Wizard's lack of simple weapon proficency.


Rules Discussion


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So I have been bothered by this since the earlier parts of play tests. All the other casters have simple proficiency and ultimately also are not really bothered by it because pure casters, well, cast.

However, archetypes and their requirements for having martial weaponry sometimes, such as hell knights (of certain orders, not everyone wants to be order of the gate.), cause a unique issue strictly that only the wizard suffers.

Because Wizard is the only class that doesn't have simple weapon proficiency, EVEN after the APG playtest has been dropped, it has to pay double on feat taxes to qualify for martial training.

This is beyond asinine and seems to go against the nature of how 2e has been evolving. I also have seen no one justify why this SHOULD be the case, mechanically.

I can only imagine this getting worse as time goes on as more archetypes come out with requirements for specific weaponry.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's definitely kind of strange. It creates some annoying feat taxes that don't seem to add a lot to the game and ... I'm not sure what its purpose really is.

Thematically Wizards aren't much for weapons, but neither are Sorcerers, Witches, Cloistered Clerics or Druids and no one really cares about them getting simple weapons.

Mechanically, martial casters aren't very good anyways. I could see a Wizard maybe wishing they could use a Sling instead of a crossbow, but at the same time I don't really see anything mechanically broken that a Wizard could do with a Sling that a Sorcerer or Witch couldn't.

The whole way proficiency is handled in this game is kind of silly in general, tbh.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It is not, why would Wizards get simple weapon proficiency. They do get some simple weapon proficiency that are class specific. But, otherwise there is no class reason for it. Martial classes do not get simple spell proficiency. They have to take an archetype to get the use of spells. If Wizards want simple weapon proficiency beyond what they have take an archetype. There are also feats.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Dave2 wrote:
But, otherwise there is no class reason for it.

There's no reason not to let them have it either, though. Not giving them full simple weapon proficiencies just adds feat taxes and what else? What value? None, really.

Quote:
Martial classes do not get simple spell proficiency.

Not strictly true. Any way to gain spells gives you proficiency in them by default, archetype or no.

It's also a terrible analogy because the OP isn't comparing Wizards to martials. They're comparing Wizards to every other spellcaster.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Dave2 wrote:
But, otherwise there is no class reason for it.

There's no reason not to let them have it either, though. Not giving them full simple weapon proficiencies just adds feat taxes and what else? What value? None, really.

Quote:
Martial classes do not get simple spell proficiency.

Not strictly true. Any way to gain spells gives you proficiency in them by default, archetype or no.

It's also a terrible analogy because the OP isn't comparing Wizards to martials. They're comparing Wizards to every other spellcaster.

This is on point. I'm comparing wizards to other casters, not to martial classes. Right now Wizards are the only class that lacks what would be considered a universal basic and I am not understanding for what purpose. They are being strictly feat taxed and for no good game play reason.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

They are also the most flexible of the spell caster and vieweded as the most academic. There is no reason for them to have it. Other casters there is a class theme. It is true with some martial and spells. Let me be more specific then. Fighters should get simple spell use as part of the class and not have to take an archetype. Of course this should not be the case, but the same could be said for Wizards and weapon proficiency.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

You could also always just change it if your group wants and broaden the weapons they do get proficiency in to just simple weapons. I do think it is theme vs mechanics reason for it. Since mechanical speaking broadening it out to simple weapons would not be big mechanical difference.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dave2 wrote:
They are also the most flexible of the spell caster and vieweded as the most academic. There is no reason for them to have it. Other casters there is a class theme. It is true with some martial and spells. Let me be more specific then. Fighters should get simple spell use as part of the class and not have to take an archetype. Of course this should not be the case, but the same could be said for Wizards and weapon proficiency.

You had a potential chance to be right until Oracle and Witch dropped.

Their background lore doesn't justify the utility, because if you try to say wizards are untrained with simple weapons, what justification do you have to give cloistered clerics, witches and oracles theirs?

By lore, Clerics should only be good with their deity weapon. Witches rely on their hexes and probably just daggers and spells. List goes on.


2 people 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

It is a legacy from 1st edition. Wizards were the only spellcasters not proficient with all simple weapons in that edition, and that was carried over to the new edition.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
David knott 242 wrote:


It is a legacy from 1st edition. Wizards were the only spellcasters not proficient with all simple weapons in that edition, and that was carried over to the new edition.

Which isn't a good reason to keep it. The "tradition" here is causing a feat tax for no benefit which only causes frustration.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I agree with the OP. It was fine when I thought wizards got a class feat at 1st level, but now that they don't, they should probably have simple weapon proficiency by default.

The argument/explanation for them not having a 1st level class feat was, "no other caster class has it". So the same logic should apply here - if all the others have it then so should the wizard.


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

Initial proficiencies have a much stronger effect on multiclassed characters in PF2 than they did in PF1, as you gain later class features that automatically improve only your initial armor and weapon proficiencies.

In PF1, a wizard who multiclassed with nearly any other class was very likely proficient with all simple weapons, and a single-classed wizard could gain that level of proficiency for a single general feat. (And now that I think about it -- I don't think Simple Weapon Proficiency was a prerequisite for Martial Weapon Proficiency anyway.)


David knott 242 wrote:

Initial proficiencies have a much stronger effect on multiclassed characters in PF2 than they did in PF1, as you gain later class features that automatically improve only your initial armor and weapon proficiencies.

In PF1, a wizard who multiclassed with nearly any other class was very likely proficient with all simple weapons, and a single-classed wizard could gain that level of proficiency for a single general feat. (And now that I think about it -- I don't think Simple Weapon Proficiency was a prerequisite for Martial Weapon Proficiency anyway.)

If you were right, you'd have a point. But the feat strictly calls out not being proficient in simple weapons forcing you to pick it up twice to get martial training.

-------------

You become trained in all simple weapons. If you were already trained in all simple weapons, you become trained in all martial weapons. If you were already trained in all martial weapons, you become trained in one advanced weapon of your choice.

Special You can select this feat more than once. Each time you do, you become trained in additional weapons as appropriate, following the above progression.

------------

- But this is strictly just punishing wizards. The most likely classes who would not have had simple weapons were in fact, the witch and oracle - if they had a restricted weapons selection as well it would have changed my mind.

But it is currently a position that wizards must pay double to quality, and that's entirely asinine considering how valuable feats are in this edition.

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
David knott 242 wrote:


It is a legacy from 1st edition. Wizards were the only spellcasters not proficient with all simple weapons in that edition, and that was carried over to the new edition.

It's far older than this (in spirit, at least): AD&D 1.0 Magic Users only had proficiency in 'Dagger, dart, staff' as far back as 1978.


I think lore wise it makes sense they dont have.
Sorcerers dont need to study have time to do other things
Clerics dont need to study they need faith
Witches- dont need to study
Oracles - dont need to study
Bards have always been a blend of martial and magic
Druids dont need to study, faith again
Wizards are studying they have no time to be studying all simple weapons and training in them.


ikarinokami wrote:

I think lore wise it makes sense they dont have.

Sorcerers dont need to study have time to do other things
Clerics dont need to study they need faith
Witches- dont need to study
Oracles - dont need to study
Bards have always been a blend of martial and magic
Druids dont need to study, faith again
Wizards are studying they have no time to be studying all simple weapons and training in them.

Regardless if you think it makes sense by lore, mechanically it is punishing the class for no good reason.

If you try to use that as justification mind you, when would a oracle/witch/cleric ever really practice using EVERY simple weapon? They'd generally have no incentive to usually, so clearly they should pick 1 of the simple weapons to be proficient at and lose the rest.

It's also notable that the wizard is not proficient using a spear, the most basic braindead easy weapon to use in all of history.


BlessedHeretic wrote:
ikarinokami wrote:

I think lore wise it makes sense they dont have.

Sorcerers dont need to study have time to do other things
Clerics dont need to study they need faith
Witches- dont need to study
Oracles - dont need to study
Bards have always been a blend of martial and magic
Druids dont need to study, faith again
Wizards are studying they have no time to be studying all simple weapons and training in them.

Regardless if you think it makes sense by lore, mechanically it is punishing the class for no good reason.

If you try to use that as justification mind you, when would a oracle/witch/cleric ever really practice using EVERY simple weapon? They'd generally have no incentive to usually, so clearly they should pick 1 of the simple weapons to be proficient at and lose the rest.

It's also notable that the wizard is not proficient using a spear, the most basic braindead easy weapon to use in all of history.

the question isnt incentive, but a question of time. I assume that all adventures take the time to be as prepared as they can be from level 0 to level 1.

the lore has always been that wizards simply dont have enough time in the day.
Oracles/witches/cleric do have the time lore wise because their form of spell casting is not as time intensive to learn as it is for a wizard..

I make no assertations whether or not it should mechanically work like that, but simply state the underlying assumptions upon which the class is build does answer the question as to why wizards dont have all simple weapon proficiency.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Is it also "mechanically punishing the class for no good reason" that rogues or bards are only proficient with a selection of martial weapons, rather than all of them?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Taja the Barbarian wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:


It is a legacy from 1st edition. Wizards were the only spellcasters not proficient with all simple weapons in that edition, and that was carried over to the new edition.

It's far older than this (in spirit, at least): AD&D 1.0 Magic Users only had proficiency in 'Dagger, dart, staff' as far back as 1978.

And we liked it that way.


The only dedication feats that actually add mundane attack proficiencies are fighter and monk. I'd say this is a way to get effectively two feats, and if you want those martial weapons you're probably already wanting some fighter ability too ...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thenobledrake wrote:
Is it also "mechanically punishing the class for no good reason" that rogues or bards are only proficient with a selection of martial weapons, rather than all of them?

No, since the cost of them gaining advanced weapons is 2, and martial requirements only costs 1. the same as literally any other class other than the fully martial classes.

You also gain significantly more with training as a rogue or bard than you do as a wizard taking the first feat for simple. It's a HUGE difference between gaining every martial weapon, and just obtaining spears, gauntlets and punch daggers.

Qaianna wrote:
The only dedication feats that actually add mundane attack proficiencies are fighter and monk. I'd say this is a way to get effectively two feats, and if you want those martial weapons you're probably already wanting some fighter ability too ...

Did you even read the thread? The discussion is about how it's mechanically queer for wizards to not have a baseline simple proficiency in 2e and how it hampers them QUALIFYING for archetypes.

Not how to obtain proficiency after the fact.

Also, highly disagree that a caster would ever care for fighter feats, but that's for another topic all together.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Adding that the Wizard's weapon proficiencies count as being proficient in simple weapons as far as requirements are concerned sounds like it would both preserve the flavor and avoid the feat tax the OP mentions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is one of those old systems they never properly updated, and it's a shame.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Wizard's lack of simple weapon proficency. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.