Wizards and Clan Dagger


Rules Discussion


So, I noticed an interesting interaction and was curious if it was intended.

Say I make a Dwarven Wizard, and as a result, he starts with a clan dagger.

That Wizard is trained, for attacks, in specific weapons (not groups mind you). These are Club, Crossbow, Dagger, Heavy Crossbow, and Staff.

If said wizard takes Dwarven Weapon familiarity, he is trained in the battle axe, pick, and warhammer. Additionally, he gains access to dwarven weapons (I assume this means they are common to him) and they essentially drop down a weapon category for proficiency purposes(martial to simple, advanced to martial)

The interaction. Because a wizard is trained in the weapon dagger, he is not trained in the clan dagger, as these are not the same weapon. Dwarven weapon familiarity does not change this, as it doesn't grant specific training to dwarven weapons, only access and a change in weapon's categories.

So the end result is that your dwarven wizard, who starts with a clan dagger, is not trained in it - is that intended?

Tuhs


It seems deliberate. Taking Fighter Dedication would be a better option than Dwarven Weapon Proficiency.


Proficiency in this game is wacky, especially for wizards.

Definitely intentional, albeit highly questionable.


I agree that it's wacky. To me, it almost looks like an oversight - you get the thing for free yet you are not even proficient using it. It's not like there wouldn't be a precedent in granting a proficiency to a race weapon, see goblin weapon familiarity which grants trained in Dogslicer and horserchopper.

Just one of those things that made me go huh.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't really see a problem, the reason all Dwarves have one is not REALLY to fight with it, it's symbolic. Wizards really wouldn't expect to.
Basic proficiency is easy enough with Simple Weapon proficiency,
DWF+Simple Weapons allows Clan Dagger and axe/pick/hammers to later get Expertise + CritSpec.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd house rule that all dwarves are proficient, personally


I agree with Quandary. It's a cultural item and probably okay that a dwarf wizard who wants to use it martially needs to invest a little to do so.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

All dwarves have a knife that was used to cut their umbilical cord. Not all dwarves, or even many dwarves, fight others with that knife. The free clan dagger is a flavor thing, and doesn't need to come with a mechanical benefit for all dwarves.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

True statements, it is just amusing given that Dwarven weapon familiarity (racial feat) grants proficiencies in Battle Axe, Pick, and Warhammer - which are martial weapons. so my wizard can hit things better with any of those, which given their 'martial' status means they are probably supposed to be harder to use than a simple weapon. But that clan dagger, which is a simple weapon... well apparently it's much harder to use.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
tuhs1985 wrote:
True statements, it is just amusing given that Dwarven weapon familiarity (racial feat) grants proficiencies in Battle Axe, Pick, and Warhammer - which are martial weapons. so my wizard can hit things better with any of those, which given their 'martial' status means they are probably supposed to be harder to use than a simple weapon. But that clan dagger, which is a simple weapon... well apparently it's much harder to use.

The way I look at it, as a wizard the feat represents you getting basic training in traditional dwarf weapons, and clan daggers aren't really a traditional weapon for a warrior. For others with more weapon proficiencies the feat represents practicing the uncommon weapons, even those that are not traditionally combat weapons like the clan dagger, but since you are less skilled with weapons you had to focus your training more on the dwarven basics, even if they are not as "simple" (though I think axes are pretty simple to use too right?).


A point of fact though, in game terms, common and uncommon only deals with availability - and since you took dwarven weapon proficiency, they are now available to you. That bit is for purchase restrictions. (edit: though RAW does mention it for weapon familiarity, so prolly my off the head interpretation) The rest deals with weapon skill. Again this is more a result my tinkering, my build doesn't require it - I was using it as a way to get access to the pick so I can fling it around (not to mention a moot point since my progression goes to fighter dedication at level 2). It was more a that's weird to me when I was building the character. I'm of the opinion that the lack of proficiency in it for one class (which is what we are really talking about) is probably still intentional, though only as an interaction of wizard weapon proficiencies. The only problem I can see about giving proficiency in the feat for the dagger is that it gives wizards access to parry... whether that is game-breaking or not, don't know.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
tuhs1985 wrote:

So, I noticed an interesting interaction and was curious if it was intended.

Say I make a Dwarven Wizard, and as a result, he starts with a clan dagger.

That Wizard is trained, for attacks, in specific weapons (not groups mind you). These are Club, Crossbow, Dagger, Heavy Crossbow, and Staff.

If said wizard takes Dwarven Weapon familiarity, he is trained in the battle axe, pick, and warhammer. Additionally, he gains access to dwarven weapons (I assume this means they are common to him) and they essentially drop down a weapon category for proficiency purposes(martial to simple, advanced to martial)

The interaction. Because a wizard is trained in the weapon dagger, he is not trained in the clan dagger, as these are not the same weapon. Dwarven weapon familiarity does not change this, as it doesn't grant specific training to dwarven weapons, only access and a change in weapon's categories.

So the end result is that your dwarven wizard, who starts with a clan dagger, is not trained in it - is that intended?

Tuhs

Yes it is intentional. The feat does grant you battle aze, pick and Warhammer which are much better melee weapons.

However, if you take the weapon proficiency feat at third level then you will become trained in clan dagger as it will be a simple weapon along with every other simple weapon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Interesting takes. I get it, but personally feel that a dagger is a dagger and the Clan Dagger should fall under this umbrella. There is nothing special about it other than its symbolic representation of your clan. It is still a dagger and a Wizard is trained in daggers. Picking it up and being confused how to use it but picking up a dagger without the word Clan before it and I am totally proficient?

Feels very stringent to me and an oversight.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Should also say that the common acceptance here is also what they have programmed into Herolab Online. Clan Daggers are considered untrained to dwarf wizards and they will stay that way unless Paizo makes it official that they should be.


The clan dagger specifically has a heavy weight on the pommel to use for bludgeoning attacks which makes it different from normal daggers. This is why it has versatile B, and why it requires a little more training (such a weight would make it difficult to slash with without practice).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BellyBeard wrote:
and why it requires a little more training

It only requires more training for wizards as a result of their proficiency being janky.

It's more just a quirk of the class than anything to do with the weapon. Literally everyone else in the world can wield it fine.

Pretty sure you know that I just wanted to emphasize because there's a lot of talk about benefits and uniqueness that seem to imply the clan dagger is special or powerful in ways that it isn't. Wizards just have dumb proficiencies.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:

Proficiency in this game is wacky, especially for wizards.

Definitely intentional, albeit highly questionable.

I don't agree that it is definitely intentional. I feel like the intent of dwarven weapon familiarity is that you can use the ancestral weapons of dwarves and it is plausible that the writer of dwarven weapon familiarity forgot that wizards didn't get simple weapons so didn't think they needed the word count to say you are trained in simple ancestry weapons. It might be deliberately omitted, but that feels weirder to me because it implies that it intentionally takes less training for a dwarf to use a warhammer than the dagger they have had since birth.


Dwarf is also a good race to start with it.

Other races instead definitely suffers from this system.


Kind of hoping there is a "clean up" general feat in APG that allows any weapon proficiencies gained through general feats or ancestry feats to progress at the same rate as the base class proficiencies.

Armor too.

I guess we'll see?


About armors, I really hope not.

I see mandatory that only champions and fighters are extremely proficient in heavy armors.

As for ancestry feats, they could use some adjustments.

I find the weapon progression fine, and what concerns me the most is the lvl 1 only feats.

Let's talk about a half orc for an instance.
I find somehow weird that you can't have both orc sight and tusks.

Being forced to choose among those 2 doesn't make much sense.

"There are half orcs with orc sight and half orcs with tusks... but no half orcs with both of them..."

And I think half orcs are not the only race with this limit.


I made a post about this before, but Wizard's lack of Simple prof causes issues with the design of specific feats and items.

Pretty sure the Clan Dagger is one of the many things where the assumption is you'll have simple prof because, well it's a simple weapon. Everyone has training in that! Save one class. And only that class.

The human ancestry feat Unconventional weaponry also, doesn't grant training with your selected weapon. Why? Because by a design standpoint you can't pick weapons that are outside of your supposed to be , natural training!

If you're any class aside from wizard, if you pick a katana, it becomes a simple weapon and you can use it. Or you pick up a uncommon simple weapon, you're already trained for those as well.

You're a fighter/barb/champion? Well grats you get the upgraded unconventional weaponry that can snag you a Advanced weapon and make it martial, again right in your training allowance!

But suddenly, as a wizard, you pick up the katana/nunchucks/whatever - it becomes a simple weapon. **And you still can't use it well.**

Well until you feat tax yourself to pick up simple prof. Lovely feeling.

If this is intentional design, that's pretty weird.


BlessedHeretic wrote:
If this is intentional design, that's pretty weird.

Weird? Yes. Intentional? Probably.

Re: Unconventional Weaponry, the feat Unconventional Expertise only even does anything at all for Wizards and Fighters. I think that pretty clearly shows intent, at least in that regard.

Now why Paizo thinks it's a necessary balancing measure to require a Wizard to spend three (one general two ancestry) feats on something everyone else (including Witches and Sorcerers) can do for one is another question entirely.

Or, in the case of the clan dagger, two class feats instead of zero.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Yoshua wrote:
Interesting takes. I get it, but personally feel that a dagger is a dagger and the Clan Dagger should fall under this umbrella. There is nothing special about it other than its symbolic representation of your clan. It is still a dagger and a Wizard is trained in daggers. Picking it up and being confused how to use it but picking up a dagger without the word Clan before it and I am totally proficient?

If you want to have your personal birth "clan dagger" be a mechanically normal dagger that you are proficient in, go ahead. This is about proficiency in more specific fighting technique including different damage type and parry.


Squiggit wrote:
BlessedHeretic wrote:
If this is intentional design, that's pretty weird.

Weird? Yes. Intentional? Probably.

Re: Unconventional Weaponry, the feat Unconventional Expertise only even does anything at all for Wizards and Fighters. I think that pretty clearly shows intent, at least in that regard.

Now why Paizo thinks it's a necessary balancing measure to require a Wizard to spend three (one general two ancestry) feats on something everyone else (including Witches and Sorcerers) can do for one is another question entirely.

Or, in the case of the clan dagger, two class feats instead of zero.

Untrue.

It works for rogues who can get master prof with advanced weapons.

But it's still super niche.


Oh you're right, didn't think about Rogues (or Bards) buying MWP and then using UE to advance it.

Guess that's a good way to get Sawtooths quickly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Asked about it during the twitch stream for Age of Ashes 5 and James Jacobs response was really good.

Paraphasing

Imagine all of the dwarves coming home for thanksgiving and your parents are disappointed that you never took the time to learn to handle the clan dagger and spent all of your time with your nose in your books.

I am ok with having different styles of clan daggers in my home games, but the role play aspect for dialogue could make for entertaining ribbing of players.

He also mentioned that he has a bard that solely uses a scimitar that he isnt proficient in, and it is just accepted that the character isn't very good at sword fighting, and takes the lower bonus's, but that isn't what his character is meant to be doing full time anyways.

was a good little dialogue they had during the twitch stream


Oof. I kind of hate that response, but it's about what I expected.


Yoshua wrote:

Asked about it during the twitch stream for Age of Ashes 5 and James Jacobs response was really good.

Paraphasing

Imagine all of the dwarves coming home for thanksgiving and your parents are disappointed that you never took the time to learn to handle the clan dagger and spent all of your time with your nose in your books.

I am ok with having different styles of clan daggers in my home games, but the role play aspect for dialogue could make for entertaining ribbing of players.

He also mentioned that he has a bard that solely uses a scimitar that he isnt proficient in, and it is just accepted that the character isn't very good at sword fighting, and takes the lower bonus's, but that isn't what his character is meant to be doing full time anyways.

was a good little dialogue they had during the twitch stream

But if the dwarf wizard takes time to practice with dwarven weapons in between all their book studies, they still cannot figure out how the clan dagger works. They can figure out how three different martial weapons work with dwarven weapon familiarity, but the simple weapon which they have had their whole life eludes their ability until level 2-3. That's what bothers me. It is markedly harder for a dwarf wizard to learn a clan dagger than a warhammer.

Grand Lodge

In PF1 the falcatta could be used as a longsword. I think the clan dagger should be useable by anyone as a regular dagger. Some dwarves learn all the tricks, but usually it is just a fancy dagger.


DougSeay wrote:
In PF1 the falcatta could be used as a longsword. I think the clan dagger should be useable by anyone as a regular dagger. Some dwarves learn all the tricks, but usually it is just a fancy dagger.

Excellent suggestion

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Wizards and Clan Dagger All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.