Anyone Notice Wizards Get Less Skills?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 145 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Wizards are prepared, Int-based, spellcasters from the best spell list in the game. That's not nothing, even as compared to prepared casters from other lists, or spontaneous Arcane casters.

I mean, to be fair, other prepared casters (in the core rulebook at least) get access to all their common spells without having to spend most of their gold on them, so I feel like Wizards having the best spell list is already balanced.

I still feel like giving them the same number of skills as alchemist, which is a class generally considered to not have much as it is from what I've seen, would be the wrong thing to do.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Having built and played a wizard, I had more skills than I knew what to do with. I'd almost argue I had too many skills. I was taking things that didn't really jive with my concept, like athletics. Between dedications and ancestry options trained skills are easy to come by.


I think wizards have plenty of skills but I wouldn't disagree with giving them a free extra Lore feat to make them more of a know it all at least about one subject.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just here to stir the pot and point out that a wizard with 14 charisma could put two feats into Bard Dedication and get Bardic Lore by level 4, thereby having an infinite number of lore skills with a high +int modifier.


To be honest, that's definitely a thing I was considering for my Witch diabolist character.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
I think something like "Esoteric Polymath" where you get lots of lores would be a reasonable arcane thesis.

I also like this suggestion. It just feels so off to be a high int character and not being able to focus on skills, the one thing int does for you.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Playing wizard right now, I think I have maybe only one skill that I'd like to take and couldn't.

Then again, I decided to be the party's crafter AND trapfinder, so... If you feel "nerfed"... lol.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Meh Paizo's sense of balance is ok but not great. They have a long history if somethings being left broken (Wizards in PF1e for example or Monks being MAD).

I find it interesting how many people jump to defence and personally attack those (wizards union question) that question balance particulary, almost exclusively around wizards in this edition.

Wizards are in many fantasy tropes lore masters (Gandalf is specifically a lore master on the races of middle earth as well as magic). Wizards have a thesis which puts them squarely in the 'academics on the system' flavour. Having an additional lore skill or just granting them the additional lore feat would have felt on point and as others have pointed out one less skill isn't a balance issue, well if 1 less isn't then 1 more isn't either.

From a design point of view its a far simpler solution just to give every class 4 base skills then upping it for those who are deemed skill specialists so wizards were in core singled out not to (for whatever reason). Its not wrong or incorrect to point this out, wizards were actively reduced in skills compared to others even the int based alchemist.

Give that Untrained Improvisation (https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=861) exists I don't think that wizards having 1 more trained skill was broken it seems to be more a perception.

Anyway the solution to all of these issues is make posts, house rule it if your a permanent GM like I am or switch to a different game system that can fulfill the rpg fantasy class you want to play.

I usually take the second option, my list of house rules is growing a lot faster in this edition than previous editions most buffing where there seems to have been kneejerk overnerfs to appease those sore from previous editions and balance seems to be better than ever. Most importantly my group is having fun and able to realise a broader range of character concepts and have fun with them.

If your GM isn't open to houseruling things maybe you need to consider running your own game or playing with a different group.


Cyder wrote:
Anyway the solution to all of these issues is make posts, house rule it if your a permanent GM like I am or switch to a different game system that can fulfill the rpg fantasy class you want to play.

This is an excellent point. This post wasn't a call out, or an attack, or some kind of righteous indignation.

I just noticed this thing when I was looking at classes and skills, and I wanted to see if anyone else noticed it. It just seems just a little odd to me, that's all. I was just making a post. This isn't a reason to abandon 2e or an attack on the system, just a strange thing of note (like how Monks are the only class to have 4 free skills instead of 1 locked +3 free or 2 locked +2 free like most other classes).


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I haven't seen any amount of personal attacking that you're accusing people of.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A human wizard could take Clever Improviser at level 5 and have all lores at -2. With 18+ Int, the wizard will still be better at lore than an Int-10 bard with bardic knowledge.

Horizon Hunters

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Donovan Du Bois wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I think something like "Esoteric Polymath" where you get lots of lores would be a reasonable arcane thesis.
I also like this suggestion. It just feels so off to be a high int character and not being able to focus on skills, the one thing int does for you.

"The One Thing" Int does for you, other than make your wizard spells more powerful, of course.


DomHeroEllis wrote:
Donovan Du Bois wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I think something like "Esoteric Polymath" where you get lots of lores would be a reasonable arcane thesis.
I also like this suggestion. It just feels so off to be a high int character and not being able to focus on skills, the one thing int does for you.
"The One Thing" Int does for you, other than make your wizard spells more powerful, of course.

"The one thing intelligence does for characters that isn't class specific." Is that better? I'm just saying that fighters don't get a penalty to melee damage just because it's their key ability score.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Donovan Du Bois wrote:


"The one thing intelligence does for characters that isn't class specific." Is that better? I'm just saying that fighters don't get a penalty to melee damage just because it's their key ability score.

Yeah, but is unintended power based on that additional skills are based on his main cast stat. Otherwise, it would always surpass the Bard and Rogue in Skills, which are the "Skill classes"


TSRodriguez wrote:
Yeah, but is unintended power based on that additional skills are based on his main cast stat. Otherwise, it would always surpass the Bard and Rogue in Skills, which are the "Skill classes"

Nothing is stopping a Bard or a Rogue putting in 14 or 16 to int if they want to be skill focused, but a wizard can't be skill focused even when they put an 18 in int. It just feel bad to be the int class and not be allowed to do the thing that int does, but I guess academics are stupid or something.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Most classes max Int to be skill-focused. Since just about all wizards max int, that doesn't distinguish skill-focused wizards from the general lot. Wizards who want to feel skill-focused spend feats.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Donovan Du Bois wrote:
TSRodriguez wrote:
Yeah, but is unintended power based on that additional skills are based on his main cast stat. Otherwise, it would always surpass the Bard and Rogue in Skills, which are the "Skill classes"
Nothing is stopping a Bard or a Rogue putting in 14 or 16 to int if they want to be skill focused, but a wizard can't be skill focused even when they put an 18 in int. It just feel bad to be the int class and not be allowed to do the thing that int does, but I guess academics are stupid or something.

I just dont understand what you want. Do you just want wizards to be perfect because they're smart? Intelligence alone doesnt make you necessarily skilled at anything, let alone skilled at EVERYTHING. If you want to be skill focused you can take feats that help you with that. How are you not allowed to do skills? Assuming you take int at 18 theres 6 skills right there, unincluding background or feats. Int also gives you extra languages, so now you can speak with exponentially more people. You also have spells that can do almost anything an actual skill check can do. Like I really dont understand why you think you need more skills.

It also is frustrating when you gaslight people by playing the victim and acting like your class is being abused or people are insulting you for explaining their opinions, which usually causes people to respond even more negatively.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ExOichoThrow wrote:


It also is frustrating when you gaslight people by playing the victim and acting like your class is being abused or people are insulting you for explaining their opinions, which usually causes people to respond even more negatively.

I agree, usually, the responses I get are "Ur opinion is dumb if you think this garbage is usable, the class is underdesigned and boring"

More into the topic though, 6+ Skills is plenty, don't you think?
I don't know what answer you want, maybe "the designers hate the wizard, that's why they nerfed it, there is no sane reason behind it" They obviously think is balanced this way, maybe you don't agree, but looking for the hidden meaning behind the decision its kinda weird.


Just remember that Skills and Lores compete for the same resource, skill increases. And Skills have a lot more in-game applicability then Lores, which only ever come up occasionally, and then in very narrowly defined circumstances. That, plus there is a quite short list of Skills, as compared to an arbitrarily long list of Lores.

I would not give Wizards more Skills, for reasons others have already pointed out. However, giving them an extra Lore or two, ideally thematically revolving around their chosen school of magic, would be right on the money in my opinion.

If an academy Wizard is also the dean of his department, for example, Administration Lore seems appropriate. The bursar would have Accounting Lore, and Scribing Lore would fit them all.

Think of it as the 'background skills' of PF 1.


TSRodriguez wrote:
I agree, usually, the responses I get are "Ur opinion is dumb if you think this garbage is usable, the class is underdesigned and boring"

Really?

Donovan Du Bois wrote:
I'm just saying that fighters don't get a penalty to melee damage just because it's their key ability score.

No, but a fighter's expected melee damage is balanced around the assumption that they invest heavily in the appropriate attributes. A Fighter with a greatsword who increases their strength score isn't getting 'extra' damage, they're effectively doing just as much damage as a fighter is expected to. They also have to contend with things like a higher carrying capacity, but heavier arms and armor.

That's functionally similar to your complaint.

Donovan Du Bois wrote:
Nothing is stopping a Bard or a Rogue putting in 14 or 16 to int if they want to be skill focused

No, but the major difference here is that investing in Int for a Bard or Rogue comes with an opportunity cost, so it's not really a fair comparison.

Donovan Du Bois wrote:
but I guess academics are stupid or something.

A wizard who maxes their key attribute gets seven skills, that's enough to train yourself in every recall-knowledge eligible skill (lore nonwithstanding since that's a bottomless pit but you get one for free) if you want to focus purely on being as learned as possible.

Any more than that and you'd be obligated to start investing in skills like Acrobatics, Thievery or Performance. I think it's fair to say you'd get weird looks if you called someone stupid because they couldn't juggle or do backflips.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Alchemists are a skill class, like bards and rangers, so they get more skills than is normal for int based classes.


Lycar wrote:

Just remember that Skills and Lores compete for the same resource, skill increases. And Skills have a lot more in-game applicability then Lores, which only ever come up occasionally, and then in very narrowly defined circumstances. That, plus there is a quite short list of Skills, as compared to an arbitrarily long list of Lores.

I would not give Wizards more Skills, for reasons others have already pointed out. However, giving them an extra Lore or two, ideally thematically revolving around their chosen school of magic, would be right on the money in my opinion.

If an academy Wizard is also the dean of his department, for example, Administration Lore seems appropriate. The bursar would have Accounting Lore, and Scribing Lore would fit them all.

Think of it as the 'background skills' of PF 1.

I personally really like the idea of giving them a Lore skill tied to their chosen school of magic.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

DDB - it isn’t rude and off topic to point out that you are also having the argument on reddit as on both here and Reddit you are stubbornly refusing to accept any answer

You post that you aren’t religiously devoted to this but that is lot how your replies read. Especially on Reddit. On there you are literally arguing back on every single point someone makes and very much phrasing it as if you have a personal stake in the outcome .

Like someone mentioned higher up it is almost as if you actually are a wizard and feel short changed the way the arguing can be read. Especially using terms like “unfair” and things being “taken” from them (that they never originally had)

And across two forums almost no one has agreed with you

As has already been asked, what were you hoping for? It seems either :

- yes they have been nerfed and treated unfairly
- oh I am sorry my friend this is clearly a mistake and will be corrected

Neither are true
So if I am wrong what is the end goal here ?


Donovan Du Bois wrote:
Lycar wrote:

Just remember that Skills and Lores compete for the same resource, skill increases. And Skills have a lot more in-game applicability then Lores, which only ever come up occasionally, and then in very narrowly defined circumstances. That, plus there is a quite short list of Skills, as compared to an arbitrarily long list of Lores.

I would not give Wizards more Skills, for reasons others have already pointed out. However, giving them an extra Lore or two, ideally thematically revolving around their chosen school of magic, would be right on the money in my opinion.

If an academy Wizard is also the dean of his department, for example, Administration Lore seems appropriate. The bursar would have Accounting Lore, and Scribing Lore would fit them all.

Think of it as the 'background skills' of PF 1.

I personally really like the idea of giving them a Lore skill tied to their chosen school of magic.

Let's brainstorm then. How about Transmutation? Since this is all about turning things into other things, but also shapeshifting to some degree, how about giving a Transmuter the choice of Anatomy Lore and, uh, Element Lore? Like, turning a living being into so much rock sure needs knowledge of the elements and how to transmute them.

Of course, a Conjurer also needs some Element Lore, if he specialises in, well, conjuring up elements. Not that those elements would not only be the classical air, fire, water earth, but presumably also acid, lightning, cold and electricity. Sonic too maybe. If they are more of the 'summon furry critters to die for me' persuasion, how about Summoning Lore, which covers an in-depth study of creatures that can be summoned with spells? Because just you knowing the spell doesn't mean you know the stats of the critter...

Coming to think of it, Abjurers probably also need Element Lore. As do Evokers, obviously... Illusionists, Diviner and Necromancers, not so much.

Yeah okay, Necromancers can get Anatomy Lore too I guess. Diviners are candidates for History Lore maybe? And Illusionists... well, their illusions are only as good as their imagination, so maybe Artistry Lore?

What do you think?


I broke this up so I could respond to it in parts, I feel like my meaning is getting lost in translation somewhere, especially regarding the last part of this post.

ExOichoThrow wrote:
I just dont understand what you want. Do you just want wizards to be perfect because they're smart?

I don't think I've ever said that. Part of the reason I think this is so silly is that we are talking about one single trained skill. That's all. I don't want any class to be perfect for any reason, I just noticed that wizard gets one less skill than all the other classes, and that seems off.

ExOichoThrow wrote:
Intelligence alone doesnt make you necessarily skilled at anything, let alone skilled at EVERYTHING.

But int IS the way you get skills in the system, that's all. I'm not even trying to say real world intelligence is better than anything else or makes you super skilled, I'm just saying in the game, the class which uses the skill score has less skills because of it, and that feels a little unfair.

If skills were based off of wisdom and druids had one less skill than everyone else to compensate, I would be having this exact same conversation about druid is my point here.

ExOichoThrow wrote:
If you want to be skill focused you can take feats that help you with that. How are you not allowed to do skills? Assuming you take int at 18 theres 6 skills right there, unincluding background or feats.

Any class can take feats if they want to focus on their skills, any class can also boost their int to really focus on skills, wizards can't do that. They already boost their int, but they don't get as many skills as the other classes to preemptively counter that. So it feels kind of bad.

ExOichoThrow wrote:
Int also gives you extra languages, so now you can speak with exponentially more people.

This doesn't really seem relevant to skills.

ExOichoThrow wrote:
You also have spells that can do almost anything an actual skill check can do. Like I really dont understand why you think you need more skills.

To make the classes even? I don't feel it's unreasonable to just give wizards the one skill and bring them in like with the rest of the classes.

ExOichoThrow wrote:
It also is frustrating when you gaslight people by playing the victim and acting like your class is being abused or people are insulting you for explaining their opinions, which usually causes people to respond even more negatively.

Okay, I honestly don't know what your talking about. I seriously don't think I've said people are insulting me or that I'm under attack, so much so that I went back to reread my posts.

So blanket statement here: This thread was not an attack on 2e, or Paizo, or anyone, and I am not personally or emotionally invested in the wizard class such that I believe you disagreeing with me is a personal attack. I never wanted to come off that way.

Wizard isn't MY class, I play a lot of classes, this conversation is just about wizard. I think wizards got way over tuned, so I talk about them in that way, but I wasn't trying to play the victim as much as just actually explain my rationale for my opinion here.


Lanathar wrote:
DDB - it isn’t rude and off topic to point out that you are also having the argument on reddit as on both here and Reddit you are stubbornly refusing to accept any answer

I think it's rude to say that it's uncalled for though, reddit and the forums are different places with different groups of people, it's not like I'm spamming or anything is my point.

Lanathar wrote:
You post that you aren’t religiously devoted to this but that is lot how your replies read. Especially on Reddit. On there you are literally arguing back on every single point someone makes and very much phrasing it as if you have a personal stake in the outcome.

I never intended to come off like I wanted to die on the hill of Wizard skills. I was responding to every single point someone made because I though I had a worthwhile response. If I didn't think I had a response that would further the discussion, I wouldn't respond.

Lanathar wrote:
Like someone mentioned higher up it is almost as if you actually are a wizard and feel short changed the way the arguing can be read. Especially using terms like “unfair” and things being “taken” from them (that they never originally had)

It FEELS unfair, and in my mind it seems like that standard skill count for a class is 4, so when Wizards have 3 it would be because one of them got removed or taken away. It's my own poor wording and inability to present my opinion well I suppose. I'm legitimately sorry if I upset you are anyone else.

Lanathar wrote:

And across two forums almost no one has agreed with you

As has already been asked, what were you hoping for? It seems either :

- yes they have been nerfed and treated unfairly
- oh I am sorry my friend this is clearly a mistake and will be corrected

Neither are true
So if I am wrong what is the end goal here ?

To have a discussion. I'm not here trying to petition Paizo or anything. I respond to people because we are having a conversation and there have been a few people who have had ideas I really like. I'm not here on a crusade, I'm just talking with people. I never intended to come across in any other way. I apologize if I have.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Is it a discussion? It really comes off like an argument. Like it really feels like you're enjoying fighting with people here. That's what's so incredibly frustrating in having these conversations on not one, but two separate sites, especially when it's the same information repeated over and over.

That's not a discussion. That's just willfully being stubborn.


Lycar wrote:

Let's brainstorm then. How about Transmutation? Since this is all about turning things into other things, but also shapeshifting to some degree, how about giving a Transmuter the choice of Anatomy Lore and, uh, Element Lore? Like, turning a living being into so much rock sure needs knowledge of the elements and how to transmute them.

Of course, a Conjurer also needs some Element Lore, if he specialises in, well, conjuring up elements. Not that those elements would not only be the classical air, fire, water earth, but presumably also acid, lightning, cold and electricity. Sonic too maybe. If they are more of the 'summon furry critters to die for me' persuasion, how about Summoning Lore, which covers an in-depth study of creatures that can be summoned with spells? Because just you knowing the spell doesn't mean you know the stats of the critter...

Coming to think of it, Abjurers probably also need Element Lore. As do Evokers, obviously... Illusionists, Diviner and Necromancers, not so much.

Yeah okay, Necromancers can get Anatomy Lore too I guess. Diviners are candidates for History Lore maybe? And Illusionists... well, their illusions are only as good as their imagination, so maybe Artistry Lore?

What do you think?

I'm was going to use the CRB list of Lore skills because it feels the most official, but it actually doesn't leave many options does it?

Abjuration: Warding Lore? Counterspell Lore? Something that gives you an edge in preventing magic.

Conjuration: Chemistry Lore or Physical Science Lore for the physical elements and the knowledge needed for teleportation. I also like the idea of Summoning Lore.

Divination: Fortune-Telling Lore is just too perfect to pass up here.

Enchantment: Psychology Lore? Something to do with the mental state of other creatures.

Evocation: Explosion Lore? Elemental Association Lore? This one is really hard.

Illusion: Art Lore or Theater Lore are perfect here. They get Lore about creating things and expressing themselves.

Necromancy: Anatomy Lore is perfect. Organs, bones, how to put them together, what they do.

Transmutation: Chemistry Lore comes back. Anatomy Lore also works well here.

I think Universalist Wizards maybe get to pick, or perhaps the get the universally scholarly feeling Academia Lore


Ruzza wrote:
Is it a discussion? It really comes off like an argument. Like it really feels like you're enjoying fighting with people here.

On my end it doesn't feel like I'm fighting or being combative. I'm just talking about this and giving my opinion. I'm not trying to be mean and I'm not trying to fight anyone.

Ruzza wrote:
That's what's so incredibly frustrating in having these conversations on not one, but two separate sites, especially when it's the same information repeated over and over.

It's a different pool of people, and I wanted to talk about this thing, so I posted on both. If it bothers you, you could always ignore it. I don't think it's fair for you to say I can't post because you would prefer not reading it.

Ruzza wrote:
That's not a discussion. That's just willfully being stubborn.

I'm being stubborn because I havn't changed my opinion. I'm not refusing to change, I'm open to someone dropping in a really good take that changes the way I see this, that just hasn't happened.


Looking to have your opinion changed is an argument. Also, I never said you couldn't post, that's... insanity. I said it was uncalled for because you're getting the same responses and arguing the same things repeatedly. And yeah, you're totally arguing even if you don't feel like you are.

A discussion goes something like:
"Oh, hey, do you guys think it's weird that Wizards get less skills than other classes?"
"Yeah, probably because they have such high native INT and don't need to step on the toes of other classes and their roles as skill monkeys."
"Yeah, but I don't like how that feels."
"You could always homebrew it to give them another trained skill."

An argument goes like this:
"Oh, hey, do you guys think it's weird that Wizards get less skills than other classes?"
"Yeah, probably because they have such high native INT and don't need to step on the toes of other classes and their roles as skill monkeys."
"So Wizards get punished for having int as their important score by removing the one thing int normally does for you. Can't they just have the one thing intelligence is supposed to do for you?"
"Why are you couching it as "punishment"?"
It wouldn't seem like Paizo singling out the Wizard class, but it got nerfed in so many other ways and it just happens to be the only class that has less skills than the others. It FEELS like a punishment of some kind.


Ruzza wrote:

Looking to have your opinion changed is an argument. Also, I never said you couldn't post, that's... insanity. I said it was uncalled for because you're getting the same responses and arguing the same things repeatedly. And yeah, you're totally arguing even if you don't feel like you are.

A discussion goes something like:
"Oh, hey, do you guys think it's weird that Wizards get less skills than other classes?"
"Yeah, probably because they have such high native INT and don't need to step on the toes of other classes and their roles as skill monkeys."
"Yeah, but I don't like how that feels."
"You could always homebrew it to give them another trained skill."

An argument goes like this:
"Oh, hey, do you guys think it's weird that Wizards get less skills than other classes?"
"Yeah, probably because they have such high native INT and don't need to step on the toes of other classes and their roles as skill monkeys."
"So Wizards get punished for having int as their important score by removing the one thing int normally does for you. Can't they just have the one thing intelligence is supposed to do for you?"
"Why are you couching it as "punishment"?"
It wouldn't seem like Paizo singling out the Wizard class, but it got nerfed in so many other ways and it just happens to be the only class that has less skills than the others. It FEELS like a punishment of some kind.

Sorry I guess? From my perspective it went this way:

"Yeah, probably because they have such high native INT and don't need to step on the toes of other classes and their roles as skill monkeys."

That doesn't sound fair to me, why not just let them do the int thing

"So Wizards get punished for having int as their important score by removing the one thing int normally does for you. Can't they just have the one thing intelligence is supposed to do for you?"

"Why are you couching it as "punishment"?"

Because it feels like a punishment, I guess I'll explain why it feels that way to me

"It wouldn't seem like Paizo singling out the Wizard class, but it got nerfed in so many other ways and it just happens to be the only class that has less skills than the others. It FEELS like a punishment of some kind."

I just don't see the problem. I feel like that was reasonable and I worked to explain my rationale.


Right, so like an argument.


Ruzza wrote:
Right, so like an argument.

Sure I guess. If it make you happy, call it an argument. I don't really see it as angry or aggressive so I think it's more of a discussion, but it doesn't really matter I guess. This is all wildly off topic from wizards and the skill training they get anyway.


Oh, I've got a good answer for that. No need to go back and forth about it.

Pathfinder Second Edition heavily defines their classes by role in the Core Rulebook. The wizard's role is not "skill monkey" when it comes to skills. The wizard's role is "Recall Knowledge checks" when it comes to skills. As many have pointed out (on here and Reddit), the wizard has more than enough skills to get all applicable "Recall" skills AND have some fun freebies!

Why? Because roles are much more defined in 2e. Because of the proficiency system and trained skills, when you give classes that don't need the skill training access to more skill training, it blurs the lines of the roles each class is set out with in the Core Rulebook.

I'm not saying anything new. People here and on Reddit have said the same thing. Your argument that it doesn't feel right to you can be solved by houseruling it differently, but this isn't new information. Now, if you want to talk about your ideas for a houserule, great news! There's a houserule forum! Say "Hi," to Samurai while you're there!


Ruzza wrote:

Pathfinder Second Edition heavily defines their classes by role in the Core Rulebook. The wizard's role is not "skill monkey" when it comes to skills. The wizard's role is "Recall Knowledge checks" when it comes to skills. As many have pointed out (on here and Reddit), the wizard has more than enough skills to get all applicable "Recall" skills AND have some fun freebies!

Why? Because roles are much more defined in 2e. Because of the proficiency system and trained skills, when you give classes that don't need the skill training access to more skill training, it blurs the lines of the roles each class is set out with in the Core Rulebook.

Wait, wait, wait. Now you're saying that each class has a defined skill role in the CRB. Can I get a page number where they talk about a class's skill role?

It's one thing to say "Wizards always push int, so they get one less skill to bring them into line with the end amount of skills other classes will have on average" and an entirely different thing to say "The wizard's role is "Recall Knowledge checks" when it comes to skills, and the wizard has more than enough skills to get all applicable "Recall" skills."

Those are completely different arguments.


Discussions*


Ruzza wrote:
Discussions*

Arguments here having the meaning of "a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others."

Like an opening argument of a debate, or an argument for a cause, not like a fight or a yelling match. Come on.

There is a difference between having an argument with someone and presenting your argument for something. Those are two clearly different uses of the word.


I mean, yes, thank you for defining the word. That we have been using. To explain what you've been doing.

Are you... not reading the words you write?

(Edit: Nice edit! But you're still missing the point. You're not bringing anything new to the table that isn't just stubbornly repeating "but I don't like thing." It's so frustrating when someone keeps harping on the same useless point over and over again, isn't it?)


Now I'm very, very confused.

You said: "Is it a discussion? It really comes off like an argument. Like it really feels like you're enjoying fighting with people here." Which, to me, implied that you were using the word 'argument' here in the angry shouting way, and that arguing was bad because it was like fighting.

I didn't think I was being angry, or shouty, or fighty, so I said that I thought we were having a discussion. In a discussion you still present 'arguments' in the sense of presenting your reasoning for something.

You now seem to be saying that presenting your reasoning for something, or presenting an argument, is the problem. So now I'm VERY confused.

What is it that I'm doing wrong? Why are you upset with me? I really, honestly, don't understand what you mean anymore.


As I said above, Wizards only got 2+Int skill points in PF1 and in D&D 3.X. It's just a legacy thing.

In PF2, every class gets free training in one or two Skills that make sense for them, then they get a certain number of additional Trained skills as well based on their class and Int modifier. Wizards have gotten 2+Int ever since the transition to 3.0, and Paizo saw no reason to change it.

A suggestion for the future: while I understood you weren't trying to have an argument, the tone of your posts has been coming across as combative. I've made the same mistake a bunch of times. What I find helps me is, before hitting Submit Post, I try to re-read my post and consider if my word choice can be taken as being hostile or aggressive. I find it helps cut down on misunderstandings.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Lycar wrote:
Donovan Du Bois wrote:
I personally really like the idea of giving them a Lore skill tied to their chosen school of magic.
Let's brainstorm then. How about Transmutation? Since this is all about turning things into other things, but also shapeshifting to some degree, how about giving a Transmuter the choice of Anatomy Lore and, uh, Element Lore? Like, turning a living being into so much rock sure needs knowledge of the elements and how to transmute them.

What's wrong with just giving them Transmutation Lore? That way, they can know anything they needs to know about transformation magic, regardless of what tradition it happens to be from.

This could be easily and consistently repeated for the other schools of magic (evokers could get Evocation Lore, for example). A GM could even apply it to a myriad of other knowledge bases he thinks it applies too (such as some of the original Lore suggestions above)


Ravingdork wrote:
Lycar wrote:
Donovan Du Bois wrote:
I personally really like the idea of giving them a Lore skill tied to their chosen school of magic.
Let's brainstorm then. How about Transmutation? Since this is all about turning things into other things, but also shapeshifting to some degree, how about giving a Transmuter the choice of Anatomy Lore and, uh, Element Lore? Like, turning a living being into so much rock sure needs knowledge of the elements and how to transmute them.
What's wrong with just giving them Transmutation Lore???

That's a really good idea, TBH. It makes the lore specific to the school while also being vague enough to have a few applications here and there.


I'm a big fan of the extra lore for Wizards idea. It honestly doesn't make a huge difference, balance-wise, but it's a really neat bone to throw to Wizards and oozes with flavor.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lycar wrote:

Just remember that Skills and Lores compete for the same resource, skill increases. And Skills have a lot more in-game applicability then Lores, which only ever come up occasionally, and then in very narrowly defined circumstances. That, plus there is a quite short list of Skills, as compared to an arbitrarily long list of Lores.

I would not give Wizards more Skills, for reasons others have already pointed out. However, giving them an extra Lore or two, ideally thematically revolving around their chosen school of magic, would be right on the money in my opinion.

If an academy Wizard is also the dean of his department, for example, Administration Lore seems appropriate. The bursar would have Accounting Lore, and Scribing Lore would fit them all.

Think of it as the 'background skills' of PF 1.

Honestly, those examples feel more appropriate for just 'backgrounds' in PF2. If you really wanted to toss Wizards an extra lore like this, it might be fine to have a wizard-restricted background that gave 2 lore skills + appropriate skill, but it'd also probably annoy some to have a class-restricted background like that. Also, the thesis option that was mentioned earlier just seems too appropriate thematically to allow for a Wizard to focus on more lore skills (i.e. "I wrote my thesis on native flora of the First World and their properties compared to Material Plane counterparts" - gain Herbology Lore and First World Lore.)

---

And regarding the repeated claim of how Wizards are the "only one" with less skills - it is worth noting the Playtest Witch again, which was in the exact same situation. So rather than wizards being picked on, it'd seem like this is more a trait of Int-based casters, of which Wizards were the only one in the CRB. Considering their style of magic is relies on their Intellect, I'd say it makes thematic sense that they have less time to devote their intelligence to learning more unrelated skills unlike those whose class is less demanding on their minds.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
krobrina wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Wizards don't need more skills, period. They can solve problems by altering reality, let's have those who can't cast spells be better at "mundane" ways of getting ahead.
Wizards are supposed to he a fountain of lore. Lores are skills.

If we give all wizards free Lore (Fountains) they have as many trained skills as alchemists


4 people marked this as a favorite.

So to resume many answers that you got;
>Wizards have hight Int, therefore many Skills (6-7)
>Legacy from other editions
>Not overstep into other classes (Rogue, Bard)
>Witch and Wizard have the same, so it points to the hight Int.
>Academic doesn't need to have all the skills, only the Knowledge ones (Like Squiggit said)

The thing is, most of the players here agree that it is fine.
If you don't think is fair, well, there is nothing more to argue.

PS; Or you can think Paizo hates the wizard and overnerfed it because players were claiming for it, and they bend to the will of the forums.

51 to 100 of 145 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Anyone Notice Wizards Get Less Skills? All Messageboards