to be shut ins with poor social skills, which isn't something a noble can be while meeting their many obligations.

Also, nobility in many cases may see wizardry as having a job, something that is beneath them.

You can probably get away with it though if that is the entire point of your family- such as a family of court magicians, or army mages.

Essentially- you would have to get a position (preferably in a central location like a capital or a trade hub, so you don't have to go far from the lab to meet with people) that has other nobles coming directly to you when they have a problem. You would then substitute those favors for the usual smoozing to stay in power.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Honestly, specially given how skills have opened up, I dont see the whole "Wizards can only shut-ins with poor social skills". I mean sure some Wizards might do that, but it's hardly the only type of wizard.

As for dedication for wizardry. Well people keep talking about how great the new multiclassing system is. And in this case I agree a bit, dedication feats allows someone to put the minimum resources into being another class without sacrifising your main class. So a noble could certainly be a Fighter or Rogue with Caster dedication to gain some access to magic knowledge.

As for which class a noble would be depends entirely on the area, amount of power, opposition, and personal tastes.

Spoiler:
A noble in a place like Riddleport would probably prefer to Fighters to maintain control of the people, a noble in the Lands of Linnorm King would probably need to be a Barbarian, the Queens of Irrisen by contrast are all Witches, Meanwhile Razmiran is ran by a clever Wizard with a group Wizards (pretending to be clerics) and some strong martials.

But seriously Razmin bluffed, murdered, and manipulated his way into becoming a self-declared god of an entire country as a level 19 Wizard. Yes he does have a loyal group to control things, it's the basics to run anything. Point is, being a wizard =/= shut in with poor social skills


Temperans wrote:

Honestly, specially given how skills have opened up, I dont see the whole "Wizards can only shut-ins with poor social skills". I mean sure some Wizards might do that, but it's hardly the only type of wizard.

As for dedication for wizardry. Well people keep talking about how great the new multiclassing system is. And in this case I agree a bit, dedication feats allows someone to put the minimum resources into being another class without sacrifising your main class. So a noble could certainly be a Fighter or Rogue with Caster dedication to gain some access to magic knowledge.

As for which class a noble would be depends entirely on the area, amount of power, opposition, and personal tastes. ** spoiler omitted **

My point wasn't that all wizards are shut ins, it was that many of them are and that there is likely a good reason for that (which is generally implied to be that they are busy studying and doing research).

The occasional exception to this doesn't disprove a theory about "why not every noble is a wizard"

Additionally, the game mechanics of a player character shouldn't be held up as proof of what NPCs can do (PCs are generally exceptional individuals living in exceptional circumstances)


It is kind of like asking why aren't all introverts extroverts?

I feel like nobles have a lot of other things to learn too. If they learn mage stuff that's less ruling noble stuff they have a chance to learn.


Vidmaster7 wrote:

It is kind of like asking why aren't all introverts extroverts?

I feel like nobles have a lot of other things to learn too. If they learn mage stuff that's less ruling noble stuff they have a chance to learn.

What's to say these things are mutually exclusive? Knights found the time to train and carry out their duties.

As for those arguing that PCs get to be certain classes because they are exceptional people, well I thinknobles qualify as being exceptional. The clue is in the name "from Latinnobilis "well-known, famous, renowned; excellent, superior, splendid; high-born, of superior birth". But they still lack the capabilities to be anything other than mediocre?


I'm sure the nobles would have you believe that anyways.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The name means exceptional because it was chosen by nobles. Part of the conceit of feudalism was that the nobility where inherently superior and exceptional due to their blood - which was really just a justification, not an actual fact


The CRB thinks rogues make good nobles:

SCOUNDREL (CRB page 180) wrote:
Your racket is also ideal for certain reputable professions, like ... diplomat, or politician.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
whew wrote:

The CRB thinks rogues make good nobles:

SCOUNDREL (CRB page 180) wrote:
Your racket is also ideal for certain reputable professions, like ... diplomat, or politician.

Sneaking, stealing, lying, backstabbing? Yep, sounds about right for a politician.


Temperans wrote:
Honestly, specially given how skills have opened up, I dont see the whole "Wizards can only shut-ins with poor social skills". I mean sure some Wizards might do that, but it's hardly the only type of wizard.

It is not that a wizard has to be a shut in... but many of the ways one lives a magic focused life would not be conducive to the normal lifestyle of a noble.

Besides the researcher and crafter, we are all familiar with the battlemage lifestyle. This is how pretty much any player controlled wizard lives. They gain experience and refine their techniques by using them on a constant basis against live targets in real battle situations.

However... most nobles do not involve themselves in the murder hobo lifestyle (ignoring fallen houses of course; they are just a paper only title away from being commoners). Why set out for constant battle when you can have soldiers do it for you? If you are not part of the royal army, serving as a military mage, you are not likely to pick this way of life.

So the question is this- is the noble simply dabbling in magic in his routine life, and living based solely off of his skills? If that is the case, he might have a better time if he just multiclasses rogue.

Of course, there are some nobles that routinely use magic as part of social plots- using scrying, enchantments, illusion heavy assaults, etc. But... as players, we usually cut off the heads of those nobles with greatswords- possibly a part of a big boss battle.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Decimus Drake wrote:
As for those arguing that PCs get to be certain classes because they are exceptional people, well I thinknobles qualify as being exceptional. The clue is in the name "from Latinnobilis "well-known, famous, renowned; excellent, superior, splendid; high-born, of superior birth". But they still lack the capabilities to be anything other than mediocre?

Nobles aren't any more exceptional than anyone else. 'Superior birth' is pretty much a load of crap. A noble can certainly be exceptional, and many are capable of becoming fine Wizards, but no more as a percentage of their numbers than the general population.


I say their more likely to be higher in numbers as sorcerer than wizards do to higher chance of coming into contact with planar influences or blood being passed down.

Wouldn't be suprised for example if Chelix noblity end up all as diabolical sorcerers sooner or later with succession crisis due to having tiefling progeny cause of hell influence.


Reziburno25 wrote:

I say their more likely to be higher in numbers as sorcerer than wizards do to higher chance of coming into contact with planar influences or blood being passed down.

Wouldn't be suprised for example if Chelix noblity end up all as diabolical sorcerers sooner or later with succession crisis due to having tiefling progeny cause of hell influence.

Canonically, there are lots of teiflings/tainted blood people of all societal levels in Cheliax. It actually comes back to a point I made about 50 posts up. Queen Abrogail is a powerful sorceress and devil binder, BUT she's queen b/c her mommy was. Being a nobleman/gentry does not make you in smarter or more talented than a commoner, it just increases the likelihood that you will have the opportunity to do something with your natural abilities.

Will some noble scions or second children be shipped off to wizard school or a church, you bet. Does that mean every noble child has the capacity to be either a wizard or cleric? Not by a long shot.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Thing is you all appear to have a double standard when it comes to level up. Wizard must use or study their magic for life and it is a significant distraction from learning other things. But any other class (except maybe druid and cleric) can both practice their class skill in spare time and study all the things to be a noble. (Rogues and Bard have an easy time of it due to synergy).

As mentioned, the Illusion, Divination, Enchantment, and a lesser extent abjuration all make for useful Wizard schools and all have their use in social circles that could certainly be useful. Just learning Prestidigitation (always stay clean and have warm flavorful meals), Sygil (unlimited customized signature), Unseen Servant (always available servant), and Illusory Disguise (emergency disguise and/or quick wardrove change) would make a nobles life much easier and are easily applicable daily.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Decimus Drake wrote:
As for those arguing that PCs get to be certain classes because they are exceptional people, well I thinknobles qualify as being exceptional. The clue is in the name "from Latinnobilis "well-known, famous, renowned; excellent, superior, splendid; high-born, of superior birth". But they still lack the capabilities to be anything other than mediocre?
Nobles aren't any more exceptional than anyone else. 'Superior birth' is pretty much a load of crap. A noble can certainly be exceptional, and many are capable of becoming fine Wizards, but no more as a percentage of their numbers than the general population.

Except it would be higher since they have possess material advantages over much of the wider population. That they are born into (or earn) privileged status and makes them exceptions compared to people in wider society and they are of "superior birth" since their birth places them in a superior position is society.

Material advantages is what this is about. All you need to learn wizardly magic is access to sufficient resources; you don't need to be born with a special gift like sorcerers, you you just need money and/or connections. Also I never said they had do be "fine wizards", they could completely suck at it and never progress beyond first level spells.


Temperans wrote:

Thing is you all appear to have a double standard when it comes to level up. Wizard must use or study their magic for life and it is a significant distraction from learning other things. But any other class (except maybe druid and cleric) can both practice their class skill in spare time and study all the things to be a noble. (Rogues and Bard have an easy time of it due to synergy).

As mentioned, the Illusion, Divination, Enchantment, and a lesser extent abjuration all make for useful Wizard schools and all have their use in social circles that could certainly be useful. Just learning Prestidigitation (always stay clean and have warm flavorful meals), Sygil (unlimited customized signature), Unseen Servant (always available servant), and Illusory Disguise (emergency disguise and/or quick wardrove change) would make a nobles life much easier and are easily applicable daily.

I hold this double standard because the original argument in the thread is that 'every noble should be a wizard'. While few would argue against the importance of having access to a spell caster... we find it doubtful that the noble has to PERSONALLY learn it. We are arguing that skills are more important for a noble's job, and rogue and bard just happen to give more skill given the same int.

Given the edicts added onto gods... we are arguing against the Nethys "you gotta use magic over anything else" perspective.

Additionally... while you will can find uses for the various sneaky spells... it is hard for me to view it as essential enough to have daily access to it. Overuse would make it easier to discover, and then people will be wary of interacting with you- once people realize you are running around invisible and messing with minds, they will not visit your house or let you visit theirs. In comparison, normal bluffs and diplomacy can be written off as running your mouth and saying silly things.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Kelseus wrote:
Reziburno25 wrote:

I say their more likely to be higher in numbers as sorcerer than wizards do to higher chance of coming into contact with planar influences or blood being passed down.

Wouldn't be suprised for example if Chelix noblity end up all as diabolical sorcerers sooner or later with succession crisis due to having tiefling progeny cause of hell influence.

Canonically, there are lots of teiflings/tainted blood people of all societal levels in Cheliax. It actually comes back to a point I made about 50 posts up. Queen Abrogail is a powerful sorceress and devil binder, BUT she's queen b/c her mommy was. Being a nobleman/gentry does not make you in smarter or more talented than a commoner, it just increases the likelihood that you will have the opportunity to do something with your natural abilities.

Abrogail II succeeded King Infrexus, who probably wasn't her father and definitely wasn't her mother. Since House Thrune has no regular succession rules, she (like her predecessors) was probably involved in murdering her predecessor and had to quickly intimidate the rest of her house into accepting her as the new monarch. It is actually a major accomplishment each time a new monarch takes the throne without triggering a new civil war.

And there is a canonical story about a Chelish noble house being executed when it was learned that many of its members were tieflings who could pass for human. The discovery that any member of House Thrune was a tiefling would indeed trigger a serious crisis if it ever happened.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Decimus Drake wrote:

Except it would be higher since they have possess material advantages over much of the wider population. That they are born into (or earn) privileged status and makes them exceptions compared to people in wider society and they are of "superior birth" since their birth places them in a superior position is society.

Material advantages is what this is about. All you need to learn wizardly magic is access to sufficient resources; you don't need to be born with a special gift like sorcerers, you you just need money and/or connections. Also I never said they had do be "fine wizards", they could completely suck at it and never progress beyond first level spells.

Oh, I have no trouble at all agreeing that Wizards are a larger percentage of nobles than they are of commoners. Education costs money, after all.

But it's not gonna be anywhere near all the nobles who are capable of becoming a Wizard, and not all who are capable will do so.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Nobles are MAD.

Seriously -- Which ability score can they afford to dump? Any weakness can be exploited by a potential usurper who uses his strength against the monarch's weakness.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Which is why different places have different needs as to what class the noble takes.

But yes, not every noble will be a wizard, but many nobles with ability/money will probably try to send at least 1 spare kid to learn from the nearest capable caster.

Liberty's Edge

Temperans wrote:

Which is why different places have different needs as to what class the noble takes.

But yes, not every noble will be a wizard, but many nobles with ability/money will probably try to send at least 1 spare kid to learn from the nearest capable caster.

I agree this will be tried. But most magic is hard (or impossible, if trying to become a Cleric without faith or something like that) to learn, meaning I don't think everyone who tries will succeed by an means.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Temperans wrote:

Which is why different places have different needs as to what class the noble takes.

But yes, not every noble will be a wizard, but many nobles with ability/money will probably try to send at least 1 spare kid to learn from the nearest capable caster.

I agree this will be tried. But most magic is hard (or impossible, if trying to become a Cleric without faith or something like that) to learn, meaning I don't think everyone who tries will succeed by an means.

Oddly, depending on how much player stat generation applies to NPCs, I think that most humans could have a mental stat that would allow them to combination SOME KIND of caster. The 'put a bonus into 4 stats' part means that even meatheads might have at least one mental stat with a positive modifier.

But this assumes a lot, of course. Really, it is harder to imagine howw stat generation applies to mundane NPCs anymore. Before, I could just give a villager a 5 or 10 pt buy, and then get a guy that is only half decent at a thing or two, and might have dumped several other things.


Deadmanwalking wrote:


Oh, I have no trouble at all agreeing that Wizards are a larger percentage of nobles than they are of commoners. Education costs money, after all.

But it's not gonna be anywhere near all the nobles who are capable of becoming a Wizard, and not all who are capable will do so.

I can agree with this. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I don't necessarily think all nobles/wealthy people would be wizards but I do think the majority would have enough magical training to activate wands, use scrolls or even cast a couple of cantrips.

Liberty's Edge

Decimus Drake wrote:
I can agree with this. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I don't necessarily think all nobles/wealthy people would be wizards but I do think the majority would have enough magical training to activate wands, use scrolls or even cast a couple of cantrips.

I wouldn't go quite that far.

I'd certainly agree that all of these things would be more common among nobles than random farmers, or even random merchants...but 'more common' and 'the majority' are a fair ways apart.

Diligent and well educated nobles of high enough level (doing this in PF2 generally requires 2nd level for PC Class characters, since it necessitates a Skill Feat) seem very likely to have this kind of training, but as to what percentage of nobles are diligent and well educated, I'm much more skeptical than you seem to be in terms of numbers. Ditto what percentage of them are at least 2nd level.


Well that's an artifact of the progression system making skill feats lv2 and up, and affects all NPCs wanting skill feats independent of their main class.

So there is nothing that can be done but accept it or homebrew some fix.

Liberty's Edge

Temperans wrote:

Well that's an artifact of the progression system making skill feats lv2 and up, and affects all NPCs wanting skill feats independent of their main class.

So there is nothing that can be done but accept it or homebrew some fix.

Sure, but it has implications for how common such knowledge should be. The current implication of the Background and Class system, which is that PCs are at least not below average, is that most Nobles NPC characters have Society as a Skill and probably the ability to make connections with other Nobles (though, unlike PCs, they probably don't need a Feat listed for the latter).

The implication is very much not that all Nobles have lots of othe r unstated abilities just from being noble.


lemeres wrote:
Oddly, depending on how much player stat generation applies to NPCs, I think that most humans could have a mental stat that would allow them to combination SOME KIND of caster. The 'put a bonus into 4 stats' part means that even meatheads might have at least one mental stat with a positive modifier.

You don't even need this much: there is no minimum stat number required to learn any type of magic: you can have no modifier or even a negative modifier and cast magic like a champ as long as you pick spells that don't have a DC or require a spell roll.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Diligent and well educated nobles

We really haven't determined if that is still true in PF2. Nothing currently in the PF2 rules indicate that wizard need to be any more Diligent and well educated than any other class. You could say a fighter needs to be Diligent and well educated to be "an undisputed master of weaponry and combat techniques" as they "have honed your martial skills into an art form".


Temperans wrote:

Thing is you all appear to have a double standard when it comes to level up. Wizard must use or study their magic for life and it is a significant distraction from learning other things. But any other class (except maybe druid and cleric) can both practice their class skill in spare time and study all the things to be a noble. (Rogues and Bard have an easy time of it due to synergy).

As mentioned, the Illusion, Divination, Enchantment, and a lesser extent abjuration all make for useful Wizard schools and all have their use in social circles that could certainly be useful. Just learning Prestidigitation (always stay clean and have warm flavorful meals), Sygil (unlimited customized signature), Unseen Servant (always available servant), and Illusory Disguise (emergency disguise and/or quick wardrove change) would make a nobles life much easier and are easily applicable daily.

Its not so much a double standard as importing assumptions and ideas from earlier editions.

If you were to use the rules to establish your starting age (something PF2 has done away with) wizards were older by a substantial degree.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Temperans wrote:

Which is why different places have different needs as to what class the noble takes.

But yes, not every noble will be a wizard, but many nobles with ability/money will probably try to send at least 1 spare kid to learn from the nearest capable caster.

I agree this will be tried. But most magic is hard (or impossible, if trying to become a Cleric without faith or something like that) to learn, meaning I don't think everyone who tries will succeed by an means.

On Golarion we always went with nobles sending their 3rd child off to become a cleric. 1st one was there to succeed. 2nd one was the backup child 3rd one was to prove their devoutness (and cut down on scheming).

So for our take on nobles, priests weren't actually that rare.


graystone wrote:
lemeres wrote:
Oddly, depending on how much player stat generation applies to NPCs, I think that most humans could have a mental stat that would allow them to combination SOME KIND of caster. The 'put a bonus into 4 stats' part means that even meatheads might have at least one mental stat with a positive modifier.

You don't even need this much: there is no minimum stat number required to learn any type of magic: you can have no modifier or even a negative modifier and cast magic like a champ as long as you pick spells that don't have a DC or require a spell roll.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Diligent and well educated nobles
We really haven't determined if that is still true in PF2. Nothing currently in the PF2 rules indicate that wizard need to be any more Diligent and well educated than any other class. You could say a fighter needs to be Diligent and well educated to be "an undisputed master of weaponry and combat techniques" as they "have honed your martial skills into an art form".

Well you could say well educated falls under int. So they do require some well educating.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
Well you could say well educated falls under int. So they do require some well educating.

Ah... They don't NEED int as you can be a wizard with a 5 int, so going by that criteria they don't have to be well educated at ALL. Int 5 wizard can cast the 10th level time stop spell as well as a 22 int one...


Oh I didn't notice. You don't have to have a certain int to cast X level spells? huh. Well its still pretty hard to make a wizard with under a 14 intelligence without willfully trying. Like you have to want to lower it and you get nothing out of it right? I would say most wizard in most hypothetical game worlds probably have a 14 or above anyways. I guess their is nothing making them have a high int but they certainty won't be very successful wizards.


But then nobles dont need to be successful wizards (or any other class), just good enough for what they want/need.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I mean if every noble was a wizard I feel that would eventually give wizards a bad wrap. Wizards man they just aren't very smart...


Vidmaster7 wrote:
Well its still pretty hard to make a wizard with under a 14 intelligence without willfully trying.

Well rolling is an option and even without it, there is only one mandatory boost from class and you can get a int flaw from the ancestry section so you can have a 10. As to willful, I'm not sure that matters in a debate on well educated falls = int.

PS: This is one of the reasons I scratch my head over the requirements to multiclass... When you can create a 5 int wizard, why on earth would you need a 14 to learn bits and pieces of it piecemeal?

Vidmaster7 wrote:
I guess their is nothing making them have a high int but they certainty won't be very successful wizards.

I disagree as there are plenty of spells that don't care about DC/spell rolls. Shield, anthaul, create water, feather fall, mage armor, magic missile, summon animal, true strike, endure elements, water breathing, shrink, mirror image... The list just keeps going. Low int wizards might not be great attack casters but are fine in the utility/defense department.


Wizards no longer get more spells for a high int either right? hmm It's kind of weird that you can side step their main attribute requirement. Hmm maybe Paizo should of kept the x int for x spell level thing. or mayube added int for more things in spells.


graystone wrote:
This is one of the reasons I scratch my head over the requirements to multiclass... When you can create a 5 int wizard, why on earth would you need a 14 to learn bits and pieces of it piecemeal?

Maybe they assume people won’t deliberately dump the stat that affects most of their class features? And they figured if someone really wants to then it isn’t the end of the world?


Vidmaster7 wrote:
Wizards no longer get more spells for a high int either right? hmm It's kind of weird that you can side step their main attribute requirement. Hmm maybe Paizo should of kept the x int for x spell level thing. or mayube added int for more things in spells.

Your main stat is important for spell rolls and DC's, so attack spells. This can be a great deal for casters as they can use their casting stat to attack with, so a ray of frost is using Make a spell attack roll [int + spell proficiency] instead of a ranged attack and it's the same with a Shocking Grasp, you make that same roll instead of a normal melee strike.

This is an awesome bonus for casters attack magic but it also means that if you don't care about attack magic, your main stat isn't needed for casting at all. It's not really sidestepping your requirement as much as limiting your focus.

As far as it being a problem, I don't think it's much of an issue as combat usually is a big part of game for PC's so a wizard with low int is going to have to find ways to contribute in combat that are most likely less effective than their attack cantrips/spells would have been though they can spend those stat boosts in making those better: For instance boosting up your str/dex and picking up the elven weapons feats can let you 'gish' when you don't have a utility spell to cast.


Hmm everything about low int wizards feels wrong.


John Lynch 106 wrote:
graystone wrote:
This is one of the reasons I scratch my head over the requirements to multiclass... When you can create a 5 int wizard, why on earth would you need a 14 to learn bits and pieces of it piecemeal?
Maybe they assume people won’t deliberately dump the stat that affects most of their class features? And they figured if someone really wants to then it isn’t the end of the world?

This and that are different things: the game is built so that there is no minimum for your 'main' stats: doing something part time seems like something that takes less effort than doing something full time, not more. The only reason I can think of was some kind of balance issues but with the non-class archetypes not requiring any stats I don't know anymore.

As to "affects most of their class features", does it? I think they can cast at least 1/2 the spell list without the least bit of issue without looking at spell rolls/DC's. Other than that, what class features are affected by a low int?

Vidmaster7 wrote:
Hmm everything about low int wizards feels wrong.

Can I interest you in a low wisdom druid or cleric? For instance, a goblin warpriest that's got a 16 in cha for the healing font and a 16 str to hit with but a 10 wis.


If the druid isn't going to be casting spells much. What good is wisdom for cleric's then if they don't use offensive spells?


If you can get a wizard to pull their own weight and meaningfully contribute without using a spell attack or saving throw spell then my hat off to you. You are a better min maxer then me.

Also just because PCs can pulll something off doesn’t mean it’s common within the setting. PCs are unique after all.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
If the druid isn't going to be casting spells much. What good is wisdom for cleric's then if they don't use offensive spells?

Learning Uncommon spells, identifying divine spells, being able to know anything about divine magic. There is a few.


Well wisdom has the bonus to will saves and perception keeping it important.

I agree looking at dedications for stat requirements is weird given how class stats are. Even more weird when people say it's good that you can dump your main stat and still be effective; However, fluff requirements of classes are hard set, else it "doesn't fit".

Also PCs are unique because this edition decided not to use the same rules for NPCs. According to the setting (which Paizo themselves chose not to change) class levels are super common, and all prominent NPCs have class levels, with specially important NPCs even reaching high level. The biggest difference, at least before, is that PCs were more often multiclass and their level up curve was much faster.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
If the druid isn't going to be casting spells much. What good is wisdom for cleric's then if they don't use offensive spells?

For the druid, just if they aren't casting attack spells so don't take storm. But they can summon, heal and change shapes like the best of them.

For the cleric, they don't need wisdom at ALL for their class if they aren't attacking with their spells. If they want to heal and buff with spells and smack someone around with a greatsword, that 10 wis is just fine.

John Lynch 106 wrote:
PCs are unique after all.

In this case they aren't: #1 NPC's can be built as PC's and #2 magic works the same for NPC's and PC's so stat requirements or lack there of are the same.

Wisdom: there ARE good reasons for boosting the stat, just none are required to actually play a cleric. You may never see or want a non-common spell or identify spells and it's not like a 10 stat is awful for simple recall tasks about their religion.

John Lynch 106 wrote:
If you can get a wizard to pull their own weight and meaningfully contribute without using a spell attack or saving throw spell then my hat off to you. You are a better min maxer then me.

Clerics and bards are fine on the no stat front with plenty of healing and buffs to hand out. Wizards are trickier but doable. An elf wizard [or human] with their ancestral weapon feats do ok on damage [2 bow attacks/round] and can cast a shield for more AC and shield block if needed and without the need to have attack spells they can fit in more utility/buff spells and cantrips: they can afford to have an air bubble or feather fall in case of emergency and things like haste, ghostly weapons or summons [even if just for flank] buff the party. They aren't winning any DPS olympics, but not every character has to.

101 to 150 of 156 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Advice / Every noble or rich person should be a wizard... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.