Or you know, "Imagine them as realistic, normal shields, which were destroyed when used to directly block attacks in battle as opposed to deflecting them. You know, like real weapons and armor."
I'm not normally a simulationist, but the idea that all shields should be durable when used to absorb blows is... kindof silly.
Sorry but you're conflating reality with fantasy.
For one thing, very few of your real shields will have costed you thousands of gold pieces. None of them will deprive you of a cool magical ability when destroyed.
Your comparison simply does not hold up.
I'm not sure what "comparison" you're referring to. What I implied is that the notion that shields aren't "consumable" has no origins in reality, where they were in fact disposable items with a shelf life that was generally "one battle", during which they might be damaged or ruined.
Shields, regardless of hardness and hitpoints, do exactly what they have always and traditionally done in DnD when you use the Raise Shield mechanic.
Shield Block is new, unprecedented, and has no actual historical or traditional mechanics associated with it - the idea that "All Shields Should be Viable for Blocking without breaking" is invented wholesale from nowhere (neither reality, no previous versions of DnD), and would preclude the current game choice of choosing a shield for its special effects, or its value for directly preventing damage.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
I mean, as you see just a few posts above. That's specifically why.
For some people, allowing other players to fulfill unique character concepts is actively harmful to what they find interesting about Pathfinder.
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.I mean, as you see just a few posts above. That's specifically why.
For some people, allowing other players to fulfill unique character concepts is actively harmful to what they find interesting about Pathfinder.
I encourage people to houserule stuff like this to better fit their home games. I'm not the houserule police, and I'm not going to stop you from giving wizards anything you want.
For me, I like games that provide interesting choices for me, where different choices have differing benefits and compromises associated with them.
Sorcerers and Wizards differing in many ways, including weapon proficiency, helps to make them feel different and helps to enforce the idea that I have to compromise if I want to take certain choices. If I can get everything I could possibly want, well, thats not particularly 'challenging' for character design.
There's no need to 'fix' this game design problem that isn't a problem for the game itself.
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.
I suppose. It seems rather niche though. I'd have preferred Unarmed attacks got bundled back into Simple weapon proficiency, and Simple Weapon proficiency was definitionally "weapons that don't require formal training to use effectively" so that everyone was assumed to have it. Would have eliminated the need for a section of the previous round of errata, and presumably some of the next round, if the Iruxi feat gets addressed.
Also (speaking of niche) dwarf wizards would be able to use their clan daggers instead of a regular dagger. Poor dwarves. Edit: Hey, maybe that will be in the errata, that dwarves also get training with their clan daggers automatically.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
These changes are easier than people think. If Wizards were to become trained in all simple weapons, it wouldn't break the design team's back or come at the expense of other matters.
Also, if the limited spellbook mechanic were intended to balance the variety of the Arcane list (which might be true, even), then why are Divine, Primal and Occult Witches stuck with the same mechanic?
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.These changes are easier than people think. If Wizards were to become trained in all simple weapons, it wouldn't break the design team's back or come at the expense of other matters.
Also, if the limited spellbook mechanic were intended to balance the variety of the Arcane list (which might be true, even), then why are Divine, Primal and Occult Witches stuck with the same mechanic?
Because they get to do other cool things like generate free Potions every day and Sustain Spells better than any other Class.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wizard restrictions are a strange throwback that seems to have no place in the current design philosophy. Making a class arbitrarily worse at something to create a design niche is terrible design. Its arbitrary because it has zero real impact on the way the core wizard plays.
Comparing it to old editions is also a terrible way to look at it, older editions didn't have the same concepts, rules, archetypes etc. In no older edition did we have 4 tiers of proficiency. The original dnd sorcerer (AD&D 2e) had the same limited weapon proficiencies as the wizard so it stands to reason either both change or both should not based on this arguement. AD&D 2e didn't have a concept of simple/martial weapons so we can't speculate as to whether wizards would or wouldn't have gotten all simple weapon prof's had the concept existed. The tradition argument falls apart when every other class and the core rule concepts of the game have changed significantly. The 'non arcane witches' get other cool things like better sustain and 'free potions' falls apart because they still get access to those things while having the option to also have the arcane spell list. Potions and sustain aren't locked to divine/occult and primal.
As to 'Just house rule it' well that argument works for everything, why bother with errata other than typos at all if we can just house rule everything? It matters cause people want to have certainty from game to game about concepts, it matters so when we have robust discussions about builds and balance on forums we are all working with the same interpretation, it matters because society play exists.
The biggest issue is not that wizards can't use a morning star, its that they cannot benefit from feats that have conditions or reference simple weapons or 'counts as a simple weapon' for example feats like https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=72 Unconventional weaponry. It matters because ever new feat will have to be written with that distinction in mind.
The spell list balance argument falls apart when you look at sorcerers and witches. Both get all simple weapons and get access to arcane spell lists. If Arcane were really a significantly more powerful spell list than you would see are arcane sorcerers. Spell lists are much better balanced now.
I have yet to hear a convincing argument that doesn't rely on a false premise as to why wizards shouldn't get all simple weapons, if nothing else it makes rule writing easier.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure that Wizard is starting with better caster features as compared to Sorc? They both get focus spells of varied quality, and Wizard is getting arcane bond plus their thesis vs. blood magic. I'd take arcane bond or thesis over blood magic, so it seems pretty reasonable that Sorc would get a feat's worth of martial stuff and something like eschew materials.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have yet to hear a convincing argument that doesn't rely on a false premise as to why wizards shouldn't get all simple weapons, if nothing else it makes rule writing easier.
Someone already mentioned, not granting Wizards weapon access so there’s more room for the Magus, which is the “master of the arcane and uses weapons” class.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have yet to hear a convincing argument that doesn't rely on a false premise as to why wizards shouldn't get all simple weapons, if nothing else it makes rule writing easier.Someone already mentioned, not granting Wizards weapon access so there’s more room for the Magus, which is the “master of the arcane and uses weapons” class.
I didn't consider that to be a good reason. Magus (if/when it exists) is probably going to get martial weapons - and have a very different playstyle to wizard. Nothing about wizard just getting flat simple weapons will impinge on a Magus who will get at least a few martial weapons - the classic magus being a sword wielder means it will have more than simple weapons.
I can as easily see Magus becoming an archetype like Eldritch Knight.
I have already explained why the 'tradition' argument falls apart. AD&D 2e sorcerers only had the same weapon profs as wizard, tradition should apply equally to them then. If we are sticking with traditions then we shouldn't have changed anything. Bards should be half casters, Clerics shouldn't get any offensive spells except flame strike and 1 or 2 other niche anti undead spells. The Occult and Primal spell lists shouldn't exist. Tradition is a super weak argument when half the game and concepts are changed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Making a class arbitrarily worse at something to create a design niche is terrible design.It's not being made "arbitrarily worse" though as there is a direct line of reasoning that explains why it is how it is - tradition.
And while it might be "terrible design" in your opinion to do it the way it is done, it would be "terrible design" in the opinion of other folks to change a traditional trait when that change "has zero real impact on the way the core wizard plays."
So Paizo has to try and measure which option is going to have a larger group saying "terrible design" - or decide they don't care about that and go with their own collective preference for "works well enough and upholds tradition" or "works well enough and is different for the sake of being different"
Then why didn’t Monks and Druids keep their weapon restrictions? Neither of them are terribly weapon dependent.
Edit: if those classes had kept their preset mix of martial and simple weapons, I’d feel a lot better about that choice, since that mean having three classes needing to take weapon proficiency to get all simple weapons before going to martial instead of just one.
I have yet to hear a convincing argument that doesn't rely on a false premise as to why wizards shouldn't get all simple weapons, if nothing else it makes rule writing easier.Someone already mentioned, not granting Wizards weapon access so there’s more room for the Magus, which is the “master of the arcane and uses weapons” class.
Won’t martial weapon proficiency make the same point better? It’s one of the ways they differentiate Cloistered Clerics from Warpriests, after all.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
One piece of errata I'd like to see is for battle form spells to have flexible sizes as you heighten them. Say "your battle form can be up to huge" instead of "your battle form is huge" in a heightened entry.
Right now there's this odd, frustrating issue where heightened Form spells can become harder to use as you need increasingly more room to utilize them, but since your statistics are also tied to that heightening, your combat performance takes a hit if you cast a weaker version of the spell.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If we trawled through this forum we probably would have a good idea of what is going into the next errata, or, at least part of it.
We know that Mark Seifter has mentioned errata coming to:
- How Sustained spells work
- How spell attacks are worded
- How Cloud Jump is meant to be calculated
- Adding the finesse trait to the bladed scarf
- The Battle-Medicine hands issue
I'm sure there is a ton more that I missed, but these are the ones I've seen addressed anyhow. I think there is a general policy that designers don't actually answer questions outright when it should be an errata, so I don't think we fully know how any of the above will shakeout just yet.
On the question of Wizard proficiencies, I can only think of one example wherein they might have opted to deviate from all simple weapons as a matter of balance, and that's the Hand of the Apprentice focus spell.
You hurl a held melee weapon with which you are trained at the target, making a spell attack roll. On a success, you deal the weapon's damage as if you had hit with a melee Strike, but adding your spellcasting ability modifier to damage, rather than your Strength modifier. On a critical success, you deal double damage, and you add the weapon's critical specialization effect. Regardless of the outcome, the weapon flies back to you and returns to your hand.
By removing simple prof you add a feat tax that stops a 1st level human wizard from hurling Greatpicks from 500ft away. Instead they have to wait for 3rd and blow two feats for that honour.
Is preventing a niche build worth gimping the class as a whole? Probably not, but at least I can see a design discussion happening around it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have yet to hear a convincing argument that doesn't rely on a false premise as to why wizards shouldn't get all simple weapons, if nothing else it makes rule writing easier.Someone already mentioned, not granting Wizards weapon access so there’s more room for the Magus, which is the “master of the arcane and uses weapons” class.
I didn't consider that to be a good reason. Magus (if/when it exists) is probably going to get martial weapons - and have a very different playstyle to wizard. Nothing about wizard just getting flat simple weapons will impinge on a Magus who will get at least a few martial weapons - the classic magus being a sword wielder means it will have more than simple weapons.
I can as easily see Magus becoming an archetype like Eldritch Knight.
I have already explained why the 'tradition' argument falls apart. AD&D 2e sorcerers only had the same weapon profs as wizard, tradition should apply equally to them then. If we are sticking with traditions then we shouldn't have changed anything. Bards should be half casters, Clerics shouldn't get any offensive spells except flame strike and 1 or 2 other niche anti undead spells. The Occult and Primal spell lists shouldn't exist. Tradition is a super weak argument when half the game and concepts are changed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure what "comparison" you're referring to. What I implied is that the notion that shields aren't "consumable" has no origins in reality, where they were in fact disposable items with a shelf life that was generally "one battle", during which they might be damaged or ruined.And I'm saying this game features magic shields that cost thousands of gold that clearly no hero can afford to wreck, and that these fantasy shields have nothing in common with that, so why bring it up?
If you can't afford to wreck them, don't?
Shields don't need to use Shield Block to be good. Shields gain all of the benefits they've ever had in previous DnD iterations merely by being raised - and the tighter math makes the bonus to AC better than ever.
The fact that Shield Block merely exists does not mean that all shields need to be equally viable for using it. Shields like Spellguard Shields or others with valuable utility don't need to be able to be Blocked with to justify their use.
I'm not sure what "comparison" you're referring to. What I implied is that the notion that shields aren't "consumable" has no origins in reality, where they were in fact disposable items with a shelf life that was generally "one battle", during which they might be damaged or ruined.And I'm saying this game features magic shields that cost thousands of gold that clearly no hero can afford to wreck, and that these fantasy shields have nothing in common with that, so why bring it up?If you can't afford to wreck them, don't?
Shields don't need to use Shield Block to be good. Shields gain all of the benefits they've ever had in previous DnD iterations merely by being raised - and the tighter math makes the bonus to AC better than ever.
The fact that Shield Block merely exists does not mean that all shields need to be equally viable for using it. Shields like Spellguard Shields or others with valuable utility don't need to be able to be Blocked with to justify their use.
Just use a wooden shield from levels 1-20, I guess. It gives you the same benefit as pretty much any other shield and breaks just as easily as non-sturdy ones. I guess there's some shields that don't require you to Block to activate that can be helpful, but I still find that arugment disingenous. Seems pretty clear to me that shields scale by becoming more durable.
Just use a wooden shield from levels 1-20, I guess. It gives you the same benefit as pretty much any other shield and breaks just as easily as non-sturdy ones. I guess there's some shields that don't require you to Block to activate that can be helpful, but I still find that arugment disingenous. Seems pretty clear to me that shields scale by becoming more durable.I'm not sure what "comparison" you're referring to. What I implied is that the notion that shields aren't "consumable" has no origins in reality, where they were in fact disposable items with a shelf life that was generally "one battle", during which they might be damaged or ruined.And I'm saying this game features magic shields that cost thousands of gold that clearly no hero can afford to wreck, and that these fantasy shields have nothing in common with that, so why bring it up?If you can't afford to wreck them, don't?
Shields don't need to use Shield Block to be good. Shields gain all of the benefits they've ever had in previous DnD iterations merely by being raised - and the tighter math makes the bonus to AC better than ever.
The fact that Shield Block merely exists does not mean that all shields need to be equally viable for using it. Shields like Spellguard Shields or others with valuable utility don't need to be able to be Blocked with to justify their use.
Sturdy shields work just fine for shield blocking. There's no valid game reason to populate the core rulebook with multiple shields redundant with Sturdy Shields.
Spellguard shields (example) work just fine for increasing survivability against spells. They don't need to also fill the same role as a Sturdy Shield - its a different item, and can do its own thing.
Shields, as it stands, are incredibly powerful- they don't need "more" to be a valuable character asset or to make access to Shield Block a desirable characrer trait.
I dont support removing challenging character choices and options to create a situation where "Do i block this attack?" is automatic and not a strategic choice.
Arcane School == get 2 spells. Bloodline == get 11 (not counting the advanced and greater bloodline spells). Arcane thesis is roughly equivalent to 2 feats. Blood magic is roughly equivalent to 1 feat. Arcane Bond is one extra spell (until you get more feats). Meanwhile Signature Spells means having a bunch of free spells that you can switch to on the fly.
Not to mention "prepared vs spontaneous" and "single list vs pick list".
So comparing two very different abilities arbitrarily just seems like an argument in bad faith.
I'm not trying to make an argument in bad faith. I'm making a few assumptions- the biggest one is that prepared vs. spontaneous roughly comes down to preference, with signature spells being part and parcel of spontaneous casting to make up for prepared casting's ability to pick up more spells and swap between days. (Wizard does get the "free spells" part of Signature Spells, but not switching on the fly.) I'm also assuming that when you're comparing arcane casters, it's fair to leave out that one of them could have picked something other than arcane. Bloodline granting more spells is bringing Sorcerer line with the "one spell known per slot" bar that Wizard already meets. If any of those assumptions feel unfair (which would be quite reasonable; it's a lot of simplification), then my argument is starting from a place that doesn't work for you.
As for Arcane Bond being one extra top-level spell, that's comparable to the Divine or Primal Evolution feats from Sorcerer, so I think it's fair to call that worth a feat. I was valuing Blood Magic as less than a feat, but that's unfair of me- especially since the arcane bloodlines have very good ones.
|
|
I have yet to hear a convincing argument that doesn't rely on a false premise as to why wizards shouldn't get all simple weapons, if nothing else it makes rule writing easier.Someone already mentioned, not granting Wizards weapon access so there’s more room for the Magus, which is the “master of the arcane and uses weapons” class.
I didn't consider that to be a good reason. Magus (if/when it exists) is probably going to get martial weapons - and have a very different playstyle to wizard. Nothing about wizard just getting flat simple weapons will impinge on a Magus who will get at least a few martial weapons - the classic magus being a sword wielder means it will have more than simple weapons.
I can as easily see Magus becoming an archetype like Eldritch Knight.
I have already explained why the 'tradition' argument falls apart. AD&D 2e sorcerers only had the same weapon profs as wizard, tradition should apply equally to them then. If we are sticking with traditions then we shouldn't have changed anything. Bards should be half casters, Clerics shouldn't get any offensive spells except flame strike and 1 or 2 other niche anti undead spells. The Occult and Primal spell lists shouldn't exist. Tradition is a super weak argument when half the game and concepts are changed.
It's not an argument for "tradition", I'm just tilting my head to parse the visual.
The Magus is an arcane caster that uses weapons.
You want the Wizard (arcane caster) to use weapons.
With the way casters work in P2 the Magus will be a 9th level caster. So I'm not seeing the need to give Wizard weapon proficiencies.
And if Magus is made an archetype then that will explicitly solve your want for Wizard that uses weapons.
With the way casters work in P2 the Magus will be a 9th level caster.
I'm not convinced this is necessarily true. Sure, they were a 6th level caster in PF1 like the Bard, so maybe they will be. But it seems like one of the design principles of 2E is either you are a full, 9 level spellcaster, OR you get Master+ proficiency with weapons/armor. So either the Magus looks like the Arcane version of the Warpriest Doctrine Cleric with full spellcasting topping out at Master Arcane proficiency, or they get martial proficiency scaling and more limited spellcasting. If I were to bet, I would bet on the latter. Still, who knows; they might end up as an archetype instead of a class.
|
|
With the way casters work in P2 the Magus will be a 9th level caster.I'm not convinced this is necessarily true. Sure, they were a 6th level caster in PF1 like the Bard, so maybe they will be. But it seems like one of the design principles of 2E is either you are a full, 9 level spellcaster, OR you get Master+ proficiency with weapons/armor. So either the Magus looks like the Arcane version of the Warpriest Doctrine Cleric with full spellcasting topping out at Master Arcane proficiency, or they get martial proficiency scaling and more limited spellcasting. If I were to bet, I would bet on the latter. Still, who knows; they might end up as an archetype instead of a class.
I'm not sure how the former disagrees with them being 9th level casters, as for the latter, their spells per day may be limited, but I believe Paizo Designers has stated they have no interest in bringing back 4th/6th level casting back.
With the way casters work in P2 the Magus will be a 9th level caster.I'm not convinced this is necessarily true. Sure, they were a 6th level caster in PF1 like the Bard, so maybe they will be. But it seems like one of the design principles of 2E is either you are a full, 9 level spellcaster, OR you get Master+ proficiency with weapons/armor. So either the Magus looks like the Arcane version of the Warpriest Doctrine Cleric with full spellcasting topping out at Master Arcane proficiency, or they get martial proficiency scaling and more limited spellcasting. If I were to bet, I would bet on the latter. Still, who knows; they might end up as an archetype instead of a class.
The draft occurrence of Spellstrike in an AP points toward magus being a spellcaster archetype, possibly school Agnostic.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have yet to hear a convincing argument that doesn't rely on a false premise as to why wizards shouldn't get all simple weapons, if nothing else it makes rule writing easier.Someone already mentioned, not granting Wizards weapon access so there’s more room for the Magus, which is the “master of the arcane and uses weapons” class.
I don't see how wizards having SWP leaves no room for the Magus. Cloistered Clerics have SWP, but Warpriests still exist.
It's not an argument for "tradition", I'm just tilting my head to parse the visual.
The Magus is an arcane caster that uses weapons.
You want the Wizard (arcane caster) to use weapons.
With the way casters work in P2 the Magus will be a 9th level caster. So I'm not seeing the need to give Wizard weapon proficiencies.
I don't want "Wizards to use weapons", per se, but I don't like that wizards are uniquely limited compared to other spellcasting classes.
And if Magus is made an archetype then that will explicitly solve your want for Wizard that uses weapons.
Rysky, I want wizards to have SWP, the same as literally all other classes get, without feat taxes. Currently there are numerous ways to get SWP through feat taxes, including the Fighter archetype. Understand the Magus would not resolve my criticism of the wizard class.
|
|
I have yet to hear a convincing argument that doesn't rely on a false premise as to why wizards shouldn't get all simple weapons, if nothing else it makes rule writing easier.Someone already mentioned, not granting Wizards weapon access so there’s more room for the Magus, which is the “master of the arcane and uses weapons” class.I don't see how wizards having SWP leaves no room for the Magus. Cloistered Clerics have SWP, but Warpriests still exist.
It's not an argument for "tradition", I'm just tilting my head to parse the visual.
The Magus is an arcane caster that uses weapons.
You want the Wizard (arcane caster) to use weapons.
With the way casters work in P2 the Magus will be a 9th level caster. So I'm not seeing the need to give Wizard weapon proficiencies.
I don't want "Wizards to use weapons", per se, but I don't like that wizards are uniquely limited compared to other spellcasting classes.
And if Magus is made an archetype then that will explicitly solve your want for Wizard that uses weapons.Rysky, I want wizards to have SWP, the same as literally all other classes get, without feat taxes. Currently there are numerous ways to get SWP through feat taxes, including the Fighter archetype. Understand the Magus would not resolve my criticism of the wizard class.
Sorry, I’m just not seeing “every other class does” as a good reason. Granted I am borderline indifferent to it as a whole.
|
|
The draft occurrence of Spellstrike in an AP points toward magus being a spellcaster archetype, possibly school Agnostic.Magus is more than just the ability to use spellsrike.
Sure there where like 4-5 classes that had abilities that worked the same or similar to spellstrike. But Magus is not just spellstrike.
Also this discussion is not about the Magus. And even if it were, Magus are different from Wizards in the fact they are able to actually use martial weapons as well as any other martial class.
Wizards having simple weapons does not step on the toes of the Magus. Because a Magus is all about making their weapons, armor, shields, and/or body better at combat using magic. They are not about casting spells and maybe using a simple weapon as 3rd action.
And what Wizards would be even with SWP?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And what Wizards would be even with SWP?
More able to take out of the box builds that generally aren't very good anyways.
The various weapon proficiency ancestry feats allow you to treat certain weapons as simple. For everyone but wizards, this means full proficiency. For Wizards, this means taking simple weapon proficiency at level 3 and then ancestral expertise at 13. Likewise with any archetype that requires specific weaponry. It's unclear what purpose this serves, other than to annoy someone who wants to make a nonstandard Wizard. Because, again, these generally aren't builds most wizards would even bother with in the first place.
I think it might be just indicative of the broader issue of how bad PF2's proficiency system is in general, but the Wizard example feels especially egregious because it just doesn't seem to accomplish anything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wizards definitively do not have a "Feat Tax" currently, as a feat tax generally refers to something that must be taken in order for the class to function correctly.
If you're pursuing weapon options on a Wizard, you're definitely already outside the box.
The fact that Wizards have more issues than other classes taking weapon related options isn't a balance, power, or options issue - its simply something that serves to further separate wizards from other classes.
This is absolutely a house-rule situation, and not something that requires errata.
|
|
Unless you can cite a source that new classes will also have a lack of SWP as their baseline, you are straight up saying this one class deserves to suffer on a baseless assumption that another *might*.
It's not flavor, it's not balance, it's just straight up punishment for picking one class over another.
I'm not saying that in the slightest, nor do I currently see them as "suffering".
I just haven't really seen any thing to move me on why Wizards so desperately need SWP.
|
|
And what Wizards would be even with SWP?More able to take out of the box builds that generally aren't very good anyways.
The various weapon proficiency ancestry feats allow you to treat certain weapons as simple. For everyone but wizards, this means full proficiency. For Wizards, this means taking simple weapon proficiency at level 3 and then ancestral expertise at 13. Likewise with any archetype that requires specific weaponry. It's unclear what purpose this serves, other than to annoy someone who wants to make a nonstandard Wizard. Because, again, these generally aren't builds most wizards would even bother with in the first place.
I think it might be just indicative of the broader issue of how bad PF2's proficiency system is in general, but the Wizard example feels especially egregious because it just doesn't seem to accomplish anything.
So certain ancestry weapon feats and Archetypes, which atm I'm seeing as very niche, if even used at all, as you say.
As for the Proficiency system itself I'm going to vehemently disagree, it's something I think works much better than the previous system's BAB and proficiencies.
|
|
I’d dispute that use of the term “feat tax” if for no other reason than it be true for the entirety of the PF2 class design. It’s a modular feat based system, functionality is baked in.
Further, separation through a penalty isn’t a good thing. It’s purely punitive. It would be different if Wizards got some trade-off for it, but they don’t. It’s just a negative. Why single out one class for a unique negative when it has no commensurate unique bonus? Making it an errata just fixes the issue at the source.
|
|
I just haven't really seen any thing to move me on why Wizards so desperately need SWP.
Equality.
It’s not a matter of “desperately” needing, it’s just to address a systemic inequality that serves no purpose.
Wizards can get prof in all simple and martial weapons if they want, they just have to spend more resources and wait longer than every other class for no reason.
Eldritch Knight. And, you know, Magus.
I'm inclined to prefer other routes for "A Wizard with a non-Wizardy weapon" than "let Wizards use weapons". Like "Arcane Bards" or "Rogues with Spells" or "bring back the Magus" all feel like better options to me.
The Wizard should be first and foremost an academic.
|
|
I'm inclined to prefer other routes for "A Wizard with a non-Wizardy weapon" than "let Wizards use weapons". Like "Arcane Bards" or "Rogues with Spells" or "bring back the Magus" all feel like better options to me.
The Wizard should be first and foremost an academic.
I mean, sure.
But there are other ways do that other than just cut out the option with no trade-off. A similar theme based argument could be made for druids and metal armour or a bunch of other themes, but they didn’t materialise in the system.