| 20 people marked this as a favorite. |
The wizard proficiency exceptionalism should just be dumped at this point. More headache than it's worth.
Triggers are apparently simply too hard for Wizards to workout.
They are too difficult to figure out: ask the barbarian to show your wizard how it works. ;)
Not enough physical prowess for the Wizard to do that. They can sit, stand, walk, and maybe run by themselves, but that's it. That's the price you pay to be an all-powerful book worm.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The wizard proficiency exceptionalism should just be dumped at this point. More headache than it's worth.It's the most unique part of the class. No matter how hard any other class tries or what feats they spend they can't get wizard proficiency.
It's also the worst part of the class. Other than tryhards and grognards, nobody wants this, making that statement oxymoronic.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It really is just a bizarre penalty at this point.
Maybe if there was random proficiencies for other classes, then one could say it’s a legit flavour thing, but at present, it’s just a kick in the teeth.
Time to fix this Paizo!
Rogue's and Bards also have a random proficiency list. I happen to think it's also a problem for them particularly rogues since it locks them out of future published sneak attack weapons (why aren't rogues proficient with the sword cane!) It's an easy enough homebrew fix but kind of a problem for the society players.
Pathfinder 2 weapon groupings are a little messy. It is one of the least elegant aspects of the class design. As a GM, I have no problem sliding specific weapons around and allowing characters access to weapons without investing feats. There could be any number of ways that the gears and guns book handles it that might be better than a blanket errata, and hopefully this is something taken into consideration, because it is weird how good a musket is as a weapon for a low level sorcerer with true strike. Or even more so how good a dueling pistol is which only costs them one general feat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rogue's and Bards also have a random proficiency list. I happen to think it's also a problem for them particularly rogues since it locks them out of future published sneak attack weapons (why aren't rogues proficient with the sword cane!) It's an easy enough homebrew fix but kind of a problem for the society players.It really is just a bizarre penalty at this point.
Maybe if there was random proficiencies for other classes, then one could say it’s a legit flavour thing, but at present, it’s just a kick in the teeth.
Time to fix this Paizo!
This is true, but they still get a minimal proficiency of all Simple weapons (even our Bard with his Longspear is doing pretty cool martial things), with their martial proficiency items being the "random" stuff, and the ones they do get aren't bad at all. Short bows and Rapiers are pretty solid staple Martial weapons, especially compared to how shafted the Wizard gets.
Even Sorcerers, Oracles, Clerics, and Witches have better proficiencies than Wizards, and as more content gets published, the more weapons get created, the more item proficiencies between all and a limited set here grows in disparity.
I mean, for a game that's meant to simplify and re-balance discrepancies like this, it certainly didn't hit the mark like it should have.
I mean, this isn't necessarily true. It's entirely possible that they will have a proficiency update since they are introducing a lot of new weapons. Since crossbows and guns are compared to each other in the playtest book, it's also possible we'll see an updated proficiency list. I can easily see rogue getting dueling pistols to their list as well
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, this isn't necessarily true. It's entirely possible that they will have a proficiency update since they are introducing a lot of new weapons. Since crossbows and guns are compared to each other in the playtest book, it's also possible we'll see an updated proficiency list. I can easily see rogue getting dueling pistols to their list as well
Possible, yes. Likely and to be done in a timely manner, no, and I feel that is by intent.
With the release of numerous weapons from the main rulebook line, we haven't seen errata for the Core Rulebook be done to add (or remove) proficiencies to certain classes with weapons being included, and we know they did an errata recently to the Core Rulebook that affects certain feats and abilities the classes have. Class proficiencies fits under this sort of thing, and they have not changed since its initial print, meaning Wizards not having all Simple proficiency isn't an error at all, it's fully intended as such.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
New weapons can list whether Rogues (or Bards, etc.) gain proficiency with them or not.
I am a bit surprised Sword Cane didn't get that notation. :/
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My guess is because those classes aren't intended to be proficient with them.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Proficiency with a random pile of weapons is... really bad in PF2.
It feels like a holdover from PF1, but in PF1 anyone could get proficiency with any weapon with a single feat. In PF2 proficiency is so gated it's a little bit absurd and those restrictions end up just strangling certain character concepts.
It's not just true for Wizards having to jump through extra hoops for basic stuff, despite weapon using wizards being terrible.
Want your Rogue to use a sword cane? Better become a Gladiator and spend TWO class feats or justify your character either being a Tengu or being adopted by them.
Want your Rogue to use a main-gauche? Better- ... ask your GM really nicely because it's actually impossible to get scaling proficiency with that weapon.
None of these limitations make the game better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure Paizo figured this out. Newer classes seem much less restricted than the core ones do. Investigators had a bespoke list like rogues in PF1 but they ditched it. We will see if they errata that into place retroactively.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure Paizo figured this out. Newer classes seem much less restricted than the core ones do. Investigators had a bespoke list like rogues in PF1 but they ditched it. We will see if they errata that into place retroactively.
I'd like for it to happen. It should happen. The system really needs for it to happen.
But I doubt it's going to happen, both for legacy/grognard reasons, and because I think Paizo actually still intended for these kinds of restrictions.
Why does paizo hate wizards?
Also - Can the Spellslinger by an archetype or option for a wizard please?
New Wizard thesis, grants proficiency with firearms, and treats all ammunition fired as Spellstrike Ammunition for their spells only?
Sign me up.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why does paizo hate wizards?
Also - Can the Spellslinger by an archetype or option for a wizard please?
My pet theory on this is that the Wizard, as it currently stands, was designed early in the PF2 development process, but not revisited much as development continued.
The design of focus spells, the thesis/school system, proficiencies, design of class feats, their general lack of class identity, it all speaks to a different level of design than most of the other core classes / less enthusiasm for their concept. For good or ill though, it’s what we have.
Paizo can change this in the future, and we have Secrets of Magic to look forward to. So I guess we’ll see.
|
Yeah, this is a "Base" Wizard problem but I am FAIRLY confident that Secrets of Magic will be the first book in which we find Class Archetypes that will let the system really stretch its legs in terms of modifying and more deeply customizing Classes like the Wizard.
I feellike we are going to see Class Archetypes for EVERY Class in SoM which either splash a bit of magic into the base chassis or take some away from the full casters.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I want to also echo a wish for a cleaner errata to consolidate the weird wizard (and rogue) weapon proficency. I don't think it's vital or anything, but it does seem like something that should happen sooner rather than later.
We could fix this by just getting rid of guns that are simple weapons. Sure, a gun isn't particularly hard to use but neither is a bo staff, a ranseur, or a machete all of which are martial weapons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We could fix this by just getting rid of guns that are simple weapons. Sure, a gun isn't particularly hard to use but neither is a bo staff, a ranseur, or a machete all of which are martial weapons.
That doesn't actually fix the underlying issue, it just shifts where it's centered.
That doesn't actually fix the underlying issue, it just shifts where it's centered.
If Clerics, Bards, Druids, Oracles, and Witches also can't use guns (a thing I'm 100% fine with) then "Wizards can't use them" is less weird.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I believe what Squiggit is saying is that the current "pile of weapon" proficencies aren't set up to be future-proof, reduce word count, or even encourage any interesting design. It ends up being juuuuust a bit more limiting than saying, "Wizards are trained in simple weapons," which doesn't seem like it would break anything.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think they should have made weapon traits like "bard", "rogue", and "wizard", and just say "wizards are trained in unarmed attacks and all wizard weapons" etc, making it easily expandable and future-proof.
While there's some design space here, I don't think it's too interesting (Like a general feat to make you trained with rogue weapons). It also just seems needless when there's just far easier solutions.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like hearing you all saying "I feel like Secrets of Magic will fix the Wizard". Reminds me of good old days of hearing "I feel like APG will add stuff that makes the Wizards fun". And even before that "Just wait for the Lost Omens books, they will give spells and feats for wizards". :D
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cleaning up the Wizard's proficiencies smacks of being allowed to color outside the lines in terms of what characters you can create. I think if Paizo were at all inclined towards something like that, they never would have passed down an edict making certain ancestries more difficult to play (by listing them as Uncommon), nor would they now be listing the Gunslinger and Inventor as Uncommon classes (all but saying "Hey, see this neat new class, see what it can do, does it capture your fancy? do you want to play as one? oh well...").
Since they did that, Paizo will likely also keep Wizard proficiencies as they are because you coloring outside the lines is a badwrong thing you need to be cured of.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cleaning up the Wizard's proficiencies smacks of being allowed to color outside the lines in terms of what characters you can create. I think if Paizo were at all inclined towards something like that, they never would have passed down an edict making certain ancestries more difficult to play (by listing them as Uncommon), nor would they now be listing the Gunslinger and Inventor as Uncommon classes (all but saying "Hey, see this neat new class, see what it can do, does it capture your fancy? do you want to play as one? oh well...").
Since they did that, Paizo will likely also keep Wizard proficiencies as they are because you coloring outside the lines is a badwrong thing you need to be cured of.
I think you're misunderstanding the rarity tag, which allows GMs to have a little more control over their setting. Maybe GMs don't want to have gunslingers and inventors in their game worlds. Maybe having a leshy or lizardfolk running around in Agents of Edgewatch rubs them the wrong way. It's nothing to do with badwrongfun.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like hearing you all saying "I feel like Secrets of Magic will fix the Wizard". Reminds me of good old days of hearing "I feel like APG will add stuff that makes the Wizards fun". And even before that "Just wait for the Lost Omens books, they will give spells and feats for wizards". :D
Personally, Secrets of Magic will probably be my last hope for Wizard changes (Barring something like a "Wizard Unchained" in the distant future). It just doesn't feel like anyone was enthusiastic about their design.
|
|
I have no problem with firearms being solid weapon choices for low level characters who want a bit of additional firepower.
That mirrors real life to an extent. Firearms became common place due to their ease of use.
Firearms are not supposed to become common place in Golarion.
After all, Alkenstar has had them for centuries now. If they have not spread further, there must be a reason.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you're misunderstanding the rarity tag, which allows GMs to have a little more control over their setting. Maybe GMs don't want to have gunslingers and inventors in their game worlds. Maybe having a leshy or lizardfolk running around in Agents of Edgewatch rubs them the wrong way. It's nothing to do with badwrongfun.Cleaning up the Wizard's proficiencies smacks of being allowed to color outside the lines in terms of what characters you can create. I think if Paizo were at all inclined towards something like that, they never would have passed down an edict making certain ancestries more difficult to play (by listing them as Uncommon), nor would they now be listing the Gunslinger and Inventor as Uncommon classes (all but saying "Hey, see this neat new class, see what it can do, does it capture your fancy? do you want to play as one? oh well...").
Since they did that, Paizo will likely also keep Wizard proficiencies as they are because you coloring outside the lines is a badwrong thing you need to be cured of.
They already have that control over their setting. What this does is A) encourage them to come to a decision about "Are gunslingers/inventors/leshies/lizardfolk in my world? Y/N" and B) encourage them to answer in the defaultly negative (might be different if it was an open question to be asked for everything (i.e., players wanting a Human character or a Wizard character have no more expectation of being able to play one than a Lizardfolk character or an Inventor character), but right now you have correct ancestries and classes and incorrect ones).
|
|
They already have that control over their setting. What this does is A) encourage them to come to a decision about "Are gunslingers/inventors/leshies/lizardfolk in my world? Y/N" and B) encourage them to answer in the defaultly negative (might be different if it was an open question to be asked for everything (i.e., players wanting a Human character or a Wizard character have no more expectation of being able to play one than a Lizardfolk character or an Inventor character), but right now you have correct ancestries and classes and incorrect ones).I think you're misunderstanding the rarity tag, which allows GMs to have a little more control over their setting. Maybe GMs don't want to have gunslingers and inventors in their game worlds. Maybe having a leshy or lizardfolk running around in Agents of Edgewatch rubs them the wrong way. It's nothing to do with badwrongfun.Cleaning up the Wizard's proficiencies smacks of being allowed to color outside the lines in terms of what characters you can create. I think if Paizo were at all inclined towards something like that, they never would have passed down an edict making certain ancestries more difficult to play (by listing them as Uncommon), nor would they now be listing the Gunslinger and Inventor as Uncommon classes (all but saying "Hey, see this neat new class, see what it can do, does it capture your fancy? do you want to play as one? oh well...").
Since they did that, Paizo will likely also keep Wizard proficiencies as they are because you coloring outside the lines is a badwrong thing you need to be cured of.
Nope. What you have are ancestries and classes that are less common in the Inner Sea Region than others.
Same as the katana or the bladed diabolo.
They already have that control over their setting. What this does is A) encourage them to come to a decision about "Are gunslingers/inventors/leshies/lizardfolk in my world? Y/N" and B) encourage them to answer in the defaultly negative (might be different if it was an open question to be asked for everything (i.e., players wanting a Human character or a Wizard character have no more expectation of being able to play one than a Lizardfolk character or an Inventor character), but right now you have correct ancestries and classes and incorrect ones).I think you're misunderstanding the rarity tag, which allows GMs to have a little more control over their setting. Maybe GMs don't want to have gunslingers and inventors in their game worlds. Maybe having a leshy or lizardfolk running around in Agents of Edgewatch rubs them the wrong way. It's nothing to do with badwrongfun.Cleaning up the Wizard's proficiencies smacks of being allowed to color outside the lines in terms of what characters you can create. I think if Paizo were at all inclined towards something like that, they never would have passed down an edict making certain ancestries more difficult to play (by listing them as Uncommon), nor would they now be listing the Gunslinger and Inventor as Uncommon classes (all but saying "Hey, see this neat new class, see what it can do, does it capture your fancy? do you want to play as one? oh well...").
Since they did that, Paizo will likely also keep Wizard proficiencies as they are because you coloring outside the lines is a badwrong thing you need to be cured of.
I mean, the playtest isn't the place for this. But I'm not giving my opinion on what the rarity tag is, I'm explaining how it is being applied and used in the system. If you have an issue with that, I'd probably get a separate thread for that (which could be G&G playtest related if you like).
|
|
Firearms are not supposed to become common place in Golarion.After all, Alkenstar has had them for centuries now. If they have not spread further, there must be a reason.
Perhaps true, but that's what rarity tags are for.
I'm sure we could come up with a ton of setting appropriate reasons to explain their lack of spread, I doubt their difficulty of use will be one of them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having played around with the numbers on firearms, I am not sure that any caster will be better off with a firearm than a crossbow. Even with true strike, casters will be in an uphill battle to have enough accuracy with the firearm to make the likelihood of a crit enough to counter the better damage die of the crossbow.
The Magus is likely to be a massive change to this depending on what happens there, and Ranged Magi might be pretty nasty with a rifle, however that works out. However, the average caster will be better off with a crossbow anyway so I don't think the wizard's inability to use a gun is really going to matter that much.
Not saying that I don't see the growing problem of wizards weapon proficiency issues, but I still think the issue is more of design elegance issue than a deeply felt mechanical problem.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It really is just an inequality thing. Good idea, bad idea, doesn't really matter.
If your character concept is "Wizard with a gun", you shouldn't have to pay a unique feat tax for the privilege.
I'm hoping the Magus works well with Firearms. That way I can live out my Brian McClellan style Powder Mage cosplays.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, the playtest isn't the place for this. But I'm not giving my opinion on what the rarity tag is, I'm explaining how it is being applied and used in the system. If you have an issue with that, I'd probably get a separate thread for that (which could be G&G playtest related if you like).They already have that control over their setting. What this does is A) encourage them to come to a decision about "Are gunslingers/inventors/leshies/lizardfolk in my world? Y/N" and B) encourage them to answer in the defaultly negative (might be different if it was an open question to be asked for everything (i.e., players wanting a Human character or a Wizard character have no more expectation of being able to play one than a Lizardfolk character or an Inventor character), but right now you have correct ancestries and classes and incorrect ones).I think you're misunderstanding the rarity tag, which allows GMs to have a little more control over their setting. Maybe GMs don't want to have gunslingers and inventors in their game worlds. Maybe having a leshy or lizardfolk running around in Agents of Edgewatch rubs them the wrong way. It's nothing to do with badwrongfun.Cleaning up the Wizard's proficiencies smacks of being allowed to color outside the lines in terms of what characters you can create. I think if Paizo were at all inclined towards something like that, they never would have passed down an edict making certain ancestries more difficult to play (by listing them as Uncommon), nor would they now be listing the Gunslinger and Inventor as Uncommon classes (all but saying "Hey, see this neat new class, see what it can do, does it capture your fancy? do you want to play as one? oh well...").
Since they did that, Paizo will likely also keep Wizard proficiencies as they are because you coloring outside the lines is a badwrong thing you need to be cured of.
Of course it is. We're supposed to playtest everything as presented. One of the things being presented is the rarity tag newly being applied to classes where it previously wasn't. If we assume that all cases of "I'd like to play a gunslinger" result in "okay, go ahead and play a gunslinger", then that's ignoring the alternative result of "No, you can't, they're uncommon". That's tailoring and cherry-picking the data, and it's dishonest.
Therefore, playtest feedback of "couldn't do any playtesting whatsoever of either the gunslinger or the inventor due to the rarity tag getting in the way; maybe next time, don't have a rarity tag on a class" is not just valid, it's necessary.
It really is just an inequality thing. Good idea, bad idea, doesn't really matter.
If your character concept is "Wizard with a gun", you shouldn't have to pay a unique feat tax for the privilege.
I'm hoping the Magus works well with Firearms. That way I can live out my Brian McClellan style Powder Mage cosplays.
I mean, isn't using a feat tax to get access to weapons the idea behind having modular weapon proficiencies in the first place? That if you have a none standard idea about a class, you accomplish it by feat selection?
I get the argument that it is weird that the gun toting wizard is not possible while the gun toting sorcerer is right out of the gate, and I don't disagree with it, but I think this particular hill is a Jason Bulmahn design decision to stick to the tradition that wizards are uniquely terrible with weapons.
It is kind of interesting to me that crossbows are pretty decent weapons for casters and firearms will not be. while crossbows for martial characters are pretty terrible weapons and firearms won't be, especially for fighters and gunslingers.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I get the argument that it is weird that the gun toting wizard is not possible while the gun toting sorcerer is right out of the gate, and I don't disagree with it, but I think this particular hill is a Jason Bulmahn design decision to stick to the tradition that wizards are uniquely terrible with weapons.
Has he actually said that somewhere? Cause I will fight him on said hill.
The Wizard chassis does not appear to have been compensated in anyway for this penalty, hell, they even have the lowest number of starting skills of any Int based class.
Give a cutesy hindrance if you want, but you gotta give it some sort of compensatory boon as well, or else you’re just picking on a particular class.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Firearms are not supposed to become common place in Golarion.After all, Alkenstar has had them for centuries now. If they have not spread further, there must be a reason.
The rarity sidebar shows this isn't particularly true anymore, since it outlines Ustalav, Alkenstar, all of Arcadia, the Shackles and Central Tian Xia as places where gunpowder weapons are common, to the point where every character from any of these regions has automatic access to Gunslinger and firearms (and Inventor too).
It's pretty clear the 1e lore where Alkenstar had a tight grip over the manufacturing and sale of any firearm is not true anymore, and firearms are indeed intended to be a more common part of the setting now.
After all, Alkenstar has had them for centuries now. If they have not spread further, there must be a reason.
My pet theory on this is that the Wizard, as it currently stands, was designed early in the PF2 development process, but not revisited much as development continued.
I don't think you're right. I think it was designed late in the PF2 process, because there was no-one championing Wizard and it was like "oh, yeah, we have to push that out too, I guess give it extra spells, that's wizardry, right?" and called it a day.
|
|
My pet theory on this is that the Wizard, as it currently stands, was designed early in the PF2 development process, but not revisited much as development continued.I don't think you're right. I think it was designed late in the PF2 process, because there was no-one championing Wizard and it was like "oh, yeah, we have to push that out too, I guess give it extra spells, that's wizardry, right?" and called it a day.
I can’t help but feel focus spells would have been better in that case! But either way, they just don’t feel like they were given enough love.