Second round of errata specullation

[Evilgm]

Temperans wrote:

So its a legitimate question to ask, why is it that Wizards don't get all simple weapons?

My guess is that they got the free 1st level class feat as compensation for that penalty. But it was errata away because it was seen as "too strong" by some people.

When you include an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory in your rant it makes it appear unlikely that the question you ask is legitimate, nor does it seem like you would give any answers proper consideration.

[Halgur]

KrispyXIV wrote:

...describing shields as "consumables" isn't accurate in the first place since you know whether blocking with a shield will destroy it before choosing to use the reaction in the first place. Don't block if your shield is going to be destroyed.

It is very accurate here since all the GMs in my area besides me refuse to reveal damage numbers until shield block is declared.

[KrispyXIV]

Halgur wrote:

KrispyXIV wrote:

...describing shields as "consumables" isn't accurate in the first place since you know whether blocking with a shield will destroy it before choosing to use the reaction in the first place. Don't block if your shield is going to be destroyed.

It is very accurate here since all the GMs in my area besides me refuse to reveal damage numbers until shield block is declared.

That seems like an extremely harsh, anti-player house-rule. Is there anything at all in the rules that implies that this should be resolved this way?

Does your GM allow the players to withhold information until their opponents have made decisions?

[TwilightKnight]

Another vote for a clarification on how many hands for Battle Medicine.

I’m worried a bit about shields. They are really good once you reach level 4/5 so I don’t want to see a major change to hardness/HP as that might make them too good later on. But, I agree they a bit too weak at low level. No one is shield blocking at low levels because almost all damage p, especially critical damage is enough to destroy the shield

I would like to see shields get the shove tag. IMO they are tailor-made for using to perform that maneuver and if a light bulk, light mace can functionally shove an enemy, there really is no reason a shield couldn’t be used to do the same thing. YMMV

I’m not invested, but I could agree that it makes little sense to not give wizards simple weapon proficiency when every other class including witch and monk have it. It’s not like that feature is going to suddenly break their combat skill. All it really does is provide more thematic choices for weapons by a wizard player. I couldn’t care less if the wizard uses a club, staff, light mace, dagger, crossbow, etc. None of those choices are gonna make the wizard a competent martial character.

[TwilightKnight]

KrispyXIV wrote:

That seems like an extremely harsh, anti-player house-rule

To be fair the RAW is not clear, so maybe this is a good topic for FAQ or ERRATA. Either way, I agree that it is unnecessarily harsh and a GM with that type of anti-player sentiment might not be one I would want to experience more than once. Though I admit, one rules issue does not make (or break) the GM.

[Lucas Yew]

Can a Wish spell emulating Raise Dead resurrect a 16th level creature? And, does such an attempt fail miserably inside an Antimagic Field? To recap, what spell level is the copied effect of Wish and its expies treated as? Official wording (post-Errata2) is needed ASAP...

[Snes]

Lucas Yew wrote:

Can a Wish spell emulating Raise Dead resurrect a 16th level creature? And, does such an attempt fail miserably inside an Antimagic Field? To recap, what spell level is the copied effect of Wish and its expies treated as? Official wording (post-Errata2) is needed ASAP...

As I read it, no. Wish can "duplicate any non-arcane spell of 7th level or lower." Raise Dead is a non-arcane spell, which means it can only be cast at a maximum of 7th level. The 7th level heightening for raise dead says "the maximum level of the target increases to 15."

So no, you can't wish a 16th-level creature back to life.

[Lightning Raven]

TwilightKnight wrote:

Another vote for a clarification on how many hands for Battle Medicine.

I’m worried a bit about shields. They are really good once you reach level 4/5 so I don’t want to see a major change to hardness/HP as that might make them too good later on. But, I agree they a bit too weak at low level. No one is shield blocking at low levels because almost all damage p, especially critical damage is enough to destroy the shield

I would like to see shields get the shove tag. IMO they are tailor-made for using to perform that maneuver and if a light bulk, light mace can functionally shove an enemy, there really is no reason a shield couldn’t be used to do the same thing. YMMV

I’m not invested, but I could agree that it makes little sense to not give wizards simple weapon proficiency when every other class including witch and monk have it. It’s not like that feature is going to suddenly break their combat skill. All it really does is provide more thematic choices for weapons by a wizard player. I couldn’t care less if the wizard uses a club, staff, light mace, dagger, crossbow, etc. None of those choices are gonna make the wizard a competent martial character.

That's the wrong idea, mate. Shields are terrible later on. At early levels you can destroy as many shields as you want, it will be a small fraction of your wealth, not that will happen that often. The issue with shields lie at higher levels, where numbers stay very low and all shield-focused players that want to shield block must pick up a Sturdy Shield because its the only one the scales well (Then at very high levels you have two more shields that are Rare items).

[Temperans]

Evilgm wrote:

When you include an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory in your rant it makes it appear unlikely that the question you ask is legitimate, nor does it seem like you would give any answers proper consideration.

I gave my honest opinion and feeling on that subject, just like I always do. I don't see why the fact you think its a conspiracy theory makes that part or the rest invalid.

I give all answer a proper reading and consideration. So don't dare assume what I do, if you want me to respond to your answers post them and don't just attack a part of my argument.

In any case, Paizo has shown that they can make mistakes for one reason or another (like all other publishers). There is 0 reason why something that seems weird or out of place can't be questioned. If the response is, "that was intended" then so be it, at least the question was asked.

******************

* P.S. I wasn't ranting. I am just not good at writing concisely, it took way too long to edit this post and it still really long. Sorry if it seemed like a rant, but that is how I write.

******************

@Lucas Yew

Are you asking, "Whether a spell of lower level is heightened up to 10th level when duplicated using Wish?"

Because there are multiple ways that Wish can be interpreted given the rules.

[NECR0G1ANT]

Lanathar wrote:

NECR0G1ANT wrote:

I still don't understand why wizards aren't trained in all simple weapons, or why they are limited to spells in the spellbook when other prepared casters aren't.

Wizards have never been trained in all simple weapons and have always been limited to their spellbook. I am pretty sure this has been the case in every iteration of the game ever.

So?

In previous editions, druids and cloistered clerics could not use all simple weapons, bards were never full casters, and sorcerors were always arcane casters.

Obviously legacy was not very important in those cases, so why are wizards stuck with the worst weapon proficiencies in-game and the need to buy their spells?

[NECR0G1ANT]

dmerceless wrote:

The spellbook limitation is a balancing factor (if it is necessary or not, that's another discussion, but it is taken into account for the game's balance). The simple weapon thing, however, is just a holdover from previous editions that makes Wizards absolutely terrible at taking Archetypes for no reason other than "but muh tradition". It's something I really hope to see gone as well.

What is the spellbook limitation balancing against, exactly? Druids share many spells with the wizard, but they don't need spellbooks.

[Aratorin]

NECR0G1ANT wrote:

dmerceless wrote:

The spellbook limitation is a balancing factor (if it is necessary or not, that's another discussion, but it is taken into account for the game's balance). The simple weapon thing, however, is just a holdover from previous editions that makes Wizards absolutely terrible at taking Archetypes for no reason other than "but muh tradition". It's something I really hope to see gone as well.

What is the spellbook limitation balancing against, exactly? Druids share many spells with the wizard, but they don't need spellbooks.

Wizards get more slots and a better list.

[Temperans]

They share half the list and druids have better defenses and attacks.

2 hp/level and wild form ramp up fast when every hit counts.

[NECR0G1ANT]

KrispyXIV wrote:

dmerceless wrote:

The spellbook limitation is a balancing factor (if it is necessary or not, that's another discussion, but it is taken into account for the game's balance). The simple weapon thing, however, is just a holdover from previous editions that makes Wizards absolutely terrible at taking Archetypes for no reason other than "but muh tradition". It's something I really hope to see gone as well.

Wizard's weapon proficiency could also be reasoned as an example of, "No, Wizards do not get to have every desirable class feature they could possibly want."

Would it be nice if they were proficient in all Simple Weapons? Sure. It'd be nice if they got Martial, and Armor too.

But do they need it?

They're Wizards - they're the most powerful and versatile spellcasters in DnD, now and always.

I don't think they do.

I have some questions.

How are wizards more powerful or versatile than other spellcasting classes?

If they are just better, then how does having worse weapon proficiencies and needing to buy spells balance anything? I don't like it because it impedes fun-but-suboptimal builds and creates more bookkeeping, respectively. Not because it changes the way wizards play.

[NECR0G1ANT]

Aratorin wrote:

NECR0G1ANT wrote:

dmerceless wrote:

The spellbook limitation is a balancing factor (if it is necessary or not, that's another discussion, but it is taken into account for the game's balance). The simple weapon thing, however, is just a holdover from previous editions that makes Wizards absolutely terrible at taking Archetypes for no reason other than "but muh tradition". It's something I really hope to see gone as well.

What is the spellbook limitation balancing against, exactly? Druids share many spells with the wizard, but they don't need spellbooks.

Wizards get more slots and a better list.

Let's assume that the Arcane list is better for the sake of argument.

Why do arcane sorcerors have better weapon proficiencies than wizards?

[Angel Hunter D]

I'm hoping they address the hot topics of Battle Medicine, Shields, and Alchemists. There isn't really anything else that is in need of adjustment to function well/fun.

[PossibleCabbage]

NECR0G1ANT wrote:

Why do arcane sorcerors have better weapon proficiencies than wizards?

Because "having a cap on how many spells you can have in your repertoire" makes "using the most versatile spell list" less impressive?

[HumbleGamer]

NECR0G1ANT wrote:

Aratorin wrote:

NECR0G1ANT wrote:

dmerceless wrote:

The spellbook limitation is a balancing factor (if it is necessary or not, that's another discussion, but it is taken into account for the game's balance). The simple weapon thing, however, is just a holdover from previous editions that makes Wizards absolutely terrible at taking Archetypes for no reason other than "but muh tradition". It's something I really hope to see gone as well.

What is the spellbook limitation balancing against, exactly? Druids share many spells with the wizard, but they don't need spellbooks.

Wizards get more slots and a better list.

Let's assume that the Arcane list is better for the sake of argument.

Why do arcane sorcerors have better weapon proficiencies than wizards?

Well, sorcerers can have arcane traditions as well for other traditions.

They also don't spend time studying stuff, since they have innate powers.

Seems like their extra time, which wizards use to study arcane magic, is used somewhere else ( which also includes simple weapon proficiency ).

[BlessedHeretic]

HumbleGamer wrote:

NECR0G1ANT wrote:

Aratorin wrote:

NECR0G1ANT wrote:

dmerceless wrote:

The spellbook limitation is a balancing factor (if it is necessary or not, that's another discussion, but it is taken into account for the game's balance). The simple weapon thing, however, is just a holdover from previous editions that makes Wizards absolutely terrible at taking Archetypes for no reason other than "but muh tradition". It's something I really hope to see gone as well.

What is the spellbook limitation balancing against, exactly? Druids share many spells with the wizard, but they don't need spellbooks.

Wizards get more slots and a better list.

Let's assume that the Arcane list is better for the sake of argument.

Why do arcane sorcerors have better weapon proficiencies than wizards?

Well, sorcerers can have arcane traditions as well for other traditions.

They also don't spend time studying stuff, since they have innate powers.

Seems like their extra time, which wizards use to study arcane magic, is used somewhere else ( which also includes simple weapon proficiency ).

Which is not represented anywhere in their class features. They lose having simple prof for what gains exactly in comparison to other casters with it? Definitely isn't thesis or school. That's comparable to bloodlines and the other built in modular parts of the other classes. I do concede wizards are a bit more modular, but that's strictly from Schools.

Wizards use the weakest casting stat in the game. Int. It provides them with basically no benefits outside being trained in some skills, which is hardly a boon because they also get the least amount of skills to make up for the fact they have high int.

Charisma casters can easily stack into intimidation and deception - both strong in this edition, intimidation especially.

Wisdom casters get the benefit of their core stat also being used for a Save and Initiative!

Int barely does anything, and the things it does do, don't really make you contribute that much.

So we got a chassis on par with all the other casters, that has less weapon selection, a greater DEMAND for weapon selection, and a feat tax to obtain a better selection that others don't.

It's tradition is not exclusive (Sorcerer/Witch)

It's spell collection no longer exclusive and style not. (Witch is prepared and learns them too.)

What does the wizard have that makes it so strong, it deserves a feat tax to reach the same baseline as any other caster for WEAPON selection, a thing on the caster that is seldom used anyway since Casters even with the selection are generally awful with the weapons, and at best are using them as a catalyst for a spell?

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

In terms of things I hope to see in the errata

An official way of how Glyph of Wardings work. - if they are mobile, how long they are disabled if you say the safe word, what counts towards triggering them - it's all very subjective and makes it's power balance go from being asinine overpowered to overly niche and useless.

Eschew materials - Either removed or made half way decent. This is the golden standard of a feat that is useless.

Shifting Staves - are weapon shifted staves capable of casting or not definitively answered.

[Salamileg]

Just throwing my two cents in about the wizard. I would like it if they were trained in all simple weapons, but I also don't think it's a big enough deal to change. As for the spellbook thing, so far both arcane prepared casters we've seen (Witch and Wizard) use a spellbook mechanic, and I kind of expect that to be the case with all arcane prepared casters to do that going forward. The arcane list is by far the longest and most versatile, with the only kind of spell it's missing being healing. And it's nearly twice as long as divine, the shortest list. The spellbook seems like a good balancing factor.

[KrispyXIV]

BlessedHeretic, it sounds like you undervalue all of the things that other people think makes Wizards awesome, which makes discussing this difficult.

Arcane has historically been the power spell list, and PF2E is no exception. It does everything other than healing, and Wizards are still amazing at determining what's coming up and having exactly the right list of spells to deal with it. Wizards versatile casting was historically considered top tier, and its not gotten worse just because sorcerers got more versatile themselves.

Additionally, Wizards have top tier spell slots and good class features backing those up. And if you don't like those class features, since most of their power comes from magic they're a great option for multiclassing.

If you think Intelligence is a bad stat, I wonder at the games you are playing in. In the published adventure I'm running, Knowledge Skills are constantly and relentlessly important and Intelligence is associated with several of the best. As well, later on they become useful on skill challenges which are often written as "use skills x, y, or z OR cast a spell and use the associated casting skill". Which is in addition to all the Intelligence based skill rolls that are prevalent across all tiers of play.

Maybe Wizards are the last non-Simple Weapons holdout - but it does still serve to differentiate Wizards from other less awesome spellcasters.

[Unicore]

Beyond just battle medicine as a feat, I hope that there is a little more clarity to the manipulate tag and what it means/is a little clearer about whether requires hands/appendages default means one is free (unless the specific action specifies otherwise) or it it just means the ability to freely move your limbs, and the action only requires a free hand if it clearly states so in its description. I interpret RAW as the second, but agree that the wording of manipulate as a trait leaves a lot of confusion about this subject.

Similarly, while I specifically want more clarity on the acid splash cantrip, (what does splash damage mean attached to a spell and not a weapon), I would like to know if generally “splash” is a trait/effect that is only supposed to be relevant to weapons (as RAW defines it now), or if it is supposed to generally exist as a form of AoE attack that is tied to accuracy, that can be applied to spells and unarmed attacks that are not weapons.

[Coldermoss]

I've said it before and I'll say it again- some light clarification on the nature of attacks and the weapon traits like Trip would be very useful.

[Squiggit]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Because "having a cap on how many spells you can have in your repertoire" makes "using the most versatile spell list" less impressive?

Do you really think wizards not being able to use morning stars is a balance issue? Like somehow if they could use a d6 bludgeoning versatile p weapon that it would ruin the game in some way that they can't with the d6 bludgeoning thrown weapon they can use?

Really interested in hearing that elaborated on.

Not even really getting into the issue of sorcerers themselves. People seem really stuck in the PF1 theorycrafting mindset of sorcerers being gimpy budget wizards still, which isn't really the case.

[Rysky]

Conversely, why do Wizards need SWP? Are you really going to melee with clubs as wizard?

Honestly curious.

[Henro]

I can't see wizard weapon proficiency being a big balance issue. They could definitely have better proficiency without the game breaking. Similarly, them not having simple proficiency is not a significant factor in their current power level.

The reason they are the way they are is more than likely a flavor thing rather than a balance thing.

[Reziburno25]

Hope they fix disarm to make success acturally useful, not just end on start of your enemy turn. Change -2 to hit from it to requiring interact to readjust your weapon.

[NECR0G1ANT]

Squiggit wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Because "having a cap on how many spells you can have in your repertoire" makes "using the most versatile spell list" less impressive?

Do you really think wizards not being able to use morning stars is a balance issue? Like somehow if they could use a d6 bludgeoning versatile p weapon that it would ruin the game in some way that they can't with the d6 bludgeoning thrown weapon they can use?

Really interested in hearing that elaborated on.

Not even really getting into the issue of sorcerers themselves. People seem really stuck in the PF1 theorycrafting mindset of sorcerers being gimpy budget wizards still, which isn't really the case.

I reckon people appreciate wizards having the worst weapon proficiencies because wizards were OP in 1E and not because Prepared Arcane casters are OP without it (even if that were true, how would denying them SWP help?)

[NECR0G1ANT]

Rysky wrote:

Conversely, why do Wizards need SWP? Are you really going to melee with clubs as wizard?

Honestly curious.

Wizards are already proficient in clubs. The reason the lack of SWP annoys me is two-fold.

1) Wizards need to burn a feat to get any simple weapon not on their list, or two feats to get a martial weapon, or three to get an advanced weapon. It feels bad that a fun-but-suboptimal build like a melee wizard, or someone who wants their wizard PC to wield swords like Gandalf did, needs to pay feat taxes. That should have been left behind in 1E. Especially since...

2) Similar spellcasters, like cloistered clerics, sorcerers and witches aren't denied SWP. It makes the wizards restriction more inexplicable and the fact that, for the aforementioned Gandalf build, you're better off playing a sorceror or witch, and that feels wrong to me.

[NECR0G1ANT]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

NECR0G1ANT wrote:

Why do arcane sorcerors have better weapon proficiencies than wizards?

Because "having a cap on how many spells you can have in your repertoire" makes "using the most versatile spell list" less impressive?

So wizard's weapon proficiencies should be worse than an arcane sorcerer's because wizards are Prepared rather than a Spontaneous casters?

I had thought the two types were about equal, so I don't understand why prepared casters require a nerf, or why restricting weapon profiencies is the answer.

And if it is true that Arcane Prepared casters can't have SWP for mechanical balance reasons, then why do Arcane witches have it? They're Arcane Prepared spellcasters

[Henro]

Personally, I would have preferred if Weapon Proficiency always gave you simple + martial proficiency, or advanced if you already had martial. Taking two general feats for trained in martial is just fundamentally not a good idea so I don't think lowering the requirements a little would have hurt the game.

[Malk_Content]

I hope they add literally anything about Animal Companions outside of encounters.

[KrispyXIV]

So, clarification of something here - I don't know that anyone is arguing that giving Wizards Simple Weapons makes them OP. Nor do I think that anyone has a good argument that could convince most folks that Wizards need Simple Weapons for Balance Purposes.

Wizards don't have Simple Weapons because it differentiates them from classes that do. By distinguishing them in this way, you establish that Wizards are 'worse with weapons' because they're focused on magic. Really, its a design choice, and the game is not broken because of it.

Houserule it in your home games - its super safe, you won't have broken wizards. Its definitely not something that needs errata though - Wizards having a harder time qualifying for weapons requirements is part of what defines and describes them as wizards, though.

[Gaulin]

I'm not super familiar with errata and such, but I think too many are viewing it as a balance patch. Pretty sure it's to clear up unclear wording or mistakes that were made. I could be wrong but that's what I understand from other erratas. Try not to set yourselves up for disappointment.

Also another thing that a post reminded me of that needs clarification is if you can use athletics maneuvers with the attack trait while shapeshifted. Seems crazy to me that you couldn't trip/shove/escape/etc while in a form.

[Reziburno25]

Guessing for battleform abilties you want it changed from this is only attack you can make to this is only strike you can make.

[Henro]

I think you're right on the money, Gaulin. Proper balance updates are probably more likely to come as part of new material or in the form of something like 2E Unchained.

The things I specifically want to see addressed are;

Deafness: something is wrong here. This condition currently doesn't do much (verbal components lack the auditory trait, so it doesn't affect spells). I don't have a problem with going against legacy, but the text about characters with disabilities strongly imply there's supposed to be an effect on spellcasting for the temporarily deaf. I would like a clarification on this as it strongly impacts the powerlevel of certain spells (Sound Burst for example. Is it a decent tech option for enemy casters or not?). I know how I'd run it at my table, but it's come up in the past when people are asking to have spells recommended to them.

True Target: The spell description contradicts how the spell functions, and RAW the spell is just flaming trash. This really doesn't seem to be functioning as intended.

Magic Fang and Animal Companions: this is a pretty wonky one. Since ACs don't benefit from item bonuses, they are only getting half the bonus off this spell. Could be intended to be honest but seems like an unintentional interaction to me. At the very least, I feel like "animal companion" is the first thing many people think when reading Magic Fang, so the anti-synergy may be baffling (at least it was for me)

I think that's it? Deafness is probably the big one for me.

[KrispyXIV]

Henro wrote:

True Target: The spell description contradicts how the spell functions, and RAW the spell is just flaming trash. This really doesn't seem to be functioning as intended.

I believe this one is a shoe-in for correction, as I believe there's semi-official commentary out there to the effect of how this was intended to work - which takes the spell from garbage to amazing pretty instantly.

[HumbleGamer]

KrispyXIV wrote:

Houserule it in your home games - its super safe, you won't have broken wizards. Its definitely not something that needs errata though - Wizards having a harder time qualifying for weapons requirements is part of what defines and describes them as wizards, though.

Second this.

To think that they could even consider to spend time on this kind of issues ( no offence) would just make sad.

Simply because there is definitely more important stuff they could deal with instead ( shield and battle medicine, to begin with ).

@Gaulin: I think you have a point there, but if there's something like shields which appears to have flaws, I expect them to solve this within the first year after the release ( IMO they should have dealt with it sooner, but it's only my opinion ).

[PossibleCabbage]

I feel like "Wizards are the class that is worst with weapons" is in part niche protection for the eventual Magus class. I wouldn't massively expand the weapons the Wizard can use well before the Magus comes around.

In the meantime, proficiency with ancestral weapons seems to work. I mean, Gandalf was not human.

[Grankless]

TwilightKnight wrote:

KrispyXIV wrote:

That seems like an extremely harsh, anti-player house-rule

To be fair the RAW is not clear, so maybe this is a good topic for FAQ or ERRATA. Either way, I agree that it is unnecessarily harsh and a GM with that type of anti-player sentiment might not be one I would want to experience more than once. Though I admit, one rules issue does not make (or break) the GM.

"Trigger While you have your shield raised, you would take damage from a physical attack."

The RAW is extremely clear. How can you possibly know if you're going to take damage if damage hasn't been rolled?

[KrispyXIV]

Grankless wrote:

TwilightKnight wrote:

KrispyXIV wrote:

That seems like an extremely harsh, anti-player house-rule

To be fair the RAW is not clear, so maybe this is a good topic for FAQ or ERRATA. Either way, I agree that it is unnecessarily harsh and a GM with that type of anti-player sentiment might not be one I would want to experience more than once. Though I admit, one rules issue does not make (or break) the GM.

"Trigger While you have your shield raised, you would take damage from a physical attack."

The RAW is extremely clear. How can you possibly know if you're going to take damage if damage hasn't been rolled?

There's also an explicit tag now for rolls which are intended to be Secret. I don't believe damage is on that list, making the withholding of that knowledge before a player decides whether or not to Shield Block pretty clearly a House Rule.

[Squiggit]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

In the meantime, proficiency with ancestral weapons seems to work.

Sort of, depending on the weapon. Stuff like the filcher's fork or curve blade or clan dagger require you to take ancestral weapon proficiency and simple weapon proficiency, which means waiting until level 3 to use them, and in all cases needing to take another ancestry feat at 13.

Human wizards don't actually gain proficiency with anything when they take unconventional weaponry, although they can grab simple weapons at level 1 with the right heritage.

But hey, for some reason(??) it's really really important to the integrity of the game that it's needlessly onerous for a wizard to grab proficiency with anything, so whatever.

[Bluescale]

I'd like to see some clarification on the spells granted to divine sorcerers by their bloodlines. It seems obvious that the divine spell list was written with the cleric in mind, thus many spells have deity (or deity plus specific alignment) requirements. Divine sorcerers don't need to worship gods, but their bloodlines give them some of these spells automatically, spells that take up space in the repertoire and can never be retrained. Is there some exception for sorcerers that allows them to cast these spells (like there seems to be for monsters like demons who often don't worship gods), or is it just a case of "sorry, but you Rahadoumi divine sorcerers (and Pharasmins) can't cast those and you effectively have less spells known than other sorcerers."

[Lightning Raven]

Gaulin wrote:

I'm not super familiar with errata and such, but I think too many are viewing it as a balance patch. Pretty sure it's to clear up unclear wording or mistakes that were made. I could be wrong but that's what I understand from other erratas. Try not to set yourselves up for disappointment.

Also another thing that a post reminded me of that needs clarification is if you can use athletics maneuvers with the attack trait while shapeshifted. Seems crazy to me that you couldn't trip/shove/escape/etc while in a form.

You should check the previous errata then. Because they literally added a class feature in a "quick" patch (errata) for the Alchemist, changed the weight of some items for the class because it was prohibitive for a class with zero reason to invest in strength (even the iconic was above the Bulk cap because of that).

This second round of errata was something that has been stated that will not be just small typos. They haven't been. There may not be as many changes as some of us want it to have, but the Alchemist will definitely be receiving some changes to help them out, they're the class that changed the most ever since their debut on the PF2e Playtest (they worked with the Resonance mechanic that doesn't exist anymore).

As I, and others here as well, said several times in different threads, we're living in the age of the internet, there's nothing preventing Paizo from actually approaching the game with balance patches, because unlike PF1e errata (it's a nightmare to find and navigate) you now have the advantage of internet and there is no need to wait for reprints anymore, the players can have the developer-approved and designed changes that makes the game more healthy (mechanically) and fun, while at the same time compiling material for further prints with correction. And you know what the best part is? This is not a computer game, so you can simply ignore any changes that doesn't please your table.

[Henro]

I feel like a large part of the reason the Alchemist was changed as it was, was the fact that it had several features that had been made completely redundant by changes to the rules as the game evolved.

Who knows, maybe future erratas will be balance focused, and this will be 2E moving into the digital age - but I would advise people to temper their expectations here or risk being disappointed.

[dmerceless]

Rysky wrote:

Conversely, why do Wizards need SWP? Are you really going to melee with clubs as wizard?

Honestly curious.

Build variety? You know, the thing PF2 prouds itself upon and what drew many people to the game? Again, it makes little to no difference for the "I'll stand back casting spells" Wizard if they can use a Mace or not, but for the people who want to take Archetypes and make something neat and different with their character, not having to wait half of your career or butcher your character concept with a ton of feat taxes to get said Archetype would be really nice.

Is it a gamebreaking thing? Obviously not. But I genuinely don't understand why people are so harshly against something that they know won't make any difference for the balance of the game, but will allow other people to fulfill their character concepts better. Niche protection? Come on. If you think Wizards using Maces would mess up with niche protection, it only means the class had a very weak identity in the first place.

[thenobledrake]

I find it interesting that "build variety" can be cited as a reason to remove a point of difference between otherwise similar classes.

Balance isn't the only concern of the traits of a character though. There's also the "interesting" part - all options being balanced, people would choose the ones that interest them over the ones which don't.

And that is where giving a class more than it has but that wouldn't have a meaningful effect on balance can still be a downside; by making it less interesting. The current wizard proficiency set is more interesting to some people (myself included) than every class having all simple weapons would be. So is the bard and rogue having a few select martial proficiencies rather than all martial weapons, or none - so I'd be against changing their proficiencies too, even though it wouldn't affect balance.

[Henro]

For what it's worth, I think a limited selection of martial weapons vs all has a higher impact on balance compared to simple weapons. Bards getting all martial weapons would be a not-world-shattering-but-still-significant in my eyes.

[AnimatedPaper]

I'll be more concerned if an archetype gets released that requires proficiency with all martial weapons, which would push wizards into getting access either 2 or 4 levels after every other character in the game (depending on ancestry).

Otherwise, my only objection is to the additional words that needed to be spent to preserve the unique set of weapons proficiencies of exactly one class. Well, that and I think the flavor justification is internally inconsistent, but if it works for others it works for others.

[thenobledrake]

AnimatedPaper wrote:

...of exactly one class.

That's one class "so far" which is different from only ever being one class.

It's kinda like how the special materials in the book mention how darkwood would affect armor and there aren't any wooden armors for it to affect at current - it looks like a waste now, but that doesn't mean it always will.

And since home-brew exists, there are likely already home-brewers out there that have utilized these "additional words" for their own material. Like say if someone were to create a Psion class based on the D&D 3.5 Expanded Psionics Handbook. Thanks to the wizard class having a specified set of weapons rather than all simple weapons, they could stick with the specified set of weapons from that class instead of feeling forced to give it all simple weapons like they probably would if wizard also got that.